Shock-doctrine tactics across the nation by A.L.E.C./GOP/Koch = Don't count anything out.

The landmark $25 BILLION deal, via the President's Mortgage Fraud Tax Force and America's largest banks, is a first downpayment intended to quickly help homeowner victims of the Wall Street housing swindle. It will end some of the worst practices of the mortgage industry, give additional relief to borrowers, pay civil penalties, and fund foreclosure relief programs across America.

Wisconsin: $25.6 million of the money allocated to Wisconsin (out of the total $25 Billion national settlement) is intended to help WI victims of the housing mortgage fraud.

However, (R-WI) Governor Walker's plans to use those $millions to close his state's deficit.

Zero-conscience governors like Scott Walker and John Kasich plan on using the settlement money to balance their budgets, instead of giving it to citizens who lost their homes to foreclosure fraud abuses and/or whose mortgages are underwater.

These guys make a living sacrificing the poor & middle class, whatever it takes to fund big tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations. We think we must be seeing things, our jaws drop and they get away with it one more time. One more disorienting shock to our system.
But what is our RESPONSE here?

Last night was revealing. Now we know why Newt Gingrich threw his hat in the ring. Rachel was right.

Gingrich campaign warned 2nd time for financial dealing

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/22/gingrich-campaign-warned-2nd-time-for-financial-de/

Imagine that! The monnies are complain about Noot being a dishonest.

Good post, Dennis. The GOP darn near bankrupted the country when Bush was in charge. Romney wants to finish the job.

Great post, Newday. No fear mongering in there at all. So what was it you were saying the other day about the GOP being the people who spread fear?

EJ Dionne: They say that President Obama is a Muslim, but if he isn’t, he’s a secularist who is waging war on religion. On some days he’s a Nazi, but on most others he’s merely a socialist. His especially creative opponents see him as having a “Kenyan anti-colonial worldview,” while the less adventurous say that he’s an elitist who spent too much time in Cambridge, Hyde Park and other excessively academic precincts.

Whatever our president is, he is never allowed to be a garden-variety American who plays basketball and golf, has a remarkably old-fashioned family life and, in the manner we regularly recommend to our kids, got ahead by getting a good education.

Please forgive this outburst. It’s simply astonishing that a man in his fourth year as our president continues to be the object of the most extraordinary paranoid fantasies. A significant part of his opposition still cannot accept that Obama is a rather moderate politician quite conventional in his tastes and his interests. And now that the economy is improving, short-circuiting easy criticisms, Obama’s adversaries are reheating all the old tropes and cliches and slanders.

Feb. 7: Steve Benen/Maddow Blog: But as a matter of consistency, Romney has another problem: he's not only lying; he's also denouncing Obama for adopting a policy similar to one Romney used to support. Mitt Romney accused President Obama this week of ordering "religious organizations to violate their conscience,'' referring to a White House decision that requires all health plans - even those covering employees at Catholic hospitals, charities, and colleges - to provide free birth control. But a review of Romney's tenure as Massachusetts governor shows that he once took a similar step.

While Romney was on the attack yesterday, condemning the idea of requiring religious institutions to provide emergency contraception, as governor, a previous iteration of Romney required all Massachusetts hospitals, including Catholic hospitals, to provide emergency contraception to rape victims.

Some Catholic leaders now point to inconsistency in Romney's criticism of the president and characterize his new stance as politically expedient, even as they welcome it.

"The initial injury to Catholic religious freedom came not from the Obama administration but from the Romney administration,'' said C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts. "President Obama's plan certainly constitutes an assault on the constitutional rights of Catholics, but I'm not sure Governor Romney is in a position to assert that, given his own very mixed record on this.'' [...]

"Governor Romney afterwards lamented that and campaigned around the country as someone in favor of religious freedom and traditional morality,'' Doyle said. "He is very consistent at working both sides of the street on the same issue at the same time. His record on this issue has been one of very cynical and tactical manipulation.''

(Reuters) – China is ready to work with the United States to advance military ties, a defense ministry spokesman said Thursday, following a U.S. trip by China’s vice president that featured a visit with top Pentagon officials. The comments, posted on the ministry’s website, signaled a wary optimism from China’s military, which typically takes a harder stance toward the United States than other parts of the Chinese government.
“We are ready to work with the U.S. side, by observing the principles of mutual respect, trust, equality and mutual benefits,” said Defense Ministry spokesman Geng Yansheng .

The Washington Post: The national debt is likely to balloon under tax policies championed by three of the four major Republican candidates for president, according to an independent analysis of tax and spending proposals so far offered by the candidates.

In a late-night addendum Wednesday, analysts for U.S. Budget Watch set a slightly lower price for the new tax provisions, suggesting that Romney’s entire budget framework would add about $2.6 trillion to the debt by 2021.

*****************

14 of the 15 worst deficits in recent history were under republican presidents. Our last three republican presidents have accounted for almost all of our national debt.

But it's all Obama's fault. In 3 years he created this mess. They truly believe this.

It's time we went after the Mormon Church and their history. Romney is just asking for it.

I have never, ever seen the type of hostility that exists in America; we didn’t have this type of hostility during the height of the Civil Rights Movement

Bravo Rep. Lewis!

What we have today is the result of 40+ years of Christian Conservatism still pissed off they cannot take this country backwards!

You see it here in the comments from the right everyday... It has nothing to do with equality, shared sacrifice & tolerance.

Instead, the RWNJ's are all about - Me, Myself & I...

Dennis, wow, Shocking to know Romney tax cuts would:

1. Extend all the Bush tax cuts.
Half of the entire benefit went to the richest 5% of Americans in 2010. Extending them all will cost nearly $4 trillion, not including interest costs.
2. Eliminate capital gains for middle income households.
3. Cut corporate taxes.
4. Eliminate estate taxes that only beneift very wealthy heirs and heiresses.

Backhouse

Shock-doctrine tactics across the nation by A.L.E.C./GOP/Koch = Don't count anything out.

Why won't the Koch bros 2 testify in Congress about their interest in the ... Why won't they testify before Congress and put the issue to rest?

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2012/02/07/what-the-koch-brothers-say-online-but-wont-say-under-oath/?page=comments

What that crossed eyed badger Gov Walker along with the rest of the teabagging governors realize no amount of money can hide their dirty Koch addicted deeds?

One more thing, you won't hear that on FOX NOISE!!!

Hi Dennis,

Romney isn't going to explain anything. He never does. Everyone last night said Romney won the debate, without digging into what he actually said.

Our media is horrid. We need Martin Bashir, Rev. Al, Lawrence ODonnell, Keith O and Rachel Maddow to dissect this nonsense. The traditional media won't do it.

Romney lies. Constantly. Why is this acceptable?

Pat, hi,

We are shocked when folks make bare-faced lies to our faces. It stops the clock and we don't respond. But there must be a quickening in our responses to folks who lie in our faces, and to folks who want to hold powerful positions.

We can identify the abuse and act right away. And not wait.

Tell a lie often enough and eventually it is accepted as fact. No amount of proof to the contrary will kill the lie. There is not a shred of evidence that tax cuts create jobs. Indeed, the evidence clearly shows that is absolutely false. Yet, this lie has achieved mantra status with the right-wing.

An oft-repeated lie is a very powerful weapon for power-hungry tyrants whose guiding principle is: The ends justify the means.

Last night's debate was a classic. Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich all tell us we must take on yet another Middle East tar baby - Iran. War! What we need is war. None of the three have EVER seen the horror of war. They have never worn the uniform. The one Republican candidate who does have military service, Ron Paul says stay OUT of Iran.

Make your own judgment why war is such a great and wonderful solution for these tough guys - Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich. These are the guys who claim to be so terribly concerned about spending money we don't have. Please take a moment to read what a General and America's only two-time Medal of Honor winner says: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html#c1

Those three liars propose killing more Americans. They propose an attack on Iran. It's the atomic arsenal they're building. Not to worry, this will be just another six or seven-day rout, and we'll be thanked with flowers and parades. Really? Haven't we been through the utterly false WMD argument before? Wasn't Iraq supposed to be your basic weekend excursion?

We're still paying for that. There's still more than 15,000 mercenaries in Iraq, and the three amigos are ready to send troops to Iran. Belly on up to the borrowing window at the Bank of China, fellas.

Well, you saintly, God-loving, my-morals-are-better-than-your-morals tough guys, why don't you chuck those nice suits, grab some camos and head off to war. Granted, it doesn't pay as well as peddling influence and selling favors, Newt. Your paychecks are taxed at a higher rate than people who drain capital from the economy, Mitt. You don't drive your fellow G.I.'s around in a BMW, Rick.

Liars, the lot of them!

A vote for a GOP presidential candidate is a vote to cut taxes for the wealthy, cut social security and medicare benefits, eliminate all regulations and allow private businesses to run amok and do whatever they please, eliminate the Depts of Commerce, Education, Energy, invade Iran, and outlaw contraception as well as abortion, women's rights, etc. and the GOP will blame the "elite media" when the economy collapses and the public rebels.

Dennis, thanks for posting the facts. Romney's revised plan is the same sounds-good con his first plan was. 20% across the board tax cuts gives the greatest benefit to the wealthy just as giving a 20% across the board pay raise to all employees gives the biggest raises to those already earning the highest wages. 20% across the board tax cut is GOP smoke and mirrors.

Backhouse, well said. It's time to email the WH and report the proposed "misuse" of funds by Walker and Kasich. There should be a rule for this settlement money that requires it be used for the intended purpose.

Look at this -

Think Progress: The Detroit News criticized Mitt Romney for selectively editing the paper’s endorsement of him in a press release. The Romney campaign edited out the paper’s criticism of his stance on the auto rescue before circulating its release. “They should have run the complete, original version,” an editor said. “It’s a bit inappropriate to edit out the mild criticism.”

************

We need to ask again why he got rid of his records while he was the Gov. of MA. He's a dishonest man. When he debates President Obama, it appears that the moderators will let him get away with saying anything, including lies, which is all he knows.

Here's hoping President Obama won't let him get away with it. There are only a few moderators who would dream of questioning Willard's statements. And they are all on MSNBC. The rest of the moderators don't do their homework.

And this is acceptable, why?

GOP Debate, Real Winner: Anyone Who Didn't Watch

~snip~

But let's look on he bright side: this could be the last debate until Barack Obama goes head-to-head with surprise GOP presidential nominee Nancy Reagan in September. But never fear: we'll be live blogging the primary results from Michigan and Arizona next Tuesday.But let's look on he bright side: this could be the last debate until Barack Obama goes head-to-head with surprise GOP presidential nominee Nancy Reagan in September. But never fear: we'll be live blogging the primary results from Michigan and Arizona next Tuesday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/23/cnn-republican-debate-live

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

Let's hope Nancy doesn't get frisky. That could slow things down.

No disrespect intended toward Nancy Reagan; but these GOP/Baggers have lost it. They just can't catch President Obama. It's time for them to remove the tea bags from their ears.

What was that about blaming the oil prices on President Obama? Blame Eric Cantor and the oil speculators????

Eric Cantor Promises Oil Speculators That Republicans Will Block Financial Regulations

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/18/167102/eric-cantor-oil-speculators/

Evidence---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wcXJR7eZ_jQ

Yup, Cantor did that right here in Chicago

GOP's TEA BAGS are stale!!!!

Feb
22

Bob McDonnell for Veep!
By Charles P. Pierce
at 3:59PM

The governor of Virginia really, really wants to be somebody's vice-president. Very likely, that would be a presidential candidate who would like to get more than three votes from women in the general election. Bob McDonnell also has spent his life as a jumbo bag of nuts on the issue of women's place in this society, and particularly what they do with their ladyparts when he's not watching and Jesus is on vacation. So here comes that delightful bill out of the Virginia House of Delegates (motto: Patrick Henry's Picture Just Fell Off The Wall) by which any woman in the Commonwealth who wants to exercise her constitutional right to choose has to get a big old probe stuck up inside her first.

Arroooogah! Arroooogah! Dive. Dive!

So, suddenly, vice-presidential timber Bob starts to have second thoughts about the Dildos Mandating Dildos Act Of 2012. Bob's "backing off" his committment to organized medievalism. Good for you, Bob. By way of explanation, The Washington Post reports this little nugget without any concern that some of its readers may keel over laughing:

Many of the bill's supporters were apparently unaware of how invasive the procedure could be, one of the officials added.

One of the bill's original co-sponsors was a woman named Kathy Byron. You telling me she didn't know what exactly was being mandated here? You telling me she couldn't have enlightened her colleagues before they passed this idiocy and made Virginia look like a laughing stock in front of the whole world? This, I tell you, I do not necessarily believe.

But you will note that Bob only has committed to not signing the POS today. If he chooses not to sign it, it may mark him lousy with the Republican base. (Oh, boy! A brokered VP nomination! TV gold!) If he signs it, most women of both parties will spit at the mention of his name. Seriously, now, what's a brother to do? One thing is for certain — even if McDonnell bails on the bill, it will turn up again, and probably in a whole bunch of states. Hell, "personhood" got flogged in Mississippi and is now more of a legislative presence than it ever was. These people do not stop. This is a national problem, not a state-by-state thing. It demands a national response.

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bob-mcconnell-birth-control-6814208#ixzz1nDRBX0k0

Ladies and Supportive Men, we need to keep on eye on this as the man says, the Republicans are sneaky and will find another way to make this happen.

I had the must fun I've ever had watching the debate last night. Talk about three clowns ( I don't count Paul in this group, he's just a character) yelling and screaming about how incompetent the other rivals are. At one point I expected Romney was going to hit (or slap) Santorum when they were arguing. I had this vision of the two of them rolling around on the floor kicking. biting and scratching each other. What a picture.

If any of these clowns think they can debate President Obama, their in for a real surprise. God I love these debates. So sorry there over, I'll miss the Comedy Hour.

Obama in 2012.

Santorum is the newest member of the "it's all Bush's fault" club, lol.

He has a legitimate beef with the former president, and subtly made that point in his "taking one for the team" comment. I know a lot of Republicans who will immediately understand that, and actually see that as a Santorum plus. But that's anecdotal. I don't have a feel for how that defense will play across the party as a whole - and those make up the bulk of Romney's anti-Santorum spewage (at least last night's version - as we all know, Romney will say whatever fits the moment, regardless of how much that contradicts a previous moment's blather).

Sorry for the double post - it was the computer; not me. Either that, or Bush did it.

David,

How do folks like Santorum "prove" what is in their hearts? He's busy pointing fingers at others and casting doubt, but where is his own proof on the subject?

How do you prove any of it? Only via good actions- and Santorum/Romney & Company, not looking so good.

As for the 'hard line' on illegal immigration....Not exactly!

Employers must use e-verify....or face fines or jail time.....Not exactly!

If you employ illegals for domestic work (housekeepers, nannies, landscapers, etc)......Not at all!..forget the hard line stuff!

GBM: it was reported last night that McDonnell originally sponsored a similar bill 10 years ago. He is done with moderate voters. The more that comes out about him, the more the American people will collectively turn up their noses at the stink.

Sorry bobby numbers, wherever you are...your hero is unacceptable.

Backhouse, David, Jody, Feisty, NDD, Independent, Gingerbread Mama, Beverly, Dennis, Ron, Pat, SteelerFan, Nash, etc - I so enjoy coming here each morning because of you guys.

I agree that lying has become quite the norm these days; so much so that even the traditional media doesn't bother pouncing on it. The GOP is one big lie. One big scam. When are people going to realize it? How low do we have to go when Romney starts talking about Obama being anti-religion? How is this possible? How is this acceptable?

Don't people realize - governing and religion are separate. SEPARATE.

How this doesn't anger everyone in the country is beyond me.

Pat Boston MA.

Look at this -

Think Progress: The Detroit News criticized Mitt Romney for selectively editing the paper’s endorsement of him in a press release. The Romney campaign edited out the paper’s criticism of his stance on the auto rescue before circulating its release. “They should have run the complete, original version,” an editor said. “It’s a bit inappropriate to edit out the mild criticism.”

Mitt is such a stiff liar anything he says and does; does not surprise me. In fact, you can count on Mitt not saying what he does and vice a versus. Did you hear that Ron Paul is cozying up to Mitt to become head of the Feds if he can't broker being VP. LOL

Backhouse, David, Jody, Feisty, NDD, Independent, Gingerbread Mama, Beverly, Dennis, Ron, Pat, SteelerFan, Nash, etc - I so enjoy coming here each morning because of you guys

Thank you

I always appreciate hearing from your east coast opinion too. I also love your turning me on to the Obama Photo diaries.

I have never, ever seen the type of hostility that exists in America; we didn’t have this type of hostility during the height of the Civil Rights Movement.”

Further to Rep. Lewis's comment - take (3) minutes and watch this video of the family values party tea baggers in action.

These morons can't even spell the 'N' word correctly... *shakes head*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fp8_nP3fE4&feature=player_detailpage

We must NEVER allow them any kind of majority in this country!

Pat, your posts are a must read for me! I agree with you on the religion issue with Romney. Just now, the Mormons are trying to baptize Anne Frank for something like the ninth time, after her horrible death in the Nazi Death Camps.

There needs to be a civil penalty enacted for this crime against families.

So Romney, let's hear you speak about that.

Irony of the day? no jo writing ANYTHING about lying in posts. Truly funny.

Steven Benen, this morning:

But it was Mitt Romney's response to the question that amazed me. "I don't think we've seen in the history of this country the kind of attack on religious conscience, religious freedom, religious tolerance that we've seen under Barack Obama," the former governor said.

Think about that one for a moment. The Obama administration is including contraception coverage as part of preventive health care for Americans -- a decision a clear majority of the country heartily supports. The administration is exempting churches and other houses of worship, and has crafted a compromise so that religiously-affiliated employers will not have to pay for contraception coverage directly.

This is the biggest "attack" on religious freedom in the history of the United States? How is it, exactly, that a sane person could believe this?

Or more to the point, how is it that a Mormon, whose church faced actual attacks and discrimination, could see contraception access as a more serious assault on "religious tolerance"?

Romney added that Obama is "requiring the Catholic Church to provide for its employees and its various enterprises health care insurance that would include birth control, sterilization and the morning-after pill. Unbelievable."

It is, in fact, literally "unbelievable," since that's not at all what the administration is doing.

It was painful enough to have so much of the debate focus on opposition to birth control, but Romney's dishonesty managed to make a mind-numbing discussion even worse.

*********

Thank you Mr. Benen

I have no idea why Romney is choosing to screw his chances with the middle by caving to the Santorum mind set. No wonder the GOP are desperately seeking another candidate, not one of them had the balls to differentiate themselves from each other, not one of the would stand up to Santorum and his lunatic religious rantings.

Pathetic, all of them. Not one of them could be trusted as the president of the US but then again, all Norquist needs is a signature. That is what he told CPAC, that all he needed was Romney to sign his agenda.

GOP-losers controlled, owned and pledged their oath to the Koch brothers.

Backhouse, David, Jody, Feisty, NDD, Independent, Gingerbread Mama, Beverly, Dennis, Ron, Pat, SteelerFan, Nash, etc - I so enjoy coming here each morning because of you guys

Pat,

After reading your comments for awhile, you were a major factor in my decision to take the plunge and join into the fray! ;o)

You are & always will be First Read's equivalent to Doris Kearns Goodwin! I also love hearing about your escapades growing up in a large Irish Catholic family!

{{hugs}} my friend!

Not nearly as bad as Romney was in January J Merle, random attack on Obama instead a defense of your pathetic losers? Typical.

Joe in Albany.

Thanks for the update on what the WSJ OPED section fed you.

LOL!!!

Daily Kos:

Mitt Romney was mean. As Mike Allen puts it, "mean" is the one adjective that best sums up Mitt Romney after last night's debate. Romney managed to trip up Rick Santorum on several questions, but he never managed to make a positive case for himself. So to the extent he separated himself from Rick Santorum, it was because he was effective as an attacker. Being good on the attack is an important skill, but it's not the most important skill—and if you're running for president, it's a problem if it's the only thing you're good at.

Republicans ignored the economy. Mitt Romney only talked about job creation once during the entire debate. Once! And even then, it wasn't in the context of a discussion about the economy ... it was explaining his plan to balance the budget. Overall, Republicans mentioned the word "job" or "jobs" only five times in the context of the economy. Three of them came from Newt Gingrich in the space of four sentences!

Instead, they talked more about opposing birth control than creating jobs. The candidates on stage weren't talking to regular Americans: they were trying to appeal to the GOP's hard-right base. The problem for them is that they were doing it in public: regular Americans were watching, and what they saw wasn't pretty.

Mitt Romney positioned himself to Rick Santorum's right. If you watched the debate, you learned that Mitt Romney thinks Rick Santorum is basically a liberal Democrat, and he promised to govern far to Santorum's right. Need I say more?

Mitt Romney doubled-down on his anti-immigration positions. Romney continued to stake out the most aggressively anti-immigration position of any of the candidates, saying Arizona's "paper's please" law is a "model" for the country. That might help him in the primary, but it will be a problem in November.

Romney may have bested Santorum, but Newt Gingrich bested them both. If Santorum wins Michigan and Arizona, his performance in the debate probably won't matter that much—Santorum would, at that point, be a juggernaut. But if Romney comes back and wins both states—an entirely plausible if not likely scenario—Gingrich may have performed well enough to set the stage for yet another comeback, especially if Sheldon Adelson makes good on his $100 million pledge. (Yes, I know most people will think I'm crazy for saying that Newt isn't totally dead, but I've consistently argued that by remaining in the race, Newt Gingrich is giving himself the chance to be the beneficiary if Romney succeeds in destroying Santorum.)

Mitt Romney gave OFA/DNC more highlight reel gold. Assuming Romney wins the nomination, he gave President Obama's reelection campaign even more footage to use during the general election last night, not just on the birth control and immigration issues mentioned above, but also when he made the case for bailing out Wall Street but against bailing out the auto industry. He argued it was more important to save the banking industry than it was to save the auto industry, and that's not an argument he's going to want to defend in November.

The bottom-line is that anyone who watched last night's debate—except for hard-core right-wingers—was almost certainly horrified by what they saw on that stage. But as painful as it was to watch last night's clown show, it's unfortunate that it's probably the last one. The more chances voters have to see these guys, the less likely it becomes that any one of them will ever sit behind the desk in the Oval Office.

Backhouse:

You asked:

"How do folks like Santorum "prove" what is in their hearts?"

Well duh! You put in a call to CEO Franklin Graham at "God-lovers R Us".

no jo:

I'm here to help. You noted:

"You have David Walker pompously decrying 'big lies'......."

Please advise on how I can decry big lies non-pompously.

GBM, yes. Too SHOCKING.

Another shocking over-reach by GOP/Koch, bullying women and forcing them to submit their will by any means. By any and every possible means.

The Old Boys' Club using Big Government to get into women's private matters; mandating the State to penetrate women's bodies without women's consent, and without their doctor's consent.

Bullying women NOT to use their constitutional rights & separating women from their doctor's medical advice.

Did we say this was 2012? Bear in mind McDonnell is a potential GOP VP choice. Yes folks, it is TRUE.

I can only imagine that the republican establishment is praying for a brokered convention at this point.

Several news outlets are reporting on an independent bipartisan report/study that rates each of the tax policies the conservative candidates are touting.

Gingrich's tax policies rate the worst fiscally. They will raise the deficits/debt drastically.

Next we have Santorum's tax policies and they raise deficits/debt considerably as well.

Romney's new plan is not clear so they had to use the old + new to figure out that it indeed raises the deficits/debt by 2+ trillion.

All those plans mentioned above do not reflect fiscal conservatism in the least. Ron Paul's plan scored the best for being fiscally conservative.

What will the fiscal conservatives do now as their talking points on being fiscally responsible prove to be phony when looking to their policies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/report-debt-will-swell-under-top-gop-hopefuls-tax-plans/2012/02/22/gIQAzAJvUR_story.html

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/23/study-finds-mixed-results-in-republican-plans-for-federal-debt/?hp

Backhouse, there is no candidate in their right mind that would choose McDonnell now. He will be known as the governor that mandated raping women who were having miscarriages, because he completely failed to take into consideration any medical problems during pregnancy while writing his awful legislation. So when a democrat tried to counter it and point out the unnecessary cruelty, he was voted down.

Yeah Virginia is full of GOP winners, but no one could be so stupid to put him on a ticket now.

Pat,

After reading your comments for awhile, you were a major factor in my decision to take the plunge and join into the fray! ;o)

You are & always will be First Read's equivalent to Doris Kearns Goodwin! I also love hearing about your escapades growing up in a large Irish Catholic family!

{{hugs}} my friend!

I Agree with Feisty. Keep the facts coming.

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

According to analysis by Center for American Progress Tax and Budget Policy Director Michael Linden, Romney’s claim that his plan would raise taxes on the rich was false.

Good morning Dennis,

That's not all that is false.

Did Mitt Romney really cut taxes as Massachusetts governor, as he asserted yet again? Or did he raise them by hundreds of millions of dollars, as former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum alleged? And how could Newt Gingrich have given the nation four balanced budgets when he was only in Congress for two of them?

There was something old, something new in the misstatements of the candidates Wednesday in what was possibly the last GOP debate.

A look at some of the claims and how they compare with the facts:

---

ROMNEY to Santorum: "You voted to raise the debt ceiling five times without compensating cuts in spending."

THE FACTS: Maybe so, but increases in the debt ceiling were not politically charged in the past as they are now. They just allow the government to pay bills run up by previous Congresses. To not pay them would be like deciding to stop paying a car loan or mortgage.

Full Story >>>>> http://m.miamiherald.com/mh/db_42944/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=XLZJEvJj

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

They are all a bunch of lying bums.

Don'tcarry, Romney isn't stupid, my guess is that he is waiting until the general to release the rest of it because tax increase is going to have to be part of it. Anyone with a brain knows that. Right now corporate taxes are determined and legislated in backrooms based on donations. Which is how Exxon gets off with 0 taxes. He hinted at eliminating those backroom policies, and for that I would say go Romney on but it will not go over well with the far right.

Tell a lie often enough and eventually it is accepted as fact. No amount of proof to the contrary will kill the lie. There is not a shred of evidence that tax cuts create jobs. Indeed, the evidence clearly shows that is absolutely false.

So why has the Administration and Congressional Democrats continued to push for a payroll tax cut?

To take the contrary position are you saying that tax increases create jobs? Any evidence of that?

Alan, they are pushing the payroll tax cut because it effects the diminishing and vanishing middle class more than anyone.

Christie is a moderate and fairly secular too, I would be surprised by the combination, it really doesn't help Romney where he needs it.

Pat,

Like Feisty says, thanks for everything you write.

About Romney and all the proselytising:

Isn't this about CONTRACEPTION, and NOT about RELIGION?

Hey Pat. Remember a few years ago when some people were saying that Hussein is a Muslim? Were you one of those people ON THIS SITE saying "so what?"

I do think Santorum is making an effective play by 'suggesting' there's a deal in place between Romney and Paul.

Romney knows it's effective. That's why his campaign pushed back on it so quickly.

The 'proof' is debate doubleteaming and seemingly similar lines of attack (Romney on Santorum and Paul on Santorum). And here's the one that really could get some people thinking. Paul, who is not contesting Michigan and who is following a well known caucus strategy, is running attack ads on Santorum in Michigan - the state Romney can't lose to Santorum.

The implication is that Romney, because he needs help killing off Santorum as well as with the part of the tea parties who still have that libertarian bent, would if he wins in the fall elevate this non-Republican isolationist (in many Republican's minds) to a heartbeat away...

Republicans don't dislike Ron Paul, and a good number probably appreciate that his alternative point of view is getting some airtime. But they don't see him as a Republican, and can't imagine him actually in national office. Santorum's suggestion could cause them some pause.

Those three liars propose killing more Americans. They propose an attack on Iran. It's the atomic arsenal they're building. Not to worry, this will be just another six or seven-day rout, and we'll be thanked with flowers and parades. Really? Haven't we been through the utterly false WMD argument before? Wasn't Iraq supposed to be your basic weekend excursion?

The big difference here is that the inspectors ran all over Iraq and found nothing. Here, the inspectors are being refused access. If you want a nuclear armed Iran that is a different argument but I think both left and right will find themselves pulled into a military confrontation with Iran.

"..........14 of the 15 worst deficits in recent history were under republican presidents. Our last three republican presidents have accounted for almost all of our national debt.

But it's all Obama's fault. In 3 years he created this mess. They truly believe this.

It's time we went after the Mormon Church and their history. Romney is just asking for it. .........."

I didn't like it when Republicans blamed their Democratic predecessors for all ill that beset the country; and, I don't like it any better when supposed "Democrats" do it either. (Even though we all know you're a Green Party Weenie who'll bolt and vote for another Ralph Nader the first time we get a mainstream Blue Dog as a candidate).

Obama said his economic policies would be better than McCain's. He even made fun of McCain's lack of economic prowess at the Al Smith dinner in 2008. This economy, after three full years with little or no recovery, belongs to HIM.

No more blaming it on Bush. Bush left office more than three years ago.

Bill Clinton was handed an economy that was in just as bad a shape back in 1993, (with double digit interest rates!), and he fixed it inside of eighteen (18) months.

Furthermore, he did it with a group of hostile Republican thugs in congress who fought him every step of the way. Clinton's Deficit Reduction act of 1993 got through Congress without a single Republican vote, and his crime bill passed the following year with little, if any GOP support.

Both pieces of legislation created jobs, put people back to work, spent money on the middle class (no corporate "bailout" there!), and made our streets safer all over the country.

Obama has done NOTHING that even compares with that! Yet you extremist-leftist-we-hate-America-so-blame-America-first crowd make Obama out to be the great saviour.

Face it folks; he's done absolute $#!+

It's time for him to step down, and let someone else have a try, because he has failed miserably!

Alan, they are pushing the payroll tax cut because it effects the diminishing and vanishing middle class more than anyone.

In what way? By increasing their spending power and thus creating demand that creates jobs? Or is it a way to funnel borrowed money to the oil companies to pay for the increase in gas prices?

Alan, a president has very little control over gas prices actually, speculators determine that. We import less oil than we did under Bush actually.

Alan, I don't know if you are a 1%er or you just spend too much time listening to Limbaugh but the president was trying to keep families that are going into poverty, out of poverty. What is it about the far right that allows for zero humanity or compassion? Realistically as the economy recovers all of the tax breaks will have to end including the payroll one or we will end up back in the same position. There is no way to balance a budget without addressing revenue. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that less revenue in taxes with the same spending is going to end in more deficit. Which is why Santorum and Gingrich failed. Got to cut spending and address reasonable revenue increase.

no joe, no bo, nj

You go on ahead and attack Romney's religion. It'll be great- on one hand, it reopens the discussion about Recerand Wright- this time, in the context of Obama's redistributionist policies- on the other, coupled with this administration's attacks on both the Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches, (to say nothing of its antipathy to Jews), it frames a debate on the Firat Amendment that democrats will lose, badly.

Please, do, embark on that strategy.

Okay.... Lady Jo whatever you say or think about Rev Wright it does not matter because Rev Wright is a Christian who feeds the hungry and gives to the poor. Rick Santorum doesn't. Did you see how much he gave to charity out of his million dollar salary?

Also, it might interest you to know what the people in Jerusalem think of him and it's not god like either.

Ha’aretz: With a beard and a shtreimel, Santorum would be perfect for an Israeli ultra-Orthodox party

~snip~

The battle over contraception and other 'culture wars' now raging in American presidential politics can make an Israeli feel right at home.

“Hadarat nashim”, the exclusion of women, is the catchphrase that encompasses all of the recent manifestations in Israel of the attempts to distance females from sitting at the front of the bus, singing in military ceremonies, publicly accepting prizes, appearing on public billboards and what not. It’s what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was talking about a few months ago when she reportedly told the Saban Forum in Washington that such things remind her of Iran.

Last week, in yet another sign of the close affinity of Republicans with Israel, “hadarat nashim” crossed the Atlantic and reached the U.S. Congress.

Though there is clearly “a difference of sky and earth”, as the Hebrew saying goes, between the U.S. and Israel, America’s so-called “culture wars”, such as those that have erupted in presidential politics in recent weeks, can sometimes make an Israeli feel right at home. The Republican battle cry that the Obama Administration is waging a “war on religion”, for example, is standard operating procedure for Israel’s ultra-Orthodox political parties. Hardly a day goes by without an ultra-Orthodox rabbi, leader or pundit circling the wagons and drumming up support by claiming that one secular politician or another – especially if his last name is Lapid - is waging a “war on Judaism” or “war on the haredim”. And in recent days, if you close your eyes, listen to his words and conjure him with a beard and a traditional Orthodox shtreimel (fur hat) on his head, one might easily cast Republican frontrunner Rich Santorum as a leader of an Israeli ultra-Orthodox party rather than the devout Catholic that he is.

Santorum’s views on contraception (wrong), abortion (never), gay marriage (no different than polygamy), homosexual relations (akin to bestiality, and traditionally punishable by death, according to the Book of Leviticus) are not much different, and, in some cases, perhaps slightly more rigid, than most Haredi politicians in Israel. Santorum’s opposition to Federal and State intervention in school education is already being immaculately implemented in Israel’s so-called “Independent” school system, in which religious studies are predominant and very little “secular” studies – such as math or the sciences – are allowed to get in the way. Santorum’s skepticism about evolution, which he tried to translate into law in 2001 when he was the Senator from Pennsylvania, would be par for the course in ultra-Orthodox circles, where one wouldn’t dare to mention the name Darwin, even in dreams.

On the other hand, and contrary to some of his Republican rivals who champion “states’ rights”, Santorum sees nothing wrong with federal legislation of “family values”, just as Israel’s religious parties have relied on Knesset laws to regulate issues ranging from marriage and divorce through working on the Sabbath all the way to pig farming. And Santorum’s reference to Obama’s “phony theology” is par for the course for haredi politicians who routinely describe Zionism as a “phony religion”.

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/with-a-beard-and-a-shtreimel-santorum-would-be-perfect-for-an-israeli-ultra-orthodox-party-1.413767

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

See, No jo President Obama is not the heathen your adorable right wing nut jobs are and is more appreciated.

Jody, Iowa:

As no jo is a virtual fountain of integrity, I tend take her at her word - you know, that Franklin Graham thing. So, I went back and read your post, and I'll be darned if I can find the lie to which no jo referred.

Would you please double-check your facts and see if you can find the lie?

By the way, if you get a chance to see Rachel Maddow's interview with Speaker Nancy Pelosi from last night's show, you might want to check it out. Speaker Pelosi confirms a great deal of what you put in your post. If you find the lie to which no jo refers, please advise Speaker Pelosi and Ms. Maddow as well.

Wow, Jan, it's quite commendable of you actually, to demonstrate how little you know about the world oil market. It's pretty basic really; the law of supply and demand. So, if a president allows unfettered drilling and the oil producers respond, the worldwide supply increases, and the price goes down...at least until other countries decrease production to raise the price again. But even the president's proclamation that production can be increased can significantly lower the world price immediately.

Jan -- The one sure thing with Romney is that he frequently changes positions. My guess is that with the latest tax plan he is trying to win over more middle class voters. If elected he will change his policies to reflect the cooperate interests once again and he will pay for their breaks by taxing the middle class. Republican governor's across the country are doing the same thing. Romney will be no different IMO.

Backhouse -- What those governor's plan to do with the settlement money is criminal in my book. Have they no shame!

Alan, a president has very little control over gas prices actually, speculators determine that. We import less oil than we did under Bush actually.

Alan, I don't know if you are a 1%er or you just spend too much time listening to Limbaugh but the president was trying to keep families that are going into poverty, out of poverty. What is it about the far right that allows for zero humanity or compassion? Realistically as the economy recovers all of the tax breaks will have to end including the payroll one or we will end up back in the same position. There is no way to balance a budget without addressing revenue. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that less revenue in taxes with the same spending is going to end in more deficit. Which is why Santorum and Gingrich failed. Got to cut spending and address reasonable revenue increase.

When did I say that the President has control over gas prices? I was actually referring to the President's own comments on how the $40 in payroll tax rebates will be used to pay for higher gas. As to the compassion and humanity argument. You think it's a good strategy to bankrupt ourselves by trying to lift the poor out of poverty? I'm also curious as to what you consider poverty because we are "helping" many who are struggling but are not in poverty. When almost 50% of the population receives some benefit from the government then I think we are spending ourselves into oblivion, and at the same time not really helping the very poor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html?pagewanted=all

But to get to your argument about balancing the budget. What tax increases would you like to see? For example, the President's proposal on a "Buffet' millionaire's tax would actually raise less revenue than the current system because he also proposes an end to the AMT. How about a return to the Clinton tax rates for the to rate. You know, those earning over 250K. Raise their rate to 40%. that will bring in around 70B. Our deficit is 1.3T so it's not really enough. How about a top rate of 60%? That should bring in around 200B a year. Still doesn't put much of a dent in 1.3T. In fact that would just cover the interest on our current dent. So, I'll leave to you to detail what tax increases you think we can afford. I think the president and Mitt Romney are beginning to go in the right direction. Lower rates, fewer deductions. Most deductions favor the rich so it would make the system more progressive.

If you have a plan to balance the budget I'm all ears.

And no I'm not a 1% nor do I listen to Limbaugh. All I was pointing out was that our government is borrowing money to fund the payroll tax cut that is being spent on higher gas prices. Corporate welfare? Conspiracy? Or just a bad use of borrowing?

spider-actually I know more than you think. And if you think one countries supply would make that big of a difference, you really are a fool. According to a friend of mine that is a chemical engineer at a major oil company, its simple really. Oil is a limited commodity and its getting harder to find and process. Now you take into consideration conflict in the middle east, the sanctions the republicans are saying are not enough on Iran, that are harsher than any other sanction ever imposed. Yeah, there is some supply and demand but you are a fool if you think that we are one abundant oil resource that can sustain this nation indefinitely.

Don'-carry- I have no intention of voting for a republican again until the tea party influence is gone. Romney is their best choice, I didn't say he was a good one.

Another big THANK YOU to all the FR lefty liberals that voted to collapse ny first post above.

I do love it when you confirm to me that I have made my point!!!!!!!

LMAO@UFRLLMORONS!!!!!!

For those who have been misinformed about the very large accomplishments of this Administration, here are a FEW.

In spite of GOP leadership vowing not to help the President with our economic recovery, this President signed in critically needed Financial Reforms and:

Right away a bill saying an equal day’s means an equal day’s pay.

Rescued US Auto Industry on the verge of collapse. (GOP-ers like Romney said we should let it all go bankrupt as well as let the Housing meltdown "hit bottom'.)

Consequently, one million jobs saved, related and local businesses are recovering well.

The Big Three making money and rehiring workers, GM #1 in the world.
Fuel-efficient vehicles Made in America being exported.

Helping our environment, helping to end our oil addiction by raising fuel efficiency standards ...to 55 miles per gallon.

$60 billion of subsidies going to Banks for student loans, now go directly to students. Milions more can go to College because of it.

Healthcare reform after a century of Presidents tried. It doesn't go fully into effect till 2014, but for now:

Nobody goes bankrupt because they get sick.
2.5 million young people can stay on their parents's health plan and stay insured till they are 26 years old.

Seniors are already seeing discounts on their prescription drugs,

Preventive care is available to all.
Children and adults with preexisting conditions get insurance that cannot be denied or dropped by their insurance companies.

Don't ask, Don't Tell is over.
Our troops came home. The war in Iraq is over.

Afghanistan is drawing down.

Al Qaeda is weakened, Bin Laden is gone.

Stop pretending this has not happened under the Obama Administration.

When President Obama was inaugurated we were losing 750,000 jobs a month and GDP fell to minus 8.9% (-8.9%). In the last 23 months, 3.7 million private sector jobs were created (even as GOP governors cut 700,000 jobs). Manufacturing jobs are up for the first time since the 1990's.

Stop lying about it. Stop listening to the liars. Stop pretending. Face up to it.

Alan do you think its a good idea to bankrupt ourselves by allowing corporate America to buy out congress with back door policy that allows them to pay 0 taxes? You cannot balance the budget on the backs of a diminishing middle class alone, that is what the republicans have been doing and look where it is getting us. The only balanced budget we have had was under a democrat and it was by making massive cuts in spending and it increased taxes.

Backhouse are you guys just off your rocker? Do you ever pay attention to what you say? How many times have you posted that the rich pay less than the middle class etc. Now you claim that a 20% cut to lower rate but eliminating deductions is a huge tax cut for the rich. Which is it? Do they currently pay more than 28% in taxes which is a hell of a lot more than the poor and middle class or not? Do you not understand that corporate tax is more regressive than the federal income tax? Do you not understand that the burden of a corporate tax is on either its customers or owners? You rail on Exxon but when you tax Exxon, its union pension plans and middle class taxpayers via their 401k plans that bear the burden of this tax? Do you not understand that when Obama wants to tax foreign earnings all he is doing is making US corporations less competitive to sell their products overseas which means that Chinese and European companies will get the income and jobs associated with such a policy? So when GM tries to sell a car overseas and it has to sell it at a higher price than the Hyundai competitor, dont come back and blame the GOP for Obama's lack of financial acumen. Put aside that political views for a second and just take off your rose colored glasses and discuss the issues in a manner that shows you have some critical thinking skills.

David -- You said:

As no jo is a virtual fountain of integrity, I tend take her at her word - you know, that Franklin Graham thing. So, I went back and read your post, and I'll be darned if I can find the lie to which no jo referred.

How ironic! lol ; )

See NJNB the left does understand irony.

P.S. Can we all agree to stop feeding the resident narcissist, he (Joe) is getting obnoxious. ; )

Kirk maybe when Obama does that and the corporate America sees the losses they will figure out that we can't afford to be the freaking worlds police. We can't afford to spend four times as much as any other country on defense. Its just money gone. How long do you think the already diminishing middle class can sustain this policy?

My first thought about last night's debate was "not to watch it."

j. do you really think the country can be fixed in just three years? its going to take a lot longer to get us back on track because of the big mess (YES} gbhe

Alan do you think its a good idea to bankrupt ourselves by allowing corporate America to buy out congress with back door policy that allows them to pay 0 taxes? You cannot balance the budget on the backs of a diminishing middle class alone, that is what the republicans have been doing and look where it is getting us. The only balanced budget we have had was under a democrat and it was by making massive cuts in spending and it increased taxes.

I think corporations should pay zero taxes. Why have all the loopholes they currently have? if there was no corporate tax then it would remove a vast amount of money from elections. Tax the individuals that receive the money from corporations. So raise the dividend and capital gains rates. If a business want s to buy new plant let them write it off as COGS which is what the stimulus did anyway.

As to the Clinton budget, and I'm a huge fan of Bill, he got lucky with the dot com boom. Tell me what massive cuts did he make? What massive cuts has any Administration made? Bush was a fiscal disaster and Obama is no improvement. Eleven years now of Federal Government that is basically out of control. The baby-boomer bulge about to hit the main entitlement programs and government (Administration and Congress) is doing nothing. Forget the R or the D they are both responsible. An entity that spends 3.7T a year and it doesn't have a budget? Ludicrous.

The accomplishments posted at #1.66 are verifiable FACTS, out there in the World for all to see.

They are verities beyond the over-reach of the GOP/Koch bullies and liars.

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

As to who is "off their rocker" Kirk, we saw it last night in 3D.

Romney may have won the debate, but he also painted himself in a corner on fiscal policy.

He stated that he will cut taxes by 20%, increase the military (our largest budget line item) substantially, most probably lead a strike on Iran and start an astronomically expensive decade long war, and repeal the Health Care Act just when it will start producing the long term projected savings, yet he will do all of this while balancing the budget. Even if every other agency other than the military was gutted, this still doesn't add up mathematically. We do know he wants to change Medicare over to block grants to the States, so that will obviously be a huge cut with mandates that will have to either raise taxes at the state level or leave seniors to fend for themselves.

Gingrich's idea for turning all civil service jobs over to "modern" methods just means outsourcing of all government jobs. There are several problems with this. One is that civil service people do have good benefits, but their pay is not as high as the private sector. Similar to the use of contractors in the military, private outsourcing would end up costing more than what we have today. It also has serious security and ethics issues. Do we really want to let the oil and gas industry run the department of the interior? Should we vend our high security and intelligence work to the lowest bidder? Do we really want government services more concerned with profits and shareholders than supplying services to citizens?

And moving the responsibility of setting education standards from the Feds to the State who then move it to the local communities who then place it on parents? How is that supposed to help us get the educated workforce we need to compete? With no common standards and every local community teaching whatever flavor of ideology they like, Colleges would have to turn to foreign students as their main pool of entrants, since our students would fall further and further behind. Home schooling may work for a very few, but Santorum seems to be suggesting that all children should be home schooled. So mom needs to quit her job to stay home and teach, or come home after a 50 hour week and grocery shopping, cooking, laundry, and all other chores, spend another 5-6 hours teaching the kids. Just consider for a minute; If you had learned everything you know from your parents by home schooling instead of public education, do you think you'd be anywhere you are today? My parents are fine people and would have done their best, but there's no way they'd have the resources or ability to get me beyond a sixth grade level in most subjects. Basic math and reading, yes, but science, literature, and most everything else would have been insufficient or totally lacking.

Backhouse are you guys just off your rocker? Do you ever pay attention to what you say? How many times have you posted that the rich pay less than the middle class

Just like David, if you repeat a lie often enough.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/09/millionaire_tax_rates.html

Due to the so-called carried interest loophole, managers of hedge funds and private equity funds pay 15 percent capital gains rates, and no payroll taxes, on their profits from managing other people’s money. That’s less than what middle-class families pay just in payroll taxes on their wages—let alone what they pay in income taxes. An important part of President Obama’s deficit reduction plan unveiled yesterday is closing the carried interest loophole.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/fact-check-the-richtheir-secretaries-and-taxes/

Treasury Secretary Geithner yesterday declined to answer a key question about the president’s proposed “Buffett Rule”: How many millionaires and billionaires pay lower tax rates than middle-income families?

The answer: not that many.

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has crunched the numbers and found that Warren Buffett and his secretary are the exception to the rule. For the most part, the wealthy pay a significantly higher percentage of their income in taxes than middle-income workers.

So instead of the "Buffet" rule if they just eliminated the "carried-interest" rule we could stop whining about millionaires paying less than the middle-class, either by amount or rate.

Again I have to ask if Obama is this 3-D chess player that outsmarts opponents, how can he not get a change passed that affects around 400 people? Is he really this bad a politician, or does he just like the issue that appeals to low-information voters?

Alan, the one thing I do know, is that we cannot sustain a middle class at the rate the republicans are spending and cutting taxes in every imaginable way to the wealthy.

I am inclined to believe Bloomberg on this one, everyone is going to have to take a hit on the tax issue to solve the problems. Taxing the wealthy alone won't do it, taxing the middle class alone is killing it.

The tax laws have way too many loopholes. Romney paid the same in personal taxes that he did in capital gains. Hey I give the guy credit, I would take advantage of every loophole too but the system is flawed and spending is out of control. We have both parties in this frenzy of partisanship that has people convinced on the right that we should put the elderly on the street and shut down the medical system by getting rid of medicare rather than stop spending so much money being the police of the world. We spend four times as many as anyone else in defense and we have them arguing we should be at war with them. No we should be working with the UN and we should not be putting ourselves into another Iraq situation.

Alan have you heard of the Norquist pact? Because apparently you don't know why the president has no ability to change tax law on the rich.

Seriously, will a respectable Republican on this page PLEASE tell me how Mr. Obama is violating the First Amendment and "denying" rights of Catholics with this amended contraception healthcare bill allowing all women to be covered? Particulary since he immediately amended it based on the feedback regarding moral conscience factors that were raised. This imo, verifies that his focus was indeed really to have affordable and equal coverage for women NOT s on how to "deny 1st Amendment rights to Religions".

I sincerely do not understand how with argument can still be waged at him personally, when 28 states already had similar legislation many signed into law by REPUBLICAN governors like HUCKABEE (Mr. Evangelical) and Romney, etc.

Did I miss all of the outrage when Huckabee and the states were passing these laws? This WAR ON RELIGION? WORST EVER in the HISTORY of AMERICA?

I am really interested in sincere dialogue about this from Rep side. The facts about this contraception issue how it has been handled by states past and present just don't just don't support the "religious war" rhetoric now coming out of the mouth of Romney, Huckabee, and all Republicans right now. It all seems very hypocritical or "way over the top" to me.

Backhouse, hopefully many of us who dont agree with Obama's financial policies are not blind to the fact that he has done some good things too just as many of us hated Bush but he wasnt 100% bad. But just like everything else, in your list of accomplishments you really didnt critically think.

1) You do realize that the bill for equal pay was just a bill sponsored by the plantiffs bar for the Trial Lawyers (one of Obama's big constituents) as its already illegal to discriminate in pay for equal work. The bill would have made it easier for trial lawyers to file class action suits based on statistics and not actual facts allowing them to achieve huge legal fees. It had nothing to do with real equal pay issues--you get that right?

2) You do realize that GM was making a profit when it was rescued right? You did know that all the government did was eliminate its debt so it didnt have to make interest and principal payments to its lenders. So you do know that GM was always making money right? So I give Obama credit for providing the financing to get through its debt workout but not any credit for making it profitable nor providing the unions a big political payoff

3) You do realize that even though dont ask dont tell is over that Obama's offical position is that he is against gay marriage right?

4) You forgot to list the costs associated with healthcare reform to make sure that they dont exceed the benefits

5) I promise I wont ignore the stuff that he accomplished during his 4 years if you promise to stop ignoring the bad stuff like failing to embrace education reform because of his ties to the unions, or the expansion of the nanny state, or his expansion of the deficit which will lead to lower standards of living for our kids and grandkids, or his preachy rhetoric that is creating a huge divide in this country where success is now considered bad and living off the government and free stuff is good. Personal responsibility and accountability are dirty words to him., where equality of outcomes is the desired result without equality of merit, ambition, talent, investment and effort. If you are willing to admit these negatives I will not ignore his accomplishments you stated.

Once again, the facts posted at #1.66 are verifiable FACTS.

It's a bitter pill and hard for you to accept, I understand. Maybe this will help:

The facts posted at #1.66 are verifiable FACTS.

The facts posted at #1.66 are verifiable FACTS.

The facts posted at #1.66 are verifiable FACTS.

The facts posted at #1.66 are verifiable FACTS.

The facts posted at #1.66 are verifiable FACTS.

I did have one good laugh out of the debate last night. I don't have an exact quote, but I seem to recall Dr. Paul saying something to the effect that voting against what you believe in, regardless of the reason, is not courageous. He also indicated that earmarks weren't the issue, the issue is the spending bill itself.

None of the others (Santorum or Gingrich) have ever voted against appropriation bills. Paul never votes for them. He actually votes the way he talks, he doesn't like spending on something, he does not vote for it. And he lets everyone know why he votes the way he does. If he was to become President, the vetoe stamp would need a new ink pad every other week.

Earmarks take money from one general budget appropriation and designated ("earmark") it for a specific project. The special project could be appropriated as part of the budgetary and general appropriation process, but usually the item is a boondoggle for a special interest group or graft for the politician. As such, earmarks are usually tacked on to "must pass" or "absolutely will pass" bills, so that the item gets passed when it otherwise would not. An example would be an earmark to have money for a highway improvement which just happens to be near some land congressman owns earmarked to a bill to praise John Glenn on the 50th anniversary of his historic space flight.

Earmarks are bad because they take the spending of money out of the normal budgetary process. Most appropritations bills take months, or even years, to determine how much to spend on various projects. Earmarks take money out of those plans and give it to the congressman's special project, which probably does not have nearly as much thought or planning behind it.

@David Walker: Agree with most of your post, but strongly object to the phrase "tar baby".

God, I'm so sick of this disengenuous, talking point, BS. Hell, I'm guessing most of you didn't even know what the debt ceiling was until a year ago. Just like I'm also wiling to bet you have no clue who Saul Alinsky actually was, or what "Chicago Style Politics" is even referring to.

Some of you are simply regurgitating paranoid drivel you hear on talk radio. No one's turning this country socialist. How exactly do you think, one or two individuals could accomplish that, seeing as we have things like checks and balances, elections, civil rights??? Please, explain to me the logistics of two congress people fundamentally restructuring our entire government and way of life, thereby oppressing us all.

If you're worried about entitlements, than let's look at it without the haze of paranoia or drama, clouding our vision. Raise the retirement age, and means test. Voila.

It's not about government being too big, and spending too much. It's not about the government being too small, and taxing too little. It's about the government being smart. Too big, and it's inflexible, ergo incapable of meeting the needs of its citizens. Too small, and it's ineffectual, ergo incapable of meeting the needs of its citizens.

And there are some basic functions the citizens need the government to do. Things like infrastructure, education, law enforcement, defense, research and development. Anarchy and a complete lack of social programs and governmental structure doesn't work. Take a look at Somalia.

If you're really concerned about over spending, why not focus on defense. That's where the biggest problem lays. Oh yes, and why not this outcry all of the other numerous times the debt ceiling was raised???

You wanna fix this country really? Take a look at money in politics. The politicians are nothing but the middle-men who the insanely rich corporations, non-profits, and individuals utilize in order to sell you their load of bull and keep the status quo in place.

Than, let's reform our trade policies, stop China's currency manipulation, take away their MFN status, and stop exploiting their human rights violations. Here's an idea, let's force them into the 21st century instead of racing them back to the 19th.

And you know what that will do??? That will bring back jobs, ergo expanding the tax base and increasing revenues.

Than, let's look at Wall St. and how their interests are misaligned with the the citizens and the only thing they create is debt. They make bazillions, dolling out debt, and no longer even bother investing in innovative new ideas.

And you know what that will do??? That will create more jobs, ergo expanding the tax base and increasing revenues.

Than, will move on to our tax code that resembles Swiss cheese it has so many loopholes in it.

And you know what that will do??? That will create even more revenue.

The only thing standing in the way of that are two SCOTUS decisions, Buckley v Valeo and Citizen's United. Those are the two decisions that allowed moneyed interests to buy our politicians.

It's not about more spending, or less spending, but SMART spending. Not more taxes, or less taxes, SMART taxes. Not more trading, or less trading, SMART trading.

A balanced budget amendment, the debt ceiling and ALL THIS RIDICULOUS SOCIAL CRAP, are used to pander to simple people, in order to distract them from the actual corruption that's occurring, and the actual solutions that would end the cushy relationship between big moneyed interests and politicans. And God knows, they're all profitting too much off of it, to allow that to happen.

Jan, I think those are separate issues. I am not a Bush fan nor am I doing to defend the wild spending sprees during his administration but that has nothing to do with corporate tax policy. The fact that the progressives on here constantly rail on corporate taxes or the lack of many companies paying them gets tiring when they dont understand that its really a tax on all of us. Yes, corporate tax policy needs to be more fair, but the fact that Backhouse says Exxon needs to pay more tax, he doesnt seem to understand that tax comes out of the owners the largest of which is union pension plans, the next largest is mutual funds owned primarily via 401k plans. Finally, the idea that you want GM, Coca Cola, Apple and thousands of other multi national companies to lose international sales and profits which means they start laying off people in the US to teach them a lesson seems short sighted. Corporate tax rates should be small and the tax should be on the owners and individuals who receive the benefits and we should just raise those taxes and allow our corporations to be as competitive around the world as possible not the opposite which is what Obama is doing. Personally, I think he is smart enough to understand this and knows that many of these provisions wouldnt pass but it sounds good politically because people like Backhouse, Fiesty, David dont understand how it works so they get all lathered up that finally we are sticking it to the man (which they dont get is them)

Anybody on the left understand the meaning of irony?

The left understands irony, they also understand similes. Can the right understand the irony of this simile?

NJBJ educating the left on irony is as Kirk teaching the left that vasectomies are cosmetic surgery.

I thought verifiable facts had to have verifiable non-biased links. Silly me. LMAO.

Backhouse, so you admit you didnt critically think. You are correct that its a verifiable fact that Obama sponsored a bill that described itself as equal pay for women but did you read it and know why? Again your ability to understand unintended consequences or the circumstances involved are astounding.

Alan, the one thing I do know, is that we cannot sustain a middle class at the rate the republicans are spending and cutting taxes in every imaginable way to the wealthy.

Bowles-Simpson. It's a start. And if you want to break Norquist, then show them they will not be re-elected....works every time. Are you saying Norquist is a better politician than Obama?

Kirk that is a much more reasonable answer, I get it why corporate and even capital gains taxes being low is fuel for the economy. However, its come to a point that its gone too far and we are losing the middle class in the process, there has to be some give on both sides.

It is utterly ludicrous to imagine a 50% tax on all wealthy like Europe screwed themselves with. It isn't realistic to be everything to everyone. On the other side, you privatise medicare and I can guarantee that the healthcare system will crash. The rates they would have to charge would be prohibitive of the vast majority of the elderly to pay in dues. Social security, I would like to see it revamped and go into a voluntary system, you can use that money to put into a 401k instead which would be investing into the economy. Prorate social security individually based on it. You cant just cut it off, and honestly people paid into it their whole lives, to say its welfare is wrong, its just a flawed system. Defense spending is ridiculous and the republicans proposals universally have no answers to the economic problems. I would like to see more from Romney because if he really has a good financially sound way to cut the deficit and revamp the tax code I would probably change my vote to him.

1. EXXON PAYS ZERO TAXES.

2. EXXON IS THE MOST PROFITABLE COMPANY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.

(Try saying it as fast as you can: Exxon pays zero taxes and Exxon & is most profitable company in the world.)

= NO REVENUES from EXXON = ZERO REVENUES TO THE TREASURY from EXXON.

Norquist is a better politician than anyone, he is a lobbyist that literally owns the GOP, hell he said flat out that all he needed was Romneys hand to sign what he wanted into law. I think the entire concept of the pact has to go away and your right, he is why I won't vote for a republican in congress and its likely I will go with Obama, at least one of the reasons. Obama isn't great but what they are offering in my opinion is worse.

I don't who I enjoy most, Feisty or Beverly in Chicago! Either way, you're both right on top of things!

You go girls!

Obama / Biden 2012

It's not about government being too big, and spending too much. It's not about the government being too small, and taxing too little. It's about the government being smart

Oh Sarah - now you've done it. You made a sensible statement AND blew holes in the talking points. Robert Reich covered this concept in this great article.

The Defining Issue: Not Government’s Size, but Who It’s ForMONDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2011

http://robertreich.org/page/3

Exxon's contributions as a corporate citizen and other facts according to Professor Mark Perry who is at the University of Michigan:

ExxonMobil reported its first quarter 2011 earnings today, which came in at $10.65 billion, an increase of 69% from the same quarter last year when it earned $6.3 billion. While the huge earnings amount captured all of the media attention, several other items received much less attention (see chart above):

1. ExxonMobil paid $8 billion in income taxes to various governments in the first quarter, which is about $22 million in income taxes each day, or almost $1 million each hour.

2. ExxonMobil spent $7.8 billion in the first quarter on capital equipment and exploration (73% of its after-tax earnings), or more than $21 million per day, which is an increase of 14% compared to the first quarter last year. Over the next five years, the oil company plans to invest about $175 billion in capital equipment and exploration - that's equivalent to almost the entire GDP of the Philippines in 2010.

3. Compared to the first quarter last year, ExxonMobil increased its output of oil and natural gas by 10%, and a large part of that increased output came from a 192% increase in natural gas production in the United States, thanks to new advanced drilling technologies like hydraulic fracturing. While higher oil prices certainly played a major role in increasing Exxon's profits, the role of increased output shouldn't be ignored. And we shouldn't forget that retail natural gas prices in the United States, adjusted for inflation, are the lowest now since December 2002, in large part due to increased domestic production from companies like Exxon.

4. Dwarfing Exxon's first quarter profits of $10.65 billion, are the total taxes paid or collected around the world by Exxon from January to March, which totaled to$26.2 billion and include: a) $8 billion in income taxes, b) $10.3 billion in sales-based taxes, and c) $10.3 billion for all other taxes including property taxes, etc.

5. Exxon Mobil paid $8 billion in income taxes in the first quarter on $18.9 billion of income, which translates into a 42.3% effective income tax rate on its income. And yet according to Obama and others, oil companies "aren't paying their fair share of taxes," and should be taxed more?

6. The 6.1% average profit margin for Exxon's industry "Major Integrated Oil and Gas" ranks #112 among all industries for the most recent quarter (data here), so if Obama wants to target "excessive" corporate profits, there are many other industries much more profitable than the oil and gas industry. For example, the surge in commodity prices has resulted in "windfall profit" margins of 31% for the silver industry, 23% for the copper industry and 19.8% for the gold industry. Internet providers are capturing 23% in profit margins, cigarette companies more than 21% and periodical publishers are earning a whopping 51.6% profit margin, so perhaps those would be ripe targets for Obama's new lust to confiscate "windfall profits."

The GOP stands up, shakes their head, wags their finger, waves their fist, jumps up and down about NOT wanting BIG BAD GOVT to invade the personal lives & choices of citizens, YET the most invasive, far-reaching policies come out of their mouths.

vaginal probes? who to marry? who can adopt? pre-marital or marital sex? sex only to procreate? no public schools, only home schools? no hormonal contraception? women's health and reproductive choice? dominionism? Christian country only? ....on and ON and ON.....

They just cannot be this blind? can they? don't they hear the words coming out of their mouths? Just mind-boggling.

Red,

Maybe it will at least distract them long enough for me to steal back my birth control pills??? Of course I can't run very fast with this Aspirin between my legs, but if they're actually reading my long as* post, I just may make it if I'm lucky.

Kirk.

1. Why is there always some conspiracy claiming some cronyism, etc over anything the President does?

2. You still fail to realize that had GM and Chrysler not received federal help, they would have been forced into a messy Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The government not only provided the financing, but also instituted a process that resulted in a quick bankruptcy, thus keeping the companies from losing their operational profits. And again with the cronyism conspiracies.....wow.

4. Or did he forget to list the right wing projections about the costs?

5. Your projections:

a. Obama only embraced education reform because of the unions. That is just silly, and another example of the conspiracies you use to justify your spoon fed points of view.

b. Obama expanded the nanny state. That is just silly, and another example of the conspiracies you use to justify your spoon fed points of view.

c. The recession and leftover policies were responsible for the expansion of the deficits. The CBO reports on this every year. Turn off the cable news and look it up.

d. Obama did not create a divide. Wingnuts repeating projections like, "his preachy rhetoric that is creating a huge divide in this country where success is now considered bad and living off the government and free stuff is good", did, however.

e. You again project what you were told to believe about this President by suggesting personal responsibility and accountability are dirty words. Please step back into reality.

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

You are so gullible.

Just be careful Sarah, if it falls out and you do get pregnant and miscarry, they want to rape you with a probe.

Jan-21270

Alan, a president has very little control over gas prices actually, speculators determine that. We import less oil than we did under Bush actually.

As I've stated before, I think Obama does have some responsibility for the increased gas prices. But it's only indirect responsibility due to the harsh sanctions he's imposed on Iran over their nuclear program and the Iranian reaction to it: threatening to block the Strait of Hormuz and already making good on the threat to stop supplying oil to Britain and France.

But it's apparently too complicated for conservatives to understand the relationship between the Iran issue and rising gas prices. Or maybe it's just too inconvenient for conservatives to admit that Obama's efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes have anything to do with gas prices when they're desperately (and laughably) trying to smear Obama for "appeasing" Iran while the imposed sanctions are causing the serious strains on Iran's economy that have led to Iran's retaliation.

BTW: I agree that speculators probably do have a lot to do with the prices, too. They seem to amplify and worsen trends in prices caused by other factors.

It's idiotic to say GM & Chrysler would have gone into Chapter 7. At worst it would have been 11 or 13, results the same without government intervention and lost tax payer dollars. Then taking someone's statements and calling them silly without any proof as to why is just beyond silly and must be formed from the brain of a TRex -- peanut sized.

Jan,

No less than I deserve, seeing as I would be the Whore of Babylon for spreading my legs. Just call me Jezebel.

Maybe it will at least distract them long enough for me to steal back my birth control pills???

Not to worry Sarah - they are easily distracted. Throw out a fact and it takes days to respond. Why, I'll venture you have ample time to run back using double protection (you know, two aspirins between the knees).

Listening them talk about foreign policy and I sometimes wonder if the republicans live on the same planet...they make up lies. I did mention the sanctions in Iran as one of the cost factors actually Houston. There is a number of them. All of it impacts the economy, Europes ongoing crisis, also effects the growth of the economy. Its like we as a nation just started existing the day Obama took office and nothing anyone does but him as any effect on the world. In the republicans mind, he really is the king of the world that they see as gone wrong. They are all mental.

Sarah, you should just feel fortunate that they aren't putting you in prison for it. /sigh there is no rationality left in D.C.

Rofl Reddev on the double protection.

Ben.

You know nothing of the bankruptcy process, or the auto bailout if you think it is idiotic to say GM & Chrysler would have gone into Chapter 7.

The results would not have been the same.

Perhaps you were not paying attention at the time, but at the time, there was no financing. Without financing, there is no Chapter 11. Without financing, both GM and Chrysler would very likely have experienced some sort of liquidation, and the resulting uncertainty likely would have had a snowball effect as consumers turned else where.

So, jr....the statements made by Kirk are silly. I am sorry your ignorance prohibited you from seeing why. Your fault, not mine.

Study up.

Republicant or Lindsey--get over yourself and please go back to your parents basement as I have no interest in engaging in your media matters style posts.

Backhouse--again explain to me why Exxon not paying tax concerns you? Is it fairness or because you especially want the union pension plans and middle class 401k plans to suffer when they pay it?

Did anyone else catch Mittbot's response last night when asked about how going to war with Iran would affect oil prices? His exact response was "I'm not concerned about the price of gas." If I were the DNC I'd run that over and over and over again.

Ben, dont engage with him as he has no clue what he is talking about. He doesnt understand how the bankruptcy process works and doesnt understand the finance and banking world. He doesnt get that GM was making an operating profit so there is no way it would have gone into Chapter 7. The lenders would have been forced to work out the debt and various suppliers would have gotten short term IOUs (sort of like the state of California and Illinios have been doing) without the help of the government and bankrutcy judge. The idea that a company that was earning an operating profit but couldnt pay its interest and principal payments would be liquidated is ludicrous and shows how stupid Republicant really is. He quotes articles from magazines that show the benefits of the bailout in comparison to a complete elimination of the car industry and you want to go thanks for the incredible grasp of the obvious but lets talk real facts and law. He doesnt want to engage in real debate and would rather call someone silly than provide any substance.

Ed-1556361

Did anyone else catch Mittbot's response last night when asked about how going to war with Iran would affect oil prices? His exact response was "I'm not concerned about the price of gas."

Bless people like you who have the cast-iron stomach needed to sit through a Republican debate and catch little gems like that.

From Kirky:

Republicant or Lindsey--get over yourself and please go back to your parents basement as I have no interest in engaging in your media matters style posts.

A typical response from Kirky when his spoon fed delusions are challenged.

Rather then address the fact most of his delusional reality is based on the projections he was fed....Kirky deflects by projecting others live in their parents basements.

I suppose it makes the fact he is shown to be an ignorant hack on the issues easier to deal with, but in reality, it only highlights how gullible he is.

Why is it always such an effort to get you to support the thinks you post (or more accurately, repeat)?

Jan-21270

Its like we as a nation just started existing the day Obama took office and nothing anyone does but him as any effect on the world. In the republicans mind, he really is the king of the world that they see as gone wrong. They are all mental.

Some of them seem to think that Ronald Reagan was the last president before Obama and everything was sunshine and lollipops until Obama took over and single-handedly caused the economy to crater by taking the Oath of Office.

Cathy M. lotsanumbers:

Take a look at this link: http://americanfolklore.net/folklore/2010/07/brer_rabbit_meets_a_tar_baby.html

The reference to the tar baby is absolutely appropriate. I could have made reference to a piece that was written more than 40 years ago by Art Hoppe, a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle. The title of the piece was "The Galumphus and the Kratchsnatch", a direct takeoff on the story of Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby. However, I haven't been able to find that piece in archives anywhere. The tar baby will have to do.

History may offend your sensibilities, but as George Santayana said, "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Kirky's Delusion Continues:

Ben, dont engage with him as he has no clue what he is talking about. He doesnt understand how the bankruptcy process works and doesnt understand the finance and banking world. He doesnt get that GM was making an operating profit so there is no way it would have gone into Chapter 7

Kirky doubles down on his ignorance even after it has been explained to him that GM would not have had an operational profit after going through a messy bankruptcy.

One of the reasons the government stepped in to provide the financing and insure a quick orderly process was so the companies would emerge in tact.

Kirky is merely trying to rationalize the point of view he was fed, and cannot let go, with reality.

The lenders would have been forced to work out the debt and various suppliers would have gotten short term IOUs (sort of like the state of California and Illinios have been doing) without the help of the government and bankrutcy judge

With what financing?

And you again ignore the effects the messy process of the lenders working things out without the help of the government and bankruptcy judge.

Stop trying to rationalize the delusions you were fed with reality.

The idea that a company that was earning an operating profit but couldnt pay its interest and principal payments would be liquidated is ludicrous and shows how stupid Republicant really is

The idea that people would buy cars from companies that were collapsing, having no guarentee that the warrenties would be upheld, etc, is ludicrous, and shows how stupid and uninformed Kirky really is. Without sales, no operational profits. Duh.

You need to start thinking things through...even when they interupt the delusional reality you so willfully bought into. If you do so, you will become steadily less delusional.

He quotes articles from magazines that show the benefits of the bailout in comparison to a complete elimination of the car industry and you want to go thanks for the incredible grasp of the obvious but lets talk real facts and law

No child. I quoted independent analysis of the bailout. That analysis shot down the delusional reality you willfully bought into, and cannot seem to let go.

Here they are again, jr:

http://www.cargroup.org/pdfs/impact.pdf

http://www.cargroup.org/pdfs/bankruptcy.pdf

(I get why you are so upset that you have nothing to support what the WSJ OPED section fed you.)

He doesnt want to engage in real debate and would rather call someone silly than provide any substance.

I provided substance. You either dismiss it or rationalize it away, using no facts. You simply do not seem able to intelligently discuss an issue when you are shown to be wrong. You appear to be very emotionally attached to your ideology. That is why you remain ignorant.

Remember the good ole days when Republican presidents and Democratic congresses got things done? Cleam air, clear water, airline deregulation, fall of the Iron curtain, quick military success in Kuwait, etc.

Republican congresses can do nothing with a Democratic president (current status), and cave-in to support every economy-killing action that Republican presidents take (Bush tax cuts, prescription drugs). Democratic congresses seem to waffle and splinter with a Democratic president (Carter is sort of forgotten).

Electing a Republican president and a Democratic Congress seems unlikely this year.

I seriously hope Santorum wins the primary nom, he'll force the moderates and independents to vote Obama.

They dont care about social issues and dont want America to become a "christian nation" above all else.

They care about jobs and turning our economy around, and nothing santorum discusses addresses that.

hell, santorum wishes we'd go back to the days when every child was homeschooled, worked the farm 16 hrs a day and was essential dumb and dumber.

oh he'll take our country back alright, just not to a time most americans want to return to.

Better watch out! We may be in for it! All these crosseyed republican claims have wrought serious doubts upon the minds of both God and Satan! God is now fearful that He may really be Satan. Satan is freely spouting a myriad of "I told you all along" right in Gods face. He reasons, the logic, or lack thereof, being sold by these candidates, and being bought by their supporters, is indisputable proof that He really is, and has been all along the one and only God. Now, while God does doubt himself, He is not likely to relinquish his role easily. Satan, meanwhile, believing He now has the upper hand, and most importantly, the moral highground, has dispatched several unmanned intelligence gathering drones over the sky's of gloryland. Additionally, it is rumored, several squads of hells elite special ops teams are now spread throughout Heavens golden city. See, Its a big city with few native inhabitants, therefore it's easy for 'em to operate there. God, on the other hand, doesn't know who he can trust at this point, and has taken up drinking and cussing. While we all hope it's only the liquor talking, He's talking "all out war" with Satan. Shaky and scary situation altogether for us. As the Bible thumpers like to say; Heaven's up above and Hell's down below. If that really is true it means we would all be caught right in the middle, catching hell from both sides. No one can make as big a goddamn mess as a pack of loose lipped, free flowing tongued, republicans. However it all turns out, the situation is uglier than a pissed off camel with a toothache, eating thistle.

Why is it that people like Kirk spend so much time trying to rationalize away what was clearly a success?

It's just asinine. Like saying, "Sure Obama killed bin Laden, but if I had been President, he would have been deader...."

Really?

The reality is there is only one reason why people like Kirk are constantly trying to find ways to criticize the successes of this President. They are victims of an ideology that is contrary to reality, and in order to preserve that ideological point of view, they have to distort reality.

I suppose in their heads it makes perfect sense, but to the thinking world, not so much...(probably why Kirk gets so frustrated that his arguments are weak and unsupported).

Repulicant:

Nice rebuttal. What amazes me is these auto bailout naysayers insist the normal rules of bankruptcy should have been utilized during an UN-NORMAL economic crash. They love to cry about the bond holders. What they refuse to look at is the bond holders would likely have been screwed either way. They also refuse to look at the potential calamity if the industry had been completely dismantled. It is possible that the loss of Chrysler and GM could have turned the recession into a depression.

Those extreme 'if's were all possibilities. That is why the auto bailout in the form it was orchestrated made sense. The risk to the economy of a 'normal' default was far to great.

Run Kirky, run.

His delusion challanged. His tail between his legs.

Bu, bye kirky. bu, bye.

RedDevPS.

Thanks. And exactly.

They completely ignore the circumstances.

I have schooled Kirk on this before, and his response always ends in him projecting my sub-taranian location..or something similar. So now I just have fun with him.

He likes to waffle from saying the govenment needed to provide financing, and the government should have stayed completely out. Following his thinking is an amusing excercise.

I am a little surprised he didn't attempt to equate this bailout with American Airlines. He has before in an attempt to deflect. But that is a perfect example of these nuts trying desperately to rationalize what they want to believe. As you stated, they like to ignore the abnormal circumstances during the GM/Chrysler bailout.

They do the same thing with foreign policy. Like in last nights debate. The clowns ignorantly pondered as to why we went into Libya, and not Syria, using their ignorance to reinforce some delusion about this President's loyalties. Of course, they ignore the different circumstances....like the fact we would have helped Syria if not for Russia and China blocking action.

Republicants-to be fair, you are both right and wrong at the same time.

A very liberal agenda that has high wealth tax and many social programs cannot sustain itself long term. As evidenced by Europe.

A very conservative agenda-low tax on wealth, let the middle class carry the load taken to the extreme the republicans has is not much better. We are going to end in a two class system of rich and poor at that rate.

Sarah nailed it, its more about doing it smartly than anything. It is so stupid that both sides are so grid locked by their own agendas paid for by lobbyists that the country has become dysfunctional. Does it strike anyone else as odd that they had to pass a law to make it illegal for congress to insider trade? I mean if Martha freakin' Stewart had to go to jail, they should have too.

We have to cut defense, we have to make changes to entitlements to cut costs. We have to get rid of ear marking and pork barreling to get things done.

Most of all we need a supreme court who isn't in bed with the GOP only. HA I laugh when I see citizens united spending screw their chances for beating Obama. Just because it serves them right.

Democrats have to be more fiscally conservative, and that isn't Obama, I am talking about the house. They really control purse strings. John Boehner, McConnel, Reid, Pelosi, Cantor, they all need to go. They have put their own agendas over the welfare of the country, demonstrating it continuously.

Jan.

I agree with what you said, so I am not sure why I am both wrong and right.

A very liberal agenda that has high wealth tax and many social programs cannot sustain itself long term. As evidenced by Europe.

A very conservative agenda-low tax on wealth, let the middle class carry the load taken to the extreme the republicans has is not much better. We are going to end in a two class system of rich and poor at that rate.

I do not see how I am wrong to point out that many on the right have created a false reality and projected it onto the President. I think the debate about the auto bailout highlights this.

No doubt they have demonized the president to the point where they are the little boys crying wolf all of the time. The tea party in particular, it has been hard for me to stomach the continued propaganda that has no foundation against him.

My only point is that Kirks argument on corporate tax isn't entirely wrong either. Unfortunately the system is so screwed up its almost impossible to tell who is being honest. However I am far more inclined to believe Buffet and Bloomberg on the tax issue, who do not want to penalize me than I am to believe people that are being paid to protect corporate interests at the expense of the middle class. They have far less to gain from lying than the republicans. I think until we get a moderate congress, we are not going to see progress.

Its only the really conservative republicans that would deny the auto bailouts value. GW Bush came out in defense of it saying he would do it again. He wildly overspent and that was probably his best investment of tax dollars.

Yeah, but would you REALLY rather they cheat santorum into office with more butterfly ballots or w/e? Rick a woman's place is in the kitchen santorum? Rick only human beings matter, even if Jesus said what you've done onto the least of these you've done unto me santorum? Rick the poor don't matter santorum?

And don't even get me started on how Richard Nixon started environmental protection, continued strongly by Ronald Reagan, and newt gingrich made the republican party the party of corporate welfare and anti-environment, essentially spitting in the face of a long lineage of republican's care of our planet and reducing government; NOT inflating it by billions of dollars to interfere with business and destroying our wilderness.

I HATE mitt romney and he's the only one who makes sense. I look at the republican ticket as "Someone they can potentially cheat into office", so I always want the person least likely to start a holocaust or turn our planet into a dystopian, desert wasteland. Though IMO it's too bad no one's voting for paul, but you have to remember this IS the republican ticket. He'd do better making his own party, the "Makes Sense" party.

Sarah and Jan -- I guess the question becomes how do you fix irrationality? Reason confuses. Facts are fiction promoted by the mainstream lamestream in an irrational's world. It's difficult to help those who refuse to help themselves.

Republicant -- The glaring missing equation when someone like Romney talks about bankruptcy in the private sector is that in some of these cases, the retirement obligations of those companies are dumped onto the taxpayer via the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation - A U.S. Government Agency. It's an ignored consequence that is creating a fiscal issue for the government.

By the way, he really said that. "A woman's place is in the home." and disparaging the legitimacy of women's rights on the senate floor. If anyone bothers to research the crazy stuff he spouted in 2006 he'd make kucinich seem like ben stein.

Gov. Christie proudly stated this morning on Morning Joe, that his position on gay marriage is the same as Pres. Obama. He was bemoaning the fact that he gets flack from the left & media for being for gay civil unions but not for gay marriage, yet Mr. Obama does not get the same flack for the same position.

My point is if REP. GOV. CHRISTIE is stating that Mr. Obama's stance on this is actually the SAME as his, then again HOW can Santorum and these Republicans make the outlandish , extreme accusations that Mr. Obama is "systematically trying to crush the traditional Judeo-Christian principles"???? This "gay marriage thing" would be a BIG difference don't you think? ohhhhh, the crazy hypocritical lies.....

Don't_Carry, the problem with all media sources is that they are slanted. now you can read red state and agree with everything they say and I look at it and call it BS. Another can read the lib site addicting info and I can also see BS. There is absolutely no accountability outside the mainstream media for the propaganda that is put out there. Its bad enough in the mainstream in my opinion. Plus your fact checking sources usually are not going to be monitoring the smaller blogs for the lies. You say historians lie? Why should I believe a random person on the internet over conventional wisdom?

So what do you do? I became a skeptic to it all. I became an independent.

Wow how did everyone miss JMS' comment- "Bill Clinton was handed an economy in just as bad state in 1993". post 1.56

Just another example of delusional thinking not to mention an attempt to rewrite history. In just as bad of state...really JMS really? Just that one comment alone proves your disconnect from reality and leaves your argument worthless.

Jan.

I did not really disagree with Kirk on coporate taxes. I think both sides demogogue that issue. There exists a balance, a point of deminishing returns in both directions.

At some point, coporate taxes being to high is detremental, and the same for too low.

I disagree with his delusional view of the auto bailout. Kirk is an odd one. One minute he appears reasonable, and the next he is trying to preserve the right wing narrative.

In reality, I think most of the time he is trying to sound reasonable, while at the same time trying to sustain his ideological point of view. The two goals frequently clash.

Jan, thanks for being reasonable. Its true that Republicant has tried to provide his less than objective partisan views and just like his inability to say he was wrong above, its meaningless to debate or even have a discussion. For some reason he equates disagreement with idealogy and although I dont agree with everything Sarah said, she is more on the right track than republicant. This isnt about ideaology or partisan politics its about less than precise views on economic outcomes. For example, she criticizes those who are looking at things in a simple manner and then says we can add jobs by making trade tougher with China. She forgets that in many cases with multinations, the number of foreign buyers for example, cars, coca cola, apple products is more overseas. That creates jobs in the US. So shutting foreign markets will have a detrimental impact on jobs not add jobs in the US.

Republicants seems to think I am right wing. Sort of strange for someone who voted for John Anderson the first time he could vote. I voted for Clinton and I hated Bush. I am liberal to moderate on social issues but disagree with Obama on his fiscal policies. In most of his arguments he just quotes the same liberal dogma or cites something from thinkprogress and doesnt critically think through the comments or facts that are made. For example he says corporate taxes too high is detrimental and same for too low. Thats just an idiotic conclusion. There is no such thing as a point of diminishing returns on this issue. Its called dollars so if a dollar is taken out of one pocket and given the government, that means that corporate pocket either replaces it or is worth a dollar less. That has financial consequences that have nothing to do with diminishing returns or is other comment. He is right that both sides use this issue for political purposes without any view of intended or unintended consequences but to make a blanket statement like that is just dumb. I have had no problem accepting facts but opinions are opinions and if mine is different than his, he feels the need to personally attack. I prefer to have someone convince me with their own views not think progress cited views of why they feel that way. With regards to GM, he ignores all the facts or analysis inconsistent with his viewpoint and stays on the same quote over and over as that is going to help. I have told him repeatedly that I had no problem with the government providing debtor in possession financing but he seems to think that if they didnt, GM would have liquidated and that there was no value in a company with an operating profit and somehow an entire industry would have collapsed. He also ignores the contravention of established bankruptcy law to give unions ownership over the secured lenders in GM. I have told him that I have no problem with having a left leaning opinion and think that was a good thing, but that doesnt change the fact that its an opinion and that there are plenty of us who think that wasnt necessary. Second, American Airlines is exactly a good example at least from a financial perspective an going through their operating statements and determining what would have happened with AA, if the banks couldnt provide temporary financing. He just doesnt get it and doesnt want to have an intellectual discussion that doesnt have to mean he abandons his support for Obama. Its like saying I am for gay marriage but I can still vote for Obama even though he is against it. Someday Cant will lose his chip on his shoulder and play nice with people

Kirky.

Its true that Republicant has tried to provide his less than objective partisan views and just like his inability to say he was wrong above, its meaningless to debate or even have a discussion.

This is amusing. I never commented on what Jan was referring to, so there is nothing to admit. It is no surprise, however, that you distorted reality again to believe what you want to believe. That is a large part of your MO.

This isnt about ideaology or partisan politics its about less than precise views on economic outcomes

It shouldn't be about ideology, but as your posts and your inability to support the delusional crap you bought into clearly show, your entire argument relies on it. Sorry. Try less of whatever is feeding you.

Republicants seems to think I am right wing

You are quite clearly right wing, despite your lame attempts to claim otherwise. Your posts betray you. IJS.

In most of his arguments he just quotes the same liberal dogma or cites something from thinkprogress and doesnt critically think through the comments or facts that are made

Amusing...considering the only thing you have offered is a regurgitated bunch of B.S. about the auto bailout. It is quite clear that it is you who do not think critically. That is why you run away when challenged, only to return to try and take cheap shots when no one is looking. Pathetic you are.

For example he says corporate taxes too high is detrimental and same for too low. Thats just an idiotic conclusion. There is no such thing as a point of diminishing returns on this issue.

Um.....actually, that is not an idiotic conclusion. You simply fail to think things through, again.

At some point, a tax rate gets low enough that it will not help the economy. Conversely, at some point, a tax rate gets high enough that it causes significant damage.

The fact that you can never think anything through on your own is what is idiotic.

I have had no problem accepting facts but opinions are opinions and if mine is different than his, he feels the need to personally attack

I did not attack you personally until you did so to me, jr. Re-read the thread. And you obviously do have a problem accepting facts. That is why you get frustrated and run away.

With regards to GM, he ignores all the facts or analysis inconsistent with his viewpoint and stays on the same quote over and over as that is going to help

You have NEVER ONCE presented any facts or analysis that supports your position. NOT ONCE. You have posted some WSJ OPED's that only make it clear who spoon fed your opinion to you.

I have presented independent analysis of the bailout, and my position is consistent with most other independent analysis. You are simply stuck on stupid, and cannot let go.

I have told him repeatedly that I had no problem with the government providing debtor in possession financing but he seems to think that if they didnt, GM would have liquidated and that there was no value in a company with an operating profit and somehow an entire industry would have collapsed.

LOL!!! You waffle back and forth between having no problem with the government financing, and arguing they did not need to.

I never said there was no value in GM without the government financing. (You are projecting again in order to rationalize your delusional reality.)

I said without financing, GM and Chrysler would have been forced into Chapter 7 bankruptcy and some form of liquidation..........in order to get something from the value that remained in the company.

In addition, if GM and Chrysler had gone through such a destabilizing process, it would have wreaked havoc on the auto industry in this country. Again, you fail to think this through. The same manufacturers who supply GM and Chrysler also supply Ford, and other auto makers in the U.S. Those suppliers would have been devastated, causing many to go under, and causing disruption to the auto companies that did not need a bailout.

I have told him that I have no problem with having a left leaning opinion and think that was a good thing, but that doesnt change the fact that its an opinion and that there are plenty of us who think that wasnt necessary.

The problem is this is not a left wing opinion. It is reality. You think it was unecessary only because that is what you were ideologically fed.

You simply cannot get past the fact that without a timely, orderly bankruptcy, the two companies would not be near where they are today. The most pathetic part is, this entire spin cycle you keep going through is all in an effort to preserve some delusional crap about cronyism.

Second, American Airlines is exactly a good example at least from a financial perspective an going through their operating statements and determining what would have happened with AA, if the banks couldnt provide temporary financing

The fact that you still think AA was a good example only highlights the fact that you still do not understand this issue. The circumstances are far, far different not then they were then, not to mention AA is not the auto industry.

You are arguing like these incidents occurred in a vacuum and ignoring the different economic realities.....all in order to preserve what you were so obviously fed. Wow.

He just doesnt get it and doesnt want to have an intellectual discussion that doesnt have to mean he abandons his support for Obama.

Dude. I gave up trying to have an intellectual discussion with you. You have repeatedly shown yourself incapable, as your emotions take over the minute you are shown to be wrong.

Perhaps someday you will learn to research the issues in an effort to learn about them, and not to prove what you were previously told was so. Perhaps someday...

A philosophy instructor I had once explained truth this way. Take a cube that has different colors on every side. Place it so its between so people so they are only looking at one side. If you ask them the color of the cube they will honestly be able to say different things. Which is kind of what I was getting at, was that truth is a matter of perspective and the more perspective you can get, the better your going to understand. The world is just not as black and white as the extremes of the ideology on either side try to make it.

As long as you stick to policy, and I think are reasonable, political discourse is a good thing.

Jan.

You are right. I have simply given up on Kirk. He tries to act like he is reasonable, but when you pin him on an issue, he gets really, really upset.

I do like your cube analogy. This is very true. Both the far right and the far left seem to think the cube is a one dimensional square. They both need perspective.

For example, the left likes to blame GWB for the economy. I do not think that is entirely fair, for a great many things and people helped create the circumstances for the housing bubble and eventual collapse. Bush just happened to be in office at the time, even though the bad policies he was responsible for made him an easy scape goat.

Another example would be Kirk and his inability to see beyond what he wants to believe on the auto bailout. He always has some rationalization, but when examined, they either fall apart, or contradict another rationalization he used. He will say the government did not need to step in, and they only did so to help the UAW. When he has to rationalize the fact that there was no financing, he then claims that he has no issue with the government providing financing. At the same time, however, he will claim that they would likely have found some financing because GM had an operational profit....all the while ignoring that without the government keeping GM from collapsing, that operational profit would have vanished. Depending on the day, you also may get to the point where he says the government should have provided financing, but then walked away, and he will claim the only reason the government managed the bankruptcy was to protect the unions.

It goes on and on.....generally ending up where his rationalization started.

Kirk. Look beyond the square and you may see the cube. IJS.

"facts are unpopular, especially for a conservative audience"

And THAT explains a LOT about today's 'conservative' movement.

In 1750, I would have been considered a liberal.

In 1970, that made me a conservative.

But somewhere around the turn of the century, the definition of conservative began to change radically, and opposition to Constitutional protections became the norm, and fiscal conservatism went flying out the window. Let's be clear, being fiscally conservative means making sure that revenues exceed expenditures, at least as much as it means not making frvolous expenditures.

What once was the Party of Lincoln, now does everything possible to vilify African Americans, Latinos, immigrants, gay people, Muslims, and so many other groups en masse, that it's a wonder there is anybody left to vote for them. Hey! 'My name is Herman Cain. I'm one of the good African Americans.'

In Wisconsin, they even pick on teachers, for crying out loud.

ChesterMolester12

LOL!!! Really? Wow...

Our troops came home.

Repeating a lie over and over again will never make it true, the troops have not come home. They're sitting in Kuwait which is where they'll remain until their tours are over, or until they're sent somewhere else.

Morning IR; you got that right! The fringe right never seems to learn that you make women mad, they are going to unite. When we unite, we move mountains.

Have a care, Santorum, we do not forget, and we vote.

Floyd - this feisty redhead is already pissed off... ;o)

The Gremlins are frisky this morning... lol

Its a doulbe standard, Obama will not get hit from every side like this.

Great one IR.

You guys can wrap this up in women's liberation all you like, but the bottom line is 1) Santorum is saying things a lot of folks on the other side agree with, 2) they don't see it as women's liberation issues, 3) at the gut level, they recognize Santorum can be a bit clumsy politically, but he comes across as sincere and likable (bit goofy at times, but likable none the less), which are two characteristics Romney does not possess in the least.

Odds are that if Romney can squeak out a win in Michigan, his money and organization will allow him to limp across the finish line to the nomination. But Santorum is a threat to him, and for a worse reason than Gingrich was previously a threat. Santorum's strengths really speak to Romney's personal weaknesses. Gingrich's strengths played against Romney's political weaknesses. And if Santorum somehow manages to paddle upstream through all the spewing Romney bile and win Michigan, he becomes the true frontrunner, with seemingly no one else who could pull yet another phoenix act against him (assuming no brokered convention).

IR, terrific article and pearls of wisdom from The Hill.

Santorum is so far off to the right, that he fell down the cliff. The GOPs steady shift to the right brought America the candidates who stood on that stage last night. If republicans want their party back from the whack-a-dos, the best thing they can do is stop voting for the fools just because there is an "R" after the name--especially if they are holding their noses to do it.

MRWSR: oh please. Anyone going to seriously think Obama has gotten a 'free ride'??? The right has done everything to convince the pitchfork crowd he is the great Satan (after screaming their heads off that anyone who dared criticize the great George Bush was "unpatriotic"). The only people who are going to buy that b.s. are the people who think "what do you like to read?" was an unfair question for the delicate Sarah Palin.

PaulM: not a "lot" of people actually have the audacity to argue the government forcing it's will on women's most private matters isn't a "woman's" issue. Good grief. There is nothing "likeable" about a man who thinks women are some kind of sub-species that needs government "guidance" over their own bodies. I don't know what century you're from...but in this day and age, most women of child bearing age are reacting exactly as expected to such nonsense.

Paul M. I disagree with that first sentence. While there may be a select, small base of republican women who believe as Santorum and his pals do, the majority of republican women see much of this rhetoric as as a "women's rights" issue. Not even Catholic women agree with Santorum and pals. Contraception has been accepted since Griswald v CT made it illegal to outlaw its use. The GOP has been consistently attacking women's rights from equal pay for equal work to family planning for at least 20 years. What is good news for women about all of this right now, is the incredible "over-reach" of the GOP the past year--they put aside the baby step approach that went largely unnoticed and hit the all-out assault button. Women are saying enough is enough.

IR--I will proudly link arms with the Red-Headed ex-School Teacher on this next step of our journey. Her ire has already been felt in your state and we will continue to speak up.

Er Paul M.If you'll had bothered to follow the link that I so generously gave you up there you would see that the Lady that wrote the piece comes from the RIGHT. So I would say that to The Right ain't looking askance at your Mr. Santorum would be wrong. Been my experience that some women's rights and experiences know no party. But you go right on there Sport. That wall your fixing to hit with your head is going to smart some.

So... you're saying that even Republican women en masse are pushing back against Santorum, their churches, etc? Just don't think that's true. It's wishful thinking on your part.

You can always find examples of anything - out of a country of 300 million, really anything. And, yes, I saw references to that poll about how many Catholic women use contraception, etc. But the leaps in logic you're making from those examples and poll numbers are notable.

But let's say for a moment it is true. Let's say the Republican Party is full of men who want to strip away contraceptives just to show women who's boss, and full of women now pushing back against this. If Santorum can consolidate that male vote, he can still win. The Republican Party has more men than women I believe, mirrored in the Democratic Party having more women than men.

One thing you aren't recognizing as well is that while you see this as just contraceptives the other side sees it as religious liberty, contraceptives and abortion. The morning after pill - you see that as contraception. They see it as something after conception. Some Republican women will break from your wishful thinking on that alone.

You guys are right. The Dems need more senators standing up for women the way Ted Kennedy did. He really CARED about Gyno-Americans, didn't he? Ahhh, but that's all water under the bridge now...

Back then damage, it was the republicans that were advocating for womens rights to contraception.

And damage, that is just an inane random insult.

Men of the right...take a hike.....you are a bunch of losers and women are not interested in another generation of fools from your loins. Women, unite your legs against any intrusion by GOPeeps! No momentary pleasure can make up for the eons of ignorance produced by the seed of the right.....

Last night Ron Paul was clearly the only creature on the stage with integrity. Too bad his ideology is ridiculously unworkable.....

Paul, you are failing to consider that more women actually get out and vote than men. In a general election it isn't the bible thumpers they are going to have to convince, its the independents and very moderates. Yes there are women out there who hate themselves enough to advocate being raped while miscarrying to prevent abortion.

Most are thinking that Santorum, and the far right are overstepping in a major way.

If Rick Santorum gets the nomination, you know there will be some group which will prepare an extremist ad depicting him as leading a modern day inquisition, using all of the powers of the Patriot Act to invade the bedrooms of every single person in America.

The unfortunate part of that is, the ad would proably be scarily prophetic.

Something to think about before deciding to vote for Rick Santorum: 51% of voters are women. Of all voters, on the social issues Rick Santorum has issued his ultra-conservative views about, maybe of voters 15% consider themselves to be very conservative, and 15% conservative. 40% are moderate, 20% are progressive and 10% liberal. Thus, some 70% of all voters probably don't agree with his stance on these issues. The more he and the GOP push the social conservative front, the more likely they are to lose the general election.

Indie Red, Santorum seems to be the only one standing who has the can-do spirit of American enterprise.

Santorum is the only one of the four who expressed knowledge of the real work of getting things done through the give and take of political discourse. The others (especially Ron Paul) are merely spousing an idealogical view with no attempt to resolve problems.

Rick's comments on his voting stance on contraception, his wise support of Spectre, and his action to get his ideas into bills that actually became law show a strong sense of American pragmatism and should be taken as a lesson in reality by the other cloud-nine dreamers.

Not only that, but with Santorum, what you see and hear is what you get. Those who oppose his ideas have been hearing the same words as those who support him for his entire career.

Wow GreenTimer, you hear something different listening to Santorum. When I listen to him I feel violated. I had an ectopic pregnancy, I would have died had they just let the fetus die before intervening. The fetus was in the tube, it couldn't have grown much bigger and I was bleeding to death. He is telling me I don't deserve to live, I tell him, he doesn't deserve my vote.

GOP served up gallons of haterade at the debate last night. The taste? Bitter, the aftereffects? Confusion, irrational thinking and a tendency to lash out indiscriminantly. Antidote? Education, and soul-searching honesty. Prognosis? Deadly to the uneducatable or the souless.

Paul - no doubt there are SOME conservative women who think Santorum is spot on.

I work with one of them - let me tell you a little bit about her. She's a pentecostal, she for the bulk of her marriage to her husband has been the only one to have a job and support their family, she does all the cooking and cleaning (as women are supposed to do) all the child rearing, and the thanks she got?

Her husband up and left her, cheated on her and then returned home and lied about all of it. Only to have my coworker ultimately stumble upon and email from him to the woman he cheated on, detailing the whole sordid affair.

She no doubt would ignore the parts about "women belong in the home" despite the fact that she financially supports her family, and think "now theirs a good family man/christian I can support"

the thing is - SHE is not like MOST conservative women.

Let alone the moderate/independent women (and men) that actually swing the elections.

By all means, put her man Santorum up there - he'll be the easiest to defeat.

If Conservatives can use the fear factor "liberals want to take your gun and your jesus away" based on nothing that resembles facts...then by all means, liberals can definitely return the favor by insinuating Santorum would take away a womans right to work, contraception and ability to decide her own health. And frankly, we'll just use his own quotes to support that theory.

If I didnt know any better, I'd think the republicans want to lose this election.

Jan, I am gladdened that you are able to post today after the horrific grief you went through. I have no intention of dismissing that terrible time with arguementation. Except to ask if you would vote for any of the four, I will not badger your personal pain and sorrow with any further political commentary.

May you find healing in both body and spirit.

Greentimer-thank you.

When I started watching these primaries I was looking for a conservative to back. I liked Huntsman. However as time went on there more has come out that really bothers me. The tax pact to an oil lobbyist by the majority of the GOP and all the remaining candidates is a close deal breaker. Then all of them supporting stomping all over womens rights to make a few priests happy is the deal breaker, coupled with wanting to cut off public funding to schools completely. It would end up being a education is only for the elite system. So my answer is no at me moment, I wouldn't vote for them.

While I think Obama has done some great things, and made some mistakes. If Romneys plan is just a spectacular answer to the fiscal problems, that made major changes to the tax codes. I would vote for him. If it goes brokered I will decide if I can support the candidate. As for congress, if they have an R by their name, I won't vote for them while the tea party influence is allowing for the extreme overreach and infringing on me and all other women. I have always voted for the candidate as an idenpendent, sometimes they are democrats sometimes they are republicans-all are moderates.

"...everything but a Child of God"

Wow, that is powerful. There are some really mean spirited people in this world (in this forum). I hope you're OK with that when the dust settles and the trumpets sound...you will be judged.

"If Conservatives can use the fear factor "liberals want to take your gun and your jesus away" based on nothing that resembles facts...then by all means, liberals can definitely return the favor by insinuating Santorum would take away a womans right to work, contraception and ability to decide her own health. And frankly, we'll just use his own quotes to support that theory."

Jessica, it sounds like you are acknowledging it's a stretch of truth, and justifying it on the basis the other side lied first. Is that really where you want to be, as an individual? If partisan politics does that to anyone, I think that individual ought to consider jumping out of the food fight. These games aren't worth anyone's personal integrity.

Things look different, and much funnier, when you stand independent of either major party.

Paul, I think you will find this is hitting on something with women that is extremely personal and many of us have had situations that were painful and traumatic that its just a political rhetoric tool of reminders. This was never a good way for the republicans to take things. If they can't get back on topic and shut Santorum up, they will lose, he just adds fuel to the fodder. And it all of these governors taking shocking over reaching steps isn't helping their cause.

Its hard to find something funny that hits you with so personally. Taking aim at your pain.

So, this isn't even something we can joke about? I'd buy that if all of your sisters in arms here were making that same argument. But seems like a good number of them are more than happy to poke dismissive fun of Santorum, or like-minded Republicans in general. And don't get me wrong; some of those posts have been pretty funny. But to now claim some zone of non-funniness because the issues involved are too personal strikes me as a bit inconsistent (and amusing).

No I am saying some people will take it personally and not find it at all amusing. Me being one of them, I find most of the GOP debates funny. I find it really funny that the SCOTUS dominated by the right wing that gave us citizens united is now being used to the point of making them almost unelectable. On this issue, due to my personal problem it hit hard, and it feels like a violation. A consequence I take to follow the election coverage, I don't take anyone elses freedom away.

Jan, thank you for accepting the spirit of my reply. I hope your recovery is continuing successfully.

I also was looking at Huntsman as a good possibility, especially since Daniels, Jeb Bush, and some others seemed to be laying low. The Republicans have made a major play to embrace all the anti-women aspects of religion, without a corresponding emphasis on the Golden Rule.

It is disturbing that a universal tax pledge to a single group apparently rises to at least the level of the Oath of Office for so many of the Republican (not Huntsman) office holders and seekers.

In the current Republican presidential contest, I do believe that Santorum has strongly held personal views on a woman's "place". However, I did hear him say last night that he voted for bills that supported contraception use, and that he did not support legislative banning of it, in spite of his personal view against contraception. I was applauding his ability to separate at least some of his personal morality from the business of legislating - more so than the others, who seemed more ready legislate their personal idealogy without regards national conditions. That being said, his other views on women's health are awful, but may not be any different than the other candidates.

I felt that his support of Specter as the man to guide conservative judges to the USSC through Senate confirmation, and his ability to include his own policy into successful legislation, also demonstrated more finesse in the art of successful legislating than the others showed.

Based on voting records, I feel less certain about how Romney and Gingrich would come down on any particular issue because they both seem to have embraced opposition to Obama as a mantra, even if it reverses any earlier stance they may have held.

Santorum is more consistent than Romney and Gingrich, and more pragmatic than Paul. But as you have suggested, a brokered convention might result in someone who can present a realistic and fiscally conservative case to the American electorate, that does not obliterate woman's health, in meaningful opposition to Obama's case.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and giving me the opportunity to muddle through my attempt to differentiate Santorum from the others. I wish you well.

Health, Wealth, and Time to Enjoy Them.

On Santorum I will respectively disagree. While personally I do respect peoples religious views, I respect the dedication of the Amish, I sadly watched a few Jehovah witnesses die over the years because they will not take a blood transfusion.

However with Santorum there is too much overflow of his religious beliefs. I cannot envision him taking the role of a secular president. Our president above all needs to be secular. The problem with religion being a factor in policy is that there are too many religions, and they are all free to practice them here. Countries where religion rules, there is always conflict and power plays, there has been WAY too much blood shed over it. Our founding fathers gave us the gift of that freedom and I take that gift seriously.

I can see Gingrich or Romney keeping the religion out, like you they are completely inconsistent. Paul is too extreme, his policies would never go through, he would be ineffective at best.

So unless Romney pulls magic out, or a brokered convention with a solid candidate, I will likely vote straight ticket democrat.

Ol' Chester is living in a pretty dimly lit fantasy world, isn't he?

That sense of entitlement, that he owes no deference to anyone, and all is owed him

NDD,

You NAILED it!

I had to hit rewind to make sure I heard that right!

Romney is such a poor candidate and so sure he is a good one, Feisty, that it is embarrassing to watch.

"You get to ask the questions you want, I get to give the answers I want..."

This is representative of the GOP/TP mentality, often referred to as bait-and-switch. Remember, this is the same party that ran in 2010 on JOBS, JOBS, JOBS, and as soon as elected, destroyed Unions, restricted voters rights, enhanced abortion bans, charged forward with restrictive contraception, forced a credit downgrade, and the list goes on. and on. None of them had a single thing to do with JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.

That sense of entitlement will work real well in the WH (snark)

Visualize if you will, this arrogant *rick doing a press conference (if he'd ever have one). I'll answer any way I want (no matter what the topic) war, economy, disaster, whatever suits me, he'd think.

He would make the Bush Administration look like a romper room by comparison (and that's not a compliment for the less erudite).

newdayD, as Feisty said, you nailed it. That is exactly Romney's problem.

I agree with Feisty.......again........NDD: You did nail it firmly on the head of the problem...Romney himself as the "My way or the highway" method of governing.

My reaction last night was that John King is actually being too nice because he has to be as the only sane person on the stage.

Personally, I would have replied to Romney "The purpose of this debate is to answer the questions asked of all the debaters. If you want to give a speech on another subject then leave the stage NOW and go give your rambling list of "accomplishments" out in the street or on Faux Noise".

That explains why I am not a newscaster or journalist I guess.

RedDev, well said. Gingerbread, that entire debate stage last night looked like Romper Room.

OBXRon, true, John King should have turned that back on Romney instead of letting it slide. Same thing with Newt's response about contraceptives; he didn't answer the question, he turned it into the same "elite media" nonsense and talked about abortion.

I couldn't believe Romney's petulance to John King last night. I thought King was cowed by his prior run-in with Newt and by the audience.

Republican stock in trade (this year's Pres primary crowd at least) is a corollary of shooting the messenger: namely demonizing the questioner when a tough question is asked. Did'ja hear Gingrich's bellyaching about questions NOT asked 4 years ago? Talk about dodging a question!

I think H L Menken's ditty about the last refuge of the scoundrel should include media-bashing just after patriotism.

Really? All these claims of wealth redistribution and...well, I just don't see it.

What "entitlements?"

Addicted to entitlements is simply another right wing talking point based upon falsehood after falsehood, unless of course, you are talking about seniors addicted to social security and medicare. Living on SSN and Medicare is not an addiction, it is an expectation after paying over a lifetime into those entitlements.

The greatest distribution of wealth is from the lower and middle classes to the wealthy class. That is a recipe for disaster, after all, why work 60 hour weeks to have your income snatched from you to give tax breaks to wealthy corporations and the 1%?

Danoid, For arguments sake let's call the Obama taking the equity in GM from the bond holders and giving it to the UAW some one elses wealth being redistributed.

Stone, Obamcare is basically a huge expansion of people being subsidized by medicare. Forcing insurance companies to pay for contraception is basiccly a back door entitlement paid for by people who don't want or need it. I'd also call the never ending extension of unemployment benifits an increased entitlement. You could also count Stimulus 1as a targeted entitlement program for public service unions.

We can thank the election of 2010 for putting a halt to the $400 billion Obama was going to waste on Stimulus II

Addicted to entitlements? Those damn senior citizens and their S.S. checks and Medicare. How dare they? Let's kick them to the curb. What is basiccly anyway?

Red, When the money you paid in "over a life time" doesnt cover the cost of your entitlement it becomes someone elses bill. Your not paying your way. If you want SS and Medicare to pay everything. Then the people who want it need to increase thier contributions to it.

Unfortunately instead of doing that Obama wants to extend the payroll tax deduction there by adding to the future SS deficit... Like I said we need a better leader in the White House....

The super rich demand their income tax entitlements: Loopholes, low tax rates, incentives, hide the money in off-shore accounts!.....That's entitlements that all TeaPeople believe in!......

Medicare, Medicaid, SS.....gotta cut, cut, cut those entitlements

Chilled, Come on stop it. If you want SS Medicare etc. you need to pay more into it to cover what you want to take out. Rich people didnt deplete that account for you. You simply didnt put enough into it or you let to many people draw out of it who didnt pay enough in to it....

If you want SS Medicare etc. you need to pay more into it to cover what you want to take out.

SS is solvent, your argument is baseless. Medicare is solvent but does needs a more immediate to fix pay for Part D. There are several solutions, but the GOP/TP won't allow them because it gets in the way of destroying the program.

UAW: yeah..."let em eat cake" always works so well for the Republicans...no more of that absurd "compassionate" stuff...might as well tell it like it is. The poor DESERVE to be there...get those 6 year olds out working for gosh sakes...their fault for picking the wrong parents. Who the heck are they to want a full belly? Let em take to the streets...Yup..I'm sure there's a real winning formula in there for your party. I encourage you to go at that logic FULL TILT.

@UAW Pleeeeeeeease

....and those loopholes, exemptions and low, low tax rates in addition to off-shore accounts entitlements?

UAW.......in your several posts you suggest that people collecting SS and Medicare did not pay in enough so should basically stop complaining.............What do you think happened to that "Lockbox" that was supposed to be the Social Security "Trust Fund"???

I think we have no trust in a fund raided by many, many Presidents regardless of their party and now we are all asked to pay in more for the privilege of being robbed again I guess.

OBX, You are correct. I wish we could elect a President who understands that Americans just paying more taxes isnt a solution. I would rather keep more of my money and let me secure my own future....

UAW.....ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah-ha ha ha ha ah-ha ha ha ha ha ha ah-ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah-ha ha ha ha ah-ha ha ha ha ha ha ah-haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah-ha ha ha ha ah-ha ha ha ha ha ha ah-haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah-ha ha ha ha ah-ha ha ha ha ha ha ah-haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah-ha ha ha ha ah-ha ha ha ha ha ha ah-haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah-ha ha ha ha ah-ha ha ha ha ha ha ah-haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah-ha ha ha ha ah-ha ha ha ha ha ha ah-haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah-ha ha ha ha ah-ha ha ha ha ha ha ah-haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah-ha ha ha ha ah-ha ha ha ha ha ha ah-haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah-ha ha ha ha ah-ha ha ha ha ha ha ah-haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah-ha ha ha ha ah-ha ha ha ha ha ha ah-haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah-ha ha ha ha ah-ha ha ha ha ha ha ah-haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah-ha ha ha ha ah-ha ha ha ha ha ha ah-haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah-ha ha ha ha ah-ha ha ha ha ha ha ah-ha... what a maroon!

stone6

What "entitlements?"

The denizens of the lunatic fringe of the far right like UAW have perverted the meaning of the word "entitlement" beyond all recognition. You are "entitled" to a paycheck because you worked 40 hours. In exactly the same way, you are entitled to collect Social Security when you retire because you paid into it for decades. Same goes for Medicare and unemployment insurance, which is part of the FICA tax.

But the wingnuts want "entitlement" to mean "undeserved handout." It's too bad their Orwellian New Speak is seldom ever challenged by the media.

You raise a good point Pat, after all, Newt ensured the Nevada vote was moved to accommodate his Jewish Super-Pac-Man. Do the Catholics candidates believe in accommodating only Jews? It is a confusing standard .. one minute they scream about insurance coverage causing Catholics to sin against their will, they change voting days to accommodate one single rich Jewish, but they completely overlook a Catholic religious day.

I'm Catholic too and I had no ashes yesterday. I'd say more Catholics don't get ashes than do.

First of all, Ash Wednesday is NOT a holy day of obligation. No one must, by Church doctrine, get ashes. They must fast- but that does not preclude them from taking part in a debate.

Good Friday is a day when a debate would be inappropriate.

Second- who the heck are you to question anyone's faith? I thought liberals were supposed to ignore such things.

Do, however, go on proving your hypocrisy.

Actually Pat, it's because they know damn well that if they DID, anti-Catholic leftwingers like the people on here would be calling them "fanatics" the next day and ridiculing them. Of that there is no doubt. Damn you people are easy.

Where were Catholic Santorum's and Catholic Gingrich's ashes?

I actually covered this one last night courtesy of Slate...but I'll repost here...

Tonight’s Republican presidential debate falls on Ash Wednesday, and Catholic candidates Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich may appear on the debate stage with noticeable ash marks. Once you've put on ashes for Ash Wednesday, how long do you have to keep them on?

It’s up to you. Ash Wednesday is not a Holy Day of Obligation in the Catholic Church, so Catholics can choose whether to go to church and where the ashes would be placed on their foreheads. They're also permitted to make their own decisions about when and how to remove the ashes. Many Catholics leave the mark on all day but wash it off before bedtime. Ashes also tend to flake off by themselves, or get rubbed away by absentminded forehead brushings. (Services can happen at any time of day, so it's at least conceivable that Santorum and Gingrich might receive the ashes after their early-evening debate in Arizona.)

www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/02/rick_santorum_and_newt_gingrich_debate_on_ash_wednesday_.html

Why didn't the Catholic candidates protest having the debate on one of the most holiest days in the Catholic religious

Because they are only Catholic when it serves to whip up the Catholic base. Their "faith" is about an inch deep.

wow Amy...........sad

Second- who the heck are you to question anyone's faith? I thought liberals were supposed to ignore such things.

When these candidates stand up and throw their religion in my face, it is difficult to "ignore" and opens the door to questions. If they don't want the questions, they should stand down.

It never occurred to me during the whole exposition of deceit and lies that was last night's debate to ask where the ash was, that is the very least of our problems with these fools.

Ideology,

Have you ever read the Cato Institute policy analysis 159, title "Ancient History: US Conduct in the Middle East Since WWII and the Folly of Intervention"? It was written on August 16, 1991 by Sheldon Richman. It is a very informative read - and explains a lot of the dislike of the US today.

idoelogy,

"The first step would be to divest ourselves of the canard that we are hated because of our love for freedom and democracy."

1953 was just one CIA backed meddling in the political life of a sovereign nation. We put the Shah of Iran in place because he was our guy. It was all about self interest and the cold war strategy to divide up the world like a chess game with the Soviet Union. The West did it not only in the Middle East but in Latin and South America.

Fast forward to the 21 century, the US is the only one standing who continued this foreign policy with the neocons/Cheney strategy of making the world safe for democracy, by invading Iraq.

The GOP debate last night continues this same pattern with all their talk about preemptive strikes in Iran and fixing Syria.

Ron Paul took the air out of their trial balloons of" get tough because we are freedom loving , ready to invade any country for democracy ". A lot of stale, hot air from Gingrich, Romney and Santorum.

Many Western leaders have come to grips with this, including Obama, only to be accused of bowing and apologizing to our enemies, our enemies who we created, and the Republican solution is to create more of them through blind rhetoric and action … but then it is such a lovely testing ground for the Weapons of Freedom.

ideology,

I agree. And that is why Obama is the clear headed one who understands the world we live it.

BTW , love the phrase"Weapons of Freedom" it speaks volumes.

Why don't people vote for Ron Paul ? Is it because he really is the only sane Republican left running for office ? Or is the GOP establishment truly committing voter fraud on its own party and depriving the rest of the country of an enlightened view of the world ?

Yes, Dr Paul deflated and proceeded to squeeze the life out of the warmongering chickenhawk's rhetoric!

I know most posting above understand what I'm about to post, but for the many readers who might not, here goes.

Dr Paul when he describes what and why the other rogue countries governments and terrorist groups are being supported by our own actions is a political reality. We all, most of us, live and breath the spirit of America, Why is it we think the other countries and people around the world do not live and breath the spirit of their country?

In 1940, America was divided, Isolationists on one side, Europe supporters on the other, we have a huge population of German-Americans and Italian Americans who were against getting involved also. This was despite the German Navy's sinking of an American warship and the severely damaging of another on the open ocean in 1940. Decidedly an act or war, but, no declaration of war. there was no consensus of Americans for going to war even though we were being attacked. On the other hand we were defending convoys heading to England with our material support for their war effort.

All of this changes overnight with the bombing of Pearl Harbor. WE were directly attacked. The country had an epiphany of national spirit and we ALL came together to defeat the enemy. I won't go into our own role in getting us attacked, we can leave that for another day. (besides it won't be received very well in some parts) We came together, Dr Paul's point is WHY do we think they won't come together to destroy their attacker also? Why do we think the US is inviolate? That nobody would ever think of coming over here and attacking us?

This is the absolute logic of his foreign policy position, we have no business being over there attacking anything, if they DO come over here and attack us, then they deserve being turned into a parking lot or bombed back to the stone age, but not until. Besides after we have bombed them back to the stone age, they can then realize that we were not the real enemy in the first place as we rebuild their countries just like most of Europe and Japan found out.

Just because we have the power, does NOT mean we HAVE to use it!

Sanest foreign policy that has come forth in DECADES!

Egilman,

Agree with you 100%

Thanks for the history lesson for the new posters here on FR

Well done, Egilman! Proud of you!!!!!

Apparently we were both winners!

I would rather watch paint dry than these buffoons try to out conservative one another. We had a one term Republican Senator, Jim Tallent (Romney supporter) was on Chuck Todd today wailing about what a 'change' candidate Romney is. Oh, I had to agree with him,...I'd call it more like Chameleon, right?

He can change an opinion or position faster than a bunny at a Nevada Brothel.

Once Perry dropped out,...the entertainment value reduced to its minimal 1/2 life.

Oh, I had to agree with him,...I'd call it more like Chameleon, right?

LOL Clara. Agreed!

Those mothers are also more than likely Democrats

No they are not. There is no proof other than you saying so. That would be like me saying that all dumb a$$es are Republicans.

So?

You say that kind of stuff here every day, (I Need A) JOB1. You honestly don't think that single mothers aren't a large part of the base of the Food Stamp President?

Now, Damage, don't go blaming the Republicans for treating single mom Bristol Palin like a celebrity during Sarah Palin's run in 2008. How dare you suggest the Republicans are responsible for encouraging young women to have children outside of marriage.

Don't forget Jody - Palin's son, Trick or Treat or whatever the hell his name is, knocked up his girlfriend out of wedlock!

Grama Grizzley managed to get them to the alter with her shotgun a couple of months before the birth.

Abstinence only at it's finest in the Palin household.

Actually, if you look at teen pregnancy rates, they're the highest in the South, aka The RED States.

Damage: is there something wrong with your mental facilities? All single new mothers are DEMOCRATS??? Do you even hear yourself? Guess you haven't heard which party is leading with the most conservative and least educated? Yup...that'd be your geniuses.

TeaPeople celebrated Bristol Palin and her out of wedlock pregnancy!

Where's Octomom?

Hypocrits!

Don't hit me with the Palins. That's a family with money because they've actually worked for a living. A baby born into that family has a much better chance at life and won't be taking $$$ from the taxpayers to pay for their irresponsibility. The trailer trash and the ghetto mamas wouldn't be so reckless if they didn't have all you people making excuses for them and insisting that WE pay for them.

Damage,

You do live in la la land. Single moms have been around a hell of a lot longer than President Obama. Come on and act like you have some common sense when you post.

And some lame study says the Republicans are generally less educated them Democrats. so whats your point...

Or am I assuming too much.. like there was even a point to be made

Is damage acknowledging that abstinence only programs DO NOT work?

It's so en vogue to screw around like rabbits and then when you become a public figure announce it is nobody's business.

Blame the trailer trash; but not the 'model' citizens? I am laughing my ass off at damage for his outrageous DEFENSE of whether or not someone can AFFORD to raise children. WTF?

explain to me again why the party line is NO contraception?

Damage, I pray that you will one day follow the advice of your Party's Platform and accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior. He can fix what is wrong with your head and heart.

Now, here's the tricky part, AFTER you accept him into your heart, please remember to THROW THE PLATFORM DOCUMENT OUT THE WINDOW and instead follow the Bible and the actual teachings of Christ...THIS is where the Party goes wrong everytime, to this day!

Be the first...I am pulling for you! :)

Don't hit me with the Palins. That's a family with money because they've actually worked for a living

Sarah Palin couldn't even finish out her term as governor. What serious work has she done since then? And Todd managed to do a lot of snowmobile racing. What else has he done?

Really, if you're going to argue a point, choose one that is worth arguing.

I'm waiting for the movie!

When are you people gonna learn that it's NOT a good idea to say that everyone who disagrees with you is a DUPE of Fox News, then turn around and admit that you get all your info from the Obama Network? You really thing Larry O'Donnell and Keanu Maddow are credible news sources for anybody other than far lefty, pissy-pants libs?

Damage, you're a bigger @!$%# than Spanky...you should be proud.

...oh so proud...

Amen, Mickey, ignore him.

Damage is just background noise. No content and no value. Fail.

there are certainly strong arguments — mainstream conservative arguments — against President Obama's policies

Sometimes I think I would make a better Republican candidate against Obama than anyone currently running. I went to the Romney Rally in Portland a few weeks ago, half afraid I would hear cogent arguments against Obama's policies - instead, all Romney could serve up was boilerplate talking points. One minute he'd be decrying the growth of the federal government, the next he'd be urging we increase the size of the military and lard up with destroyers, aircraft and enough weaponry to fight two wars at once. Bottom line is, Republicans are hoping people are stupid enough, or bigoted enough to replace a stellar President with a mediocre Republican. For the sake of our country, I hope that doesn't happen.

Amy: if any of the candidates (Ron Paul excepted) were at all close to mediocre, they might be acceptable. Rick Santorrum, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are all so bad that not one of them has been able to get near 50% of the votes in the various primaries and caucuses.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, is so good that the GOP does not know how to handle him. I really hope for the sake of the country that he does break out and get more of the delegates in the next few weeks. He is absolutely right about one thing, if we are to go to war, we need to to it Constitutionally, have a debate in Congress and have a declaration of war.

Great ststement, Auntie. By the way, you need to Google some cool stuff about the congessional race a few years back featuring John Lewis vs Julian Bond. Maybe somebody should ask Lewis how "civil" he felt then? Two old friends, ripping each other to pieces in one of the nastiest political races in history. Slander, name-calling. It was great.

By the way, what was your opinion of when the OccuTards refused to let Lewis speak at their rally a few months ago? Humiliated him on TV. LOL. Why no talk then of violating his rights like when he LIED about being abused by the Tea Partiers?

Yeah, Damage, kinda reminds me of LAST NIGHT!! I have NO opinion on the refusal by Occupy. Excrement occurs. It was their loss.

Now, back to the statement that Lewis LIED about being spat on. This originates with Andrew Breitbart. Andrew Breitbart regularly gets exposed as a fraud. I loved him showing up with a glass of wine at an Occupy site. Need a little liquid courage, did we? Is it time for the Wednesday night spin dry sessions? What's with the hair? As George Thoroughgood once sang, "get a haircut and get a real job!!"

Let's hope the next time we see George W. Bush in public is at President Obama's 2nd inauguration ceremony.

Bless you Nash for setting the record straight...

Stop by on the flip side if you get a chance - I miss ya!

Thanks for checking in on me Feisty . . . I miss you too . . . got a lot of projects going on at work but I will stop by today for sure! :o)

Memo to the media/GOP: MSNBC/Present Leadership of the Democratic Party/Nashville Fan;

Likewise, the truth does not cease to exist because you refuse to acknowledge it, either!

Obama hasn't done $#!+ to fix the economy.

...and THAT is the TRUTH!

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

......"Bless you Nash for setting the record straight... .........."

Neither one of you would know the truth, if it jumped up and bit you on your funky rear ends.

Then again, what should we expect from Obama-Lama-Ding-Dongs?

Good to see you too J. Merle . . . got to admit though "funky rear ends" is a little 3rd grade . . . but hey, if that is how you choose to use your freedom of speech, it does tell us a lot about your "mindset" . . . lol!

P.S. President Obama, much to your chagrin, is one HELL of a President . . . and singer . . . there isn't much this man can't do . . . . . . and well . . . and no amount of double talk is gonna change it . . . I note that you cannot back up what you say with facts . . . because the TRUTH is that things are BETTER because the President did not listen to the likes of you. Thank goodness! :o)

Obama hasn't done $#!+ to fix the economy.

Let's hear your fairly tales stories about how the stock market is at the lowest levels in history. Oh wait, you can't, because under Obama, it has returned to pre-crash levels. Another loser loses again. Let's see your next faux bash Obama comment please.

There are several reasons the GOP's voted against having a legislative commission come up with a bill to reduce the deficit:

1. The commission would have recommending raising taxes, particularly on the upper income bracket.

2. The commission would have recommended cuts to defense, oil subsidies, farm subsidies and each congressman's own private little pork barrel.

Nashville_fan

............"Good to see you too J. Merle . . . got to admit though "funky rear ends" is a little 3rd grade . . . but hey, if that is how you choose to use your freedom of speech, it does tell us a lot about your "mindset" . . . lol!

P.S. President Obama, much to your chagrin, is one HELL of a President . . . and singer . . . there isn't much this man can't do . . . . . . and well . . . and no amount of double talk is gonna change it . . . I note that you cannot back up what you say with facts . . . because the TRUTH is that things are BETTER because the President did not listen to the likes of you. Thank goodness! :o) ............"

LOL, and the absolute @!$%#E that you and NastyRedNeckpost is more "adult"?.......Ha Ha Ha

You and Nasty together have the collective intelligenceof a middle schooler, at best.

Face up to the TRUTH; Obama hasn't done @!$%#E to fix this economy in more than three years. YOU are the one who LIES by saying things are better, and you are also the one can't back up your lies with fact.

Maybe your federal disability entitlement package has increased, and that's why you say things are better.

But, for the rest of us who have jobs, the economy is in rancid condition.

Obama is a sad, sad excuse for a Preasident. Especially when he apologized over the quran burning incident for which two U.S. servicemen were killed.

(SMH) That's a SORRY ASSED excuse for a commander in chief.

Try and make an educated point instead of just blathering crap all over the internet.

Really? Where are the bombings, shootings and people being beaten up in bus stations? Lewis is a senile old idiot and a LIAR.

Irony alert,...in a post north of this one, damage DEFENDS the Palins. lmfao.

We Dems seriously can't make this stuff up. The depths the haters will go to support their unqualified 'leaders' is comical.

Irony alert,...in a post north of this one, damage DEFENDS the Palins. lmfao.

And to think the NJBJ thinks the left does not understand irony.

Hey drizzle, good description of obama (aka curious George). America hates Obama so badly we will vote for any of the above instead of that monkey.

DessertQueen...

Way to go...stay classy my friend...stay classy...

...Oh, and the dry cleaners called...your white hood is ready...

Well said, Mickey.

and the real winner from all last nights beat down......OBAMA.

These cogntively dissonant clowns are so out of touch it's pathetic. We are wintessing the slow death of the GOP......like a wounded animal trashing and kicking away on the side of the road, helpless, confused, in pain......the only difference is the GOP already smells bad! ewwwwwwwwww.

true true true ... Obama is looking really good for now.

my point being that in terms of the GOP race, Ron Paul is positioned to make the most of the current situation.

RP in the contest really is a counterpoint to the far right, and effectively highlights their weakness in right wing extremism (the gop's)