E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSAt 12:30 pm ET, Obama to give rebuttal to Ryan (and Romney by extension)… In yet another reminder the general election is now underway, Obama camp launches its second ad, and it takes a swing at Romney by name… Primary day: Polls close in DC and Maryland at 8:00 pm ET, and they close in Wisconsin at 9:00 pm ET… Obama comments on the SCOTUS oral arguments… And that GSA story: What happened in Vegas didn’t stay in Vegas.
Carolyn Kaster / AP
President Barack Obama gestures during a joint news conference on Monday, April 2, 2012, in the Rose Garden of the White House.
*** Obama’s rebuttal to Ryan (and Romney): When we said yesterday that the general-election train had left the station, we weren’t exaggerating… In remarks he’ll deliver to an Associated Press luncheon at 12:30 pm ET, President Obama will blast the Paul Ryan budget plan that House Republicans passed last week -- and that GOP presidential front-runner Mitt Romney has embraced. In fact, Romney has appeared on the campaign trail with Ryan in recent days. “This congressional Republican budget … is something different altogether. It’s a Trojan Horse,” Obama is expected to say, per excerpts. “Disguised as deficit-reduction plan, it’s really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country. It’s nothing but thinly-veiled Social Darwinism. It’s antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity and upward mobility for everyone who’s willing to work for it - a place where prosperity doesn’t trickle down from the top, but grows outward from the heart of the middle class. And by gutting the very things we need to grow an economy that’s built to last - education and training; research and development - it’s a prescription for decline.”
*** We’re not in Kansas anymore: Senior administration officials are billing Obama’s address -- coming on the same day as another round of GOP primaries -- as an important speech, and they say it builds off his remarks in Kansas last December (when he invoked Teddy Roosevelt’s “square deal”) and his State of the Union in January (when he talked about an economy “built to last”). But it also reminds us of the speech he delivered at this same time last year hitting the Ryan plan (as Ryan sat in the audience at George Washington University). “There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires,” Obama said in that April 13, 2011 speech. “There’s nothing courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill. And this is not a vision of the America I know.”
The Washington Post's Nia-Malika Henderson, Politico's Lois Romano, and USA Today's Jackie Kucinich join The Daily Rundown to discuss why Mitt Romney will answer questions about the practice of his religion, but not the doctrine.
*** Team Obama launches their second ad… : More evidence that the general campaign is well underway, the Obama camp released its second major TV ad -- and it hits Romney … by name. “Under President Obama, domestic oil production's at an eight-year high,” the ad goes. “So why is Big Oil attacking him? Because he's fighting to end their tax breaks. He's raising mileage standards, and doubling renewable energy. In all these fights, Mitt Romney's stood with Big Oil- for their tax breaks, attacking higher mileage standards and renewables.” While everyone is focused on the fact the ad refers to Romney, the bigger story here -- at least to us -- is that it’s yet another response to a TV ad campaign by a conservative group with ties to the Koch Brothers. In January, the Obama campaign responded to a $6 million Americans for Prosperity buy. And now, it’s responding to $3 million-plus American Energy Alliance launch. By the way, this Obama ad is airing in six states (CO, FL, IA, NV, OH, and VA), while the American Energy Alliance hit is in eight states. Will we see the pro-Obama Super PAC focus on the other two states (MI, NM)?
*** … and takes a swing at Romney: While this Obama ad is a response to the American Energy Alliance, the message the Obama campaign seems to be sending to GOP outside groups is: If you come after us, we’re going to take a swing at Romney and make him own everything (similar to how Bush ’04 handled the Dem outside groups for Kerry). Indeed, what Team Obama is doing here -- in today’s speech and with this ad -- is attempting to portray Romney as simply a cog of the conservative machine. The implication: If he’s elected, he’ll implement the Ryan budget plan. If he’s elected, the Koch Brothers will help shape his energy policy. They believe this builds on the narrative Romney’s GOP rivals have tried to establish about the former Massachusetts governor: that he’s an empty vessel. Romney has to fight this image at some point. He needs a BIG idea that he comes up and that the entire party embraces. Right now, Romney is embracing everyone else’s ideas; he can’t afford to simply be “generic Republican nominee” that owns the Republican brand -- which is what Team Obama is trying to do. The Republican brand is not a good one right now.
*** Today’s primaries in DC, Maryland, and Wisconsin: As wrote late last week, today’s GOP primaries -- especially the one in Wisconsin -- represent a last chance for Rick Santorum to change the math and perception in the Republican presidential contest. But they also offer this challenge to Romney: With the political winds (and GOP establishment) at his back, can he score a touchdown? Or does he have to settle for a field goal (as he did in Michigan and Ohio)? By the way, the Wisconsin primary is a test of our demographics-as-destiny theory. In fact, according to the exit polls, Wisconsin seems to fit exactly between Michigan (which Romney narrowly won) and Illinois (which he won by double digits. In Wisconsin in the 2008 GOP primary, 38% were evangelicals (compared with the 43% we saw in Illinois and 42% we saw in Michigan this year); 21% made more than $100,000 (versus 37% in Illinois and 33% in Michigan); and 39% were college grads (versus 51% in Michigan and 49% in Illinois). So if demographics are destiny, Romney should win Wisconsin between five and 10 points.
Although Rick Santorum has claimed the Wisconsin primary isn't "do or die," pretty much everyone else seems to disagree. The Daily Rundown's Chuck Todd reports.
*** The delegate skinny on today’s primaries: Per NBC’s John Bailey, Wisconsin has 42 total delegates, 39 of which are at stake tonight -- 24 Congressional District delegates (three for each of the state’s eight districts) and 15 At-Large delegates. The 24 CD delegates are winner-take-all per CD vote, so three delegates to the winner of each district. The 15 AL delegates are winner-take-all per statewide vote. The three RNC delegates are technically unbound by the primary results but they traditionally vote for the statewide winner. Maryland, meanwhile, has 37 total delegates -- 24 Congressional District delegates, 10 At-Large delegates, and three RNC delegates. All 37 are bound by the primary results. The 24 Congressional District delegates are winner-take-all within each district, so the highest vote-getter within each district gets that district’s three delegates. The 10 At-Large delegates and three RNC delegates all go to the statewide winner. And Bailey adds that DC has 19 delegates --16 At-Large delegates and three RNC delegates. DC allocates its delegates in a winner-take-all format. The winner of the district-wide vote gets the 16 At-Large delegates, while the three RNC delegates remain unbound. Rick Santorum is not on the ballot in DC, so all 16 are likely to go to Mitt Romney.
*** Poll closings, ad spending, and the current delegate count: Polls close in DC and Maryland at 8:00 pm ET, and they close in Wisconsin at 9:00 pm ET. When it comes to the ad spending in today’s contests, Team Romney outspent Team Santorum nearly 4-to-1 in Wisconsin, $3.1 million to $866,000. And Team Romney has no competition in Maryland or DC, outspending the GOP rivals, $1.4 million to zero. And here’s NBC’s official delegate count: Mitt Romney 490, Rick Santorum 203, Newt Gingrich 137, and Ron Paul 34.
*** On the trail: Gingrich visits DC and later makes a stop in North Carolina…Santorum hosts an election night event in Mars, PA... Paul attends a town hall in Chico, CA…And Romney has lunch in Waukesha and holds his election-night event in Milwaukee.
*** Obama comments on the SCOTUS oral arguments: Yesterday, President Obama gavae his first response to the Supreme Court oral arguments over the health-care law. "I’m confident that this will be upheld, because it should be upheld," he said, adding: “I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years, what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.” While Obama’s comments were a bit surprising – he could have simply brushed aside questions about the case until after the Supreme Court issues its opinion in June – does anyone think it was newsworthy that he believes his law is constitutional and that it should be upheld? The only surprise about the president’s remarks is that he went public with the strategy we reported on last week: that the White House was going to fall back on IF Court ruled against them.
*** What happened in Vegas didn’t stay in Vegas: The head of the General Services Agency resigned her post on Tuesday after reports surfaced that members of the GSA had spent excessive amounts of money on a training conference in Las Vegas, NBC’s Ali Weinberg reported yesterday. The good news for the White House with this GSA news: It managed to make it a one-day story. The bad news: It only reinforces the stereotype that government and its civil-service employees are out of control. And this is why this story is so damaging LONG term for those on the side of “smart” government.
Countdown to Election Day: 217 days
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower
Leave a Comment:
And the winner is…Romney:
Political pundits, armed with poll numbers are predicting that Romney will win tonight in Wisconsin. He most likely will win and around 10:00 p.m. we will see an empty suit on stage with a gaggle of folks standing behind him thanking the Republicans of Wisconsin. Pundits are probably correct that this is the end of the road for Santorum.
Established Republicans will be relieved that the bloodletting will come to an end. Romney is their man. But there are a few issues that still exist.
1)Romney has not captured the hearts of the majority of Republicans. It's hard to warm up to a wooden man. Most Republicans vote for him simply because they believe he has the best chance to beat our President.
2)Demographics show that Romney wins with the very wealthy, but that's about it: Not women, not conservatives, not evangelicals, not the youth, and not the middle class.
3)Romney has a propensity of putting his foot in his mouth. i.e. his wife's two Cadillacs , the enjoyment of firing people, knowing owners of football teams and racing teams, and the list goes on.
4)Romney flip-flops and lies, which destroy any credibility he hopes to have. The country will be seeing a lot of YouTube files revealing all the gaffes made by Mittens.
5)Romney's unfavorable ratings are now at 50% with little chance that Romney will be seen in a more favorable light.
To satisfy the GOP/TP Mittens will look for a conservative for the number 2 spot. Don't count on Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, Bobby Jindal, or Bob McDonnell . They don't want to be associated with a looser and they are already looking to 2016. I'm thinking the nod will go to Rick Santorum as he is the only one foolish enough to accept. Then the two can explain to the rest of us that they did not mean all the nasty things they said about each other.
Listening to the Alaskan wild ding bat's screeching on the Today Show is causing my ears to bleed profusely...
Personally, I'll take an avocado, bacon & Monterrey jack cheese omelet of a word salad for breakfast ANYDAY!
What the hell WERE they thinking...?
Looks like Barry, Dems in Congress, and the Professional Left have declared war on a SEPARATE and EQUAL branch of the US government, as defined in the US Constitution.
Here’s an idea: Why doesn’t Barry just declare himself King of the United States of America, send in a goon squad to arrest the SC Justices he disagrees with, and have them beheaded in a public execution on the Palace’s South Lawn for their impudence.
How dare they decide the question of whether or not parts, or all, of Barry’s Clunkercare POS violates the Constitution. I guess our “constitutional scholar” President was absent at Harvard Law School and in high school civics class on the days they taught about Marbury v. Madison. You know, the 1803 decision establishing the constitutional role of judicial review of actions by the legislative and executive branches under Article III of the Constitution.
From Politico:
Obama, the left take on SCOTUS
By: Carrie Budoff Brown and Jennifer Epstein
April 3, 2012 04:49 AM EDT
President Barack Obama has joined a growing number of Democratic lawmakers, left-leaning commentators and progressive activists who are warning the Supreme Court on the health care law: Don’t you dare overturn it.
Obama made an unusual pre-emptive strike Monday that previews the Democratic strategy if the high court nixes all or major parts of his signature domestic achievement. His volley, coming less than a week after the oral arguments wrapped up and while the justices are still deliberating, injects a high-level dose of politics into the most anticipated ruling since the court settled the 2000 presidential race.
His message was simple: The Roberts Court is on trial.
America needs Mitt Romney now more than ever. It is the PRESIDENTS job to LEAD, yet all Obama can do is to criticize the other side and divide America. He's created a war on everything. He's proven how bad a president is when he creates an environment where nothing can get done.
Obama has increased the deficit $1.5 Trillion per year since his first day in office and doesn't have a plan to fix it. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
Democrats don't care about the debt and leaving the burden to our children. In fact "liberals" say deficit spending is a good thing. As proof they tout Obamacare, even though it's been proven that it will increase the deficit by an additional $1.6 Trillion by year 2025 (the CBO numbers only carry costs to 2021 but deficits accrue starting 2023).
There are no plans, none. Obama's budget (which was voted down 414-0) doesn't address the deficit, and all he can do is criticize the plan that does. That's not leadership, it's failure to lead. Obama is a failure as a president, democrats are a failure as a party, and liberals are a failure to society.
Mitt Romney 2012
Because I Say So
Michael Barone: "Liberal commentators were shocked this past week when in three days of oral argument in the lawsuits challenging Obamacare, five Supreme Court justices -- a majority -- asked questions strongly suggesting they think the legislation is unconstitutional."
E.J. Dionne: "So imagine the shock when conservative justices repeatedly spouted views closely resembling the tweets and talking points issued by organizations of the sort funded by the Koch brothers."
Hmmm, we seem to have a failure to communicate here. One man's suggestion that Obamacare is unconstitutional is another man's superficial talking point – enabled by evil incarnate, no less. Only in left wing la la land would consideration of the weighty issue of constitutionality be characterized as a trivial talking point.
But demeaning the opposition is a central tactic of how the left plays the game, you can see it on this board every day. And folks like Dionne use their establishment WaPo credentials to lend an aura of reasonableness to even their most unreasonable suggestions. So when Dionne made a concerted attempt recently to portray conservatives as extremists who have radicalized the Republican party and pushed the Court off the deep end, those who are easily swayed by superficial arguments nod their heads wisely and praise the author for his insightful commentary. Same deal with Paul Krugman, although Krugman makes Dionne look like an amateur at this game.
But these are just diversions to distract attention from the main event. The left is scared $hitless the Supreme Court will overturn Obamacare so they need to attack the legitimacy of both the institution of the Court as well as anyone who would dare challenge the constitutionality of Obama's signature legislative achievement. So the long knives are out for anyone who would make a case that Congress overstepped its bounds in this matter.
And it's not just the chattering class wielding these knives, the concerted campaign to attack the Court extends all the way to the White House. Yesterday the president had the nerve to publicly express his distaste for anyone who doesn't agree with him on this issue, to include those scoundrels on the Supreme Court. In his view, Obamacare was duly passed by the legislative branch and signed by him, so case closed. And any action the Court might take other than sitting there like a potted plant would be an egregious example of judicial activism run amok.
My goodness, the audacity of this man just takes your breath away! What he basically said was the Court should subordinate its role in deciding the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress and bow to HIS determination instead. No need for the Court to weigh in, our Constitutional Scholar-in-Chief has already made the call. Gee, with multi-tasking like that what the heck do we need a Supreme Court for anyway? Just concentrate that power in one man who can interpret the Constitution any way he damn well pleases, then sell it to the masses under the guise of hope and change to obscure the damage being done to our form of government.
To say this president is bad for America would be a gross understatement.
There comes a point when you've had enough. You're patience is exhausted. You realize that no amount of reason, no amount of proof is going to win an argument. All that remains is to make the choice between walking away from ignorance or standing your ground. (Hmmm, standing your ground, have we heard that before?) Let's stand our ground.
The health care debate is not over, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules. If they strike down ACA, millions of Americans remain uninsured. Health insurance companies continue to destroy the financial health of the U.S. even as they deny health care to the people they supposedly insure. If the Court upholds ACA, the entire health care industry will require a complete overhaul.
Not one thing has changed from what I wrote several days ago. "The majority of citizens are insured through private insurers, those grand examples of free enterprise. We pay more, insure fewer, and scream like stuck pigs when someone tries to fix this grotesque system." That is indisputable fact.
However, such a simple statement was twisted into a tangle of lies by none other than Kirk, a right-wing icon of ignorance. This is what he wrote. "David, for someone who thinks they are the voice of intellectual reasoning for the looney left on here, you showed an amazing lack of understanding of insurance and how health care is paid for in this country. when you say that most americans have employer provided coverage, you could have said 85% because that is somewhat higher than most."
Nothing says ignorance like an inability to master your native language. Verb agreement? David is suddenly "they"? Punctuation is an inconvenience. We don't capitalize the "A" in Americans? Time to invoke Strix' Law, the Law of Irrelevant Ignorance, or "just because I'm stupid, doesn't mean I'm not smart."
I have never presented myself as the voice of "intellectual reasoning" for anyone. This raises two questions. First, is there more than one kind of reasoning? Non-intellectual reasoning? Secondly, in a classic example of projection, flyweight Kirk takes the position that he holds the correct view. Only he has the correct understanding of insurance. Really? REALLY?
I did not write that most Americans have employer-provided coverage. I clearly wrote, "...the majority of citizens...." Is that a point too fine? No. First, a huge number of Americans are insured through Medicare. This is not an employer-paid program. As a matter of fact, more than a few lefties have laughed at the ignorant tea baggers who hate government programs, but insist that government not touch their Medicare. According to the most recent census, Medicare covers more than 44-million Americans. Here's a link: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0913/Census-report-More-Americans-relying-on-Medicare-Medicaid-VIDEO
That same census says Medicaid covers another 48-million. Close to six-million receive their care through the VA. Counting uninsured and those covered by Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA that's about 150-million citizens with either no insurance or with government insurance. Where does that 85% figure come from? It's crap. That's what it is. Pure crap.
Yet, the Kirk's, with their superior reasoning ability, tell us that the current system, which runs about twice the costs of other industrialized nations AND delivers inferior services is the answer. "Oh woe is us. We shouldn't be forced to pay for others' health care." YOU ALREADY ARE, YOU IDIOTS! Let's at least be efficient about it. Single payer is the answer.
Stamp out Republicans. Educate their children.
Ron Indiana
And the winner is…Romney:
That is so true Ron. Only because he outspends everyone. I've never seen any candidate who is more disliked the more he is seen. I really hope Santorum drops out. Personally, I tried of seeing all these clowns do nothing other than LIE.
Obama/ Biden in a 2012 landslide
Bet on women!!!
I'm certain Mr. Obama will make references to his wonderful budget, which didn't pass by a vote of 414-0 in the House. This follows a 97-0 vote in the Senate against his 2012 budget.
Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL
Listening to the Alaskan wild ding bat's screeching on the Today Show is causing my ears to bleed profusely...
Personally, I'll take an avocado, bacon & Monterrey jack cheese omelet of a word salad for breakfast ANYDAY!
What the hell WERE they thinking...?
Probably, do we need to get a translator for her word salad? The real question is what is she "thinking"? We know she's not good at that!!!!
I didn't watch her and have no need to watch her. Isn't she violating her contract with FAUX NEWS?
Palin is still under contract to Fox News. Her exclusivity has been exercised on a strict basis, keeping her from appearing on most other media, even for an interview. She has appeared only once on one of the non-Fox Sunday news programs in this election cycle. When she made her announcement that she was not going to be a candidate for the GOP presidential nomination on Mark Levin’s radio show, her boss, Roger Ailes, exploded with rage saying that “I paid her for two years to make this announcement on my network.” It seems unlikely that her appearance as a co-host on a competing network (especially their nemesis, NBC) would be permitted under the circumstances.
Of course the primary reason that Palin doesn’t do other media is that she is unable to form a coherent thought and knows that she would embarrass herself by attempting to do so.
http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=6765
Hey tea people Koch republicans, wasn't it just 4 years ago you were warning the SC not to be activist judges? And now the hypocrites are cheering the activist judges. Oh I see you shook the etch-a-sketch and started over. Only in tea people Koch republican world is this possible.
Good morning, everyone. Just stopping in to say hello and let you all know that I did my civic duty today and voted for -- drum roll, please ... Newt Gingrich.
Man-o-man, did that feel good.
You have my full support all the way to the convention, Newty Boy.
Now, don't blow it. Leave that little word picture for Rick Santorum.
See, here's the deal, David. You're EASILY worth two of "them."
So, embrace it. ;-)
Coming from you, that is funny.
+What happened to the civility we should have for our opponents after the left wing nut loeffner killed those people in AZ. You liberals are the biggest hypocrytes.
A Romney and Ryan ticket. Twiddle Dee and Twiddle Dum. What a dream ticket for President Obama. He couldn't have picked a better team of opponents if he'd picked them himself. Can you just see Romney trying to debate the President? Romney and all his stuttering will look like a fool. And Ryan, can you see him trying to sell his disastrous Health Plan to Biden? At least 70% of the Country think he's nut's. Can't wait, it's going to be a circus.
Obama n 2012,
As we all know, Palin is the Republican Party number one idiot. And that is a fact.
Have already been receiving emails from AARP on the new Ryan Plan and the 2012 election. Some folks are none to happy with the GOP stance on healthcare and Medicare.
Cali Tom,
Paul Ryan's Budget takes health insurance away from over 50 million Americans - to pay for a $3 trillion tax cut for the top 1%.
Rep. Ryan (R-WI) guts federal Education spending by 45% over ten years. By limiting access to quality education for all:
Ryan MAKES CLEAR the GOP/Koch plan to limit our children's access to quality education and spoil their chances for a good future in a competitive global economy.
Tom -- In all probability, Ryan wants to run for VP mostly because he is afraid of losing his own district in November. Wouldn't that be embarrassing? The Republicans have already gerrymandered out his own hometown because we can be pretty sure he would lose that, and even so, I think he still has a very good chance of losing. He's not as popular here as he likes to think, and his town hall meetings were a disaster, even without Joe Biden. The seniors ate the guy for lunch.
Good thing, too, because thanks to Republicans, they probably needed a free meal.
Good morning Ron,
A Great Post on your part.
Good morning David,
A Grand Slam Home Run!
Well written and so true Bill.
With every new day, Obama is getting more creepy with his rhetoric. He's become a petulant child with anyone that disagrees with him. Guess he doesn't understand that the Judiciary is a separate but equal branch of the government.
phinephancy-4252115
Have already been receiving emails from AARP on the new Ryan Plan and the 2012 election. Some folks are none to happy with the GOP stance on healthcare and Medicare.
I am one of the those folks. I just don't understand how anyone can support people who want to put an end to or severely cripple the health care system that almost 1/3 of this nation relies on.
But it wouldn't stop there. They would also like nothing better than to eliminate SS. I guess they believe that no one should have a right to stop working at some point in their life and enjoy a comfortable retirement unless they were born with a silver spoon. The republican party is filled with huge money donors and rich politicians that have enjoyed a lifetime of leisure and act as if the rest of the people in the nation should have no chance to enjoy even a few minutes of comfort in their waning years.
OBAMA/BIDEN 2012
Obama is running against Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitution and capitalism. How can he lose?
Romney is acting like the nominee and so let the battle begin !
Romney's economic plan raises the deficit, while hosting a slew of tax breaks for the wealthy, while he endorses Ryan's plan that cuts medicaid and will force seniors to pay $8000 a year in extra health care costs in a privatized system which is untenable.
Romney is so out of touch with foreign policy, playing to the older/white/wealthy/angry crowd he makes an enemy of Russia and gets blasted by Clinton (squared).
Face it, your Republican choice is a loser with women, hispanics, and youth.
Bravo David!
You hit the nail squarely on the head, especially appropriate if you read some of the comments further down!
The
hatersmorons can't even spell 'liar' correctly... lmaoOur children haven't had quality education since the federal government got involved with the creation of the Department of Education in 1980, and with the amount of per student annual expenditures, all students should be receiving a gold-plated education and that ain't happening.
Think back to when our students could last compete with students from around the globe. When was that? it was the 50's 60' and part of the 70's well before the federal government became entrenched in the education process. Today's students can hardly compete on Main Street, USA and have no chance of competing on the global economic highway they are faced with traversing whether they like it or not.
JoAnnaSmith1
I'm certain Mr. Obama will make references to his wonderful budget, which didn't pass by a vote of 414-0 in the House. This follows a 97-0 vote in the Senate against his 2012 budget.
I'm certain you have no idea why. Put your specks on, read something other than that crap from right wing nutjob websites, or turn off FOX to get the real REASON instead of LIES.
Fox has a license to LIE!!!
http://www.librarygrape.com/2009/06/court-fox-news-has-first-amendment.html
Rational One,
Really? Okay, since Romney's such a fantastic leader please point me to where I can find his plan for fixing healthcare, Afghanistan, education, infrastructure, Wall St, Iran, entitilements, energy and the China situation.
I know he doesn't like Obamacare, taxing, or spending, and Dodd-Frank, so what are his alternatives to them that will fix our nation? As a good leader, he should have a plan for all of those things.
As far as Ryan's budget...
As I said yesterday, I'll give him points for being cute, however he gets more points for being santimonious.
This is a good thing! I hope the Today Show brings Sarah back for a repeat!!!
John(post 1.22) this is exactly what's happening.... don't forget he's sued Arizona and Wisconsin who defied him as well! Never in history have we been subjected to a president with such a massive ego, extreme narcisstic behaviour, and a massive failed presidency! Can we survive? Only if we avert a repeat! Romney/Ryan or Rubio... 2012!
...and likely won't be for many years to come. The weird conglomeration of corporate bigwigs, redneck bigots, Tea Party dupes and looney evangelicals is too weak to hold water. It isn't healthy for our country to enrich the wealthy and gut the middle class. Sane people can see that.
Karl Rove and his kind need to go.
The GOP needs to spend forty years in the wilderness, re-thinking their policy of lies and their selfish megalomania. We need another party, but the GOP has gone off the deep end and now they must repent.
That's what I like, Mr. President - All the teabagging Greedy Old Party has is whining, fear and desperation ... Hit the ignorant, hypocritical, illogical and stupid teabagging Greedy Old Party and hit them HARD.
Obama/Biden 2012
On Social Darwinism,
GOP today continues the Social Darwinist belief that anyone who anyone is not THEM is of lesser intelligence and DESERVES their lowly lot in life.
The 'Social Darwinists' (1860 -1880's) were not Darwinists at all, but they used that term. (Darwin never said there is any kind of goal to evolution.)
The idea espoused by these wealthy whites was that folks from different parts of the world are not sufficiently evolved, and could be ranked - with exclusively western (London/Paris/Munich) people on the top.
Social Darwinists wrongly claimed there were lower species of humans, that in the naturally order of things could be wiped out as lesser races.
This just shows how out of touch libtards are when they demagogue. Romney's plan actually reduces tax breaks for the rich by getting rid of deductions. Ryan's plan doesn't force anything on current seniors. Your rhetoric has exposed you as a liar.
Joe in Albany
Looks like Joe forgot all the right-wing whining about the "activist judges" whose decisions the rightwingdings didn't like. But you go ahead, Joe. Shake your Etch-A-Sketch real hard and all those troublesome historical facts will disappear and then you can draw in new ones.
Love it; "flyweight" applies equally well to several other RWNJs who post here.
Smiff,
As long as we're engaged in English lessons this morning, it's "anyone who disagrees with him", not "that disagrees with him".
RationalOne, you are anything but.
Nope, doesn't force anything on them at all. Since they won't be able to afford health insurance under Ryan's plan (unless they want to give up shelter or food), they can just crawl off and die.
Sarah, ask and ye shall receive: http://www.mittromney.com
Anna -- Isn't David one of the best! The irony in this is that his one post refutes many. They know it.
RationalOne-674831
What loopholes? Actual specific loopholes? Or more of the vague pie-in-the-sky-by-and-by promises to get rid of lots of unspecified loopholes sometime in the vague future. The pie-in-the-sky variety are the only kind Mittens and his boy-wonder sidekick Paul Ryan have produced so far.
I'm just not comfortable with Romney... He seems sneaky, too weak, jumps all around but can't get comfortable with his situation... Then you have "No-Drama Obama" This is a no brainier...
And after tonight Santorum can get himself a job on the 700 Club...
Houston!, you have a problem. "Activist judges" create laws from the bench. If the SC were to create laws as alternatives to the unconstitutional Obamacare, then you could call them "activist judges".
Romney turned a $3 Billion deficit in Mass into a $2 Billion "rainy-day fund" in 4 years. He has the experience that people can trust. He does have specific plans, you can read more at www.mittromney.com
Ryan, my Republican Muslim Brother, believes the only good education that the taxpayers should pay for is reading the Koran. Once you accept Allah, chances are you don't need a higher education unless you are rich. Rich people are picked by Allah, are devout Muslims, and need people to do
theirGod's work for next to nothing, anyway.Muslim Republicans, if anything, at least come up with a story why their wealthy need to rule. Communist Democrats do it behind the scenes with favors. The chairman gets to boogie board while the people's education system teaches us it is okay to have only one pair of shoes for your entire lifetime. Good news is under the communists, their healthcare will actually fix your broken arm rather than amputate it in the name of Muslim Republican Allah.
Rational,
Where are your non-partisan sources to back that claim up, or are we just supposed to take your word from it. Really, his campaign website??? That's the source you provide??? Yeah, no spin there. Mine came from the Washington Post. In addition to that, this is what CNN had to say about Romney's plan...
http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/25/news/economy/romney_economic_plan/index.htm
Furthermore...
The deficit??? Get real. Romney's tax plan, according to Forbes, would add 3 trillion to the deficit, over the course of 10 years. Not to be out done, Gingrich's would add 1 trillion, in a single year. And Santorum's would have federal revenues declining by about 900 billion by 2015.
According to the CBO, on average our discretionary budget is about 1.35 trillion. Our defense spending is about 1.45 tillion. And, of course, approximately 1.56 trillion on entitlements.
So, basically, if you wanted to offset Romney's or Santorum's revenue decreases with spending cuts, we would have to not spend a single dime. On anything. And Gingrich's, well that wouldn't even be possible
Well, let's not be too hasty, shall we? I'd be willing to bet that, if we just step back a bit, we can think of several other factors that might have more to do with the decline in educational quality than the Department of Education.
Let's try drugs and alcohol, for example, or poverty, or the conservative assault on teachers, which drove me out of the profession and keeps many of the best and brightest from even attempting it. Who needs it with enemies like you? Let's add in cultural distractions, cell phones, self-absorbed and absentee parents -- and I'm not just talking about single-parent households -- and the ever increasing clamor to pay less in taxes so we can keep more and more for ourselves.
I don't think the Department of Education was responsible for all of that, but just in case it was, what EXACTLY did Republicans do about it when they held both the White House AND Congress from 2001 through 2006?
EXACTLY what they did about it was to pass "No Child Left Behind," which was nothing but a boondoggle for "educational" software companies like the one that belongs to George W. Bush's brother, Neil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Bush
Oh, those pesky facts.
You remember, Neil, don't you? Hero of the Silverado Savings and Loan scandal that cost the federal government $1.3 billion to bail it out.
Neil should have gone to jail instead of into the educational software business, but my goodness, we couldn't have that, could we?
And THAT's EXACTLY what you get when you let Republicans run education.
Mo-1852032
If JoAnnSmith1, Bill Fairfax, and Joe Albany shake their Etch-A-Sketches any harder this morning, they're going to break them.
Obama is going to talk about the economy? Bash the Ryan plan? Did Obama's budget proposal get even one vote in either house? Has the senate even passed a budget in the past three years? Did the House pass a budget when Pelosi was in charge? Have the Democrats offered any solution to the skyrocketing national debt or the trillion plus in annual deficits? No they have not.
Seems like Obama should be looking in a mirror and talking directly to the Democrats with yet another economy speech. This endless blame the republicans that control less then 1/3 of Washington is worn out and tired. Republicans have limited power in Washington and yet Obama can't seem to get anything done, makes you wonder if he really wants too or is blame his only game?
Calling out and bashing the supreme court at a joint news conference was pretty tacky of Obama. Same with the scolding he gave the supreme court at his state of the union address. The supreme court is fine as long as they uphold Obama's ideology, but they are participating in judicial activism if they don't. I wonder what it was like playing with Obama as a kid with his basketball, do you suppose he reminded them before every game who had to win?
I love the "Fox has a license to LIE!!!" comment, after all wasn't it NBC that edited the Zimmerman 911 tape to instill racial overtones? I wonder how many people that bash Fox News have actually watched any of their programming? Or do they simply rely on the Democrat talking points for an "honest" analysis?
Rational,
Read that entire website, there aren't any solutions. It's a lot of fancy words for tax cuts, deregulation, war, and drilling. And that's from his own campaign, no I'm sure their non-partisan.
Same old, same old.
What continues to kill me is that the majority of the tards that vote for these people are not rich, and don't have the wherewithal to EVER be rich. The stupidity is just mind blowing.
For example, with gas prices at damn near record levels everywhere, I'm 100% certain if legislation was introduced (and some was) to help stop this from happening, the dumb a$$es would be on the vine and elsewhere criticizing the attempts to do that.
The GOP knows what they are doing when they cut education...they want to keep the children of these tards nice and dumb, so they can stay in power.
If they strike down the AHA, what happens in Massachusetts? What about federal representatives getting health-care that they have mandated that I pay for with my tax dollars I have no choice in the matter, I did not get to vote on or bargain for those benefits they receive, I must buy them insurance. As their employer and provider of their health-care benefits I am sure they are receiving medicines and procedures that I find morally objectionable and should not be forced to provide to them. I say we give then what they want no federally mandated tax payer provided health insurance and no collective bargaining (they don't really bargain they just vote themselves a raise) they must individually cut a deal with their district in regards to their pay and benefits. Why should poor districts be federally mandated to pay their outrageous salary and benefits, which in cash alone is over 12 times the federal minimum wage. Congressional pay alone without the fringes is over 8 times the median income in Texas. Why should they be forced to provide health care to someone who makes 8 times as much cash as they do. How would you like a full lifetime retirement for 5 years of service, keep this in mind when they tell you what they can't afford for public sector employees and things such as medicare, remember what they can easily afford and mandate for themselves.
RationalOne,
You, RationalOne, are the one who has the problem. Activist judges don't create laws from the bench. Activist judges interpret laws according to their own particular political/social/cultural philosophy, rather than reading the law impartially. and basing their findings on precedent. There is an enormous difference between "create" and "interpret".
Second, the ACA isn't unconstitutional, in part or in whole, until and unless the Supreme Court says it is. You are entitled to your opinion, but when you make a flat statement that the law is unconstitutional, you lose all credibility.
Rick,
Do you have even the teeniest brain in your head? You're another one of the "flyweights" David was talking about.
Yes his campaign website, absolutely. Specifically here:
http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/BelieveInAmerica-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Full.pdf
Those are HIS plans, not some "non-partisan" sources that "think" they know what his plans are... As I've stated elsewhere, Romney has the experience to balance budgets. As Governor of Mass. he turned a $3 Billion deficit into a $2 Billion plus. Past performance is a pretty good indicator of future results.
We know what our current presidents past performance has been, and we cannot afford his future results. Hell, we can't even afford his present ones.
kbt: ...and likely won't be for many years to come.
-------------------------------
Many prognosticators said the GOP was a "Regional party" after the 2008 election. How did that work out in 2010 again?
So you're just wishing.
Which laws are you babbling about? Please name the statute passed by liberal activist judges. Get real. What you mean by "judicial activist" is a judge who makes a ruling you don't like. The conservative majority on the contemproary Supreme Court installed the guy who lost the popular vote in the Oval Office, it made a bizarre interpretation of anti-discrimination laws in the Lily Ledbetter case that prevents people from suing for wage discrimination that the Democratic majority in Congress had to correct legislatively, and of course the Citizens United abomination that can only be overturned with a Constitutional Amendment. The radical right wingers on the Supreme Court have been busy little beavers, gnawing away at the Constitution. If that's not judicial activism, nothing is.
Oh, I see. There aren't actually any loopholes that Romney and Ryan have any intention of closing. They're just slinging BS in the hopes that people will be gullible enough to swallow it.
Rational,
There you go again, confusing facts and studies with liberal bias. Are you kidding me? Are you that naive in regards to everything? You just take people's word for it, as long as it supports your preconceived notions? No independant thought or research?
Remember when Barack HUSSEIN Obama was going around lying, saying that "46 million" Americans don't have health insurance." Turns out, he was including 20 million illegal immigrants in that number. Although liberals think othwerwise, illegal aliens are CITIZENS OF OTHER COUNTRIES. Not Americans.
The right..."you liberals are a bunch of idiots"
The left..."you conservatives are a bunch of morons"
People who know better..."Haha look at all the school children bickering"
In reviewing Obama's new 2013 Budget projections, Obama projects that there will be a Budget Deficit of almost $9 Trillion from health care (Medicare and Medicaid) over the next 10 years.
Obama refused to even address this glaring Deficit, but he's more than eager to demonize anyone that does try to fix it (Ryan).
If it was not for this health care Deficit, we would have a $1.6 Trillion SURPLUS over 10 years (Obama's projections).
If a republican president had submitted a budget that went down to defeat in the Senate by a vote of 97 to nothing, he'd be a laughing stock. The media would never let up.
If that same president submitted a budget one year later to the House, and it was voted down 414 to nothing, he'd be hounded out of office.
Heck, I'm pretty sure the media would do the same to most democrats. This is Obama, however. The idol of their cult. So, we get the "tree falling in the forest" routine.
Kind of like the DoE Dollars to Donors program. The latest? First Solar- which got Three Billion dollars- and just filed for bankruptcy, bringing the total of dollars the taxpayers are on the hook for to $9.5 billion- just for that program.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57358484/tax-dollars-backing-some-risky-energy-projects/
Here, by the way, is an incomplete list of Obama donor backed companies that we, the taxpayers, have given cash to- that have since gone bankrupt:
Excelon, Energy Conversion Devices, Inc., Abound Solar, Sun Power, Solo Power, BrightSource, SpectraWatt, Evergreen, EverDel, BeaconPower Corp., Next Era, Solyndra, and, now, First Solar.
There you have the bakers dirty dozen. (a bakers dozen, by the way, is 12+1- for the baker).
That list does not even begin to touch the tip of the iceberg. It does not include Treasury Department grants and loan guarantees to such companies as LightSquared- also bankrupt, after the revelation that their broadband would compromise GPS used by consumers, the military, and the airlines. A four star Air Force general testified, under oath before a congressional committee, that he was pressured to change his testimony that the company's broadband did NOT negatively impact on those areas.
He refused.
It does not include Siga - a pharmaceutical company owned by Ron Perelman, which received over $400 billion for an unneeded, u necessary, and untested smallpox vaccine- and for which other bidders were blocked from bidding.
By the way- Steven Chu gave himself an 'A' for his handling of these loan programs- and well he should. He achieved his objective- fully 80% of taxpayer dollars went into the pockets of Obama donors, after all. That was the objective.
Obama has informed us that he plans to double down on these programs. That message, dear taxpayer,is not for you, but for his donors. They need to know that the honeypot is not dried up.
Tell you what- let's prove him wrong.
Obama shelved in 2012.
Hey! Look what happened in Sanford FLA!!!! No doubt Jesse and Al and MSNBC are on the case!!!! Nahhhh. The victim is white. Don't hold your breath.
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/deputies-men-beat-another-man-hammer-sanford/nMHW6/
"If I had a son, he'd look just like Julius Bender." - Barack Obama
Damage,
Real quick, you don't have to fully capitalize his middle name. Nobody cares that it's Hussein, and no one thinks or would even care if he's Muslim, except for the most bigotted, paranoid individuals.
Sarah and Houston, what? are you guys kidding me??? Romney at least says he will start with Simpson-Bowles recommendations. Our failure of a president has run so far from his own Simpson-Bowles commission that it's laughable. Did you even read Romney's plan? Right, thought not. Here it is again for you:
http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/BelieveInAmerica-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Full.pdf
At least Romney and Ryan are coming up with a plan, not this do nothing, divide America president we have today. ROFL.
RationalOne-674831...and just what part of Romney's so called budget do you endorse...the cutting of more funds from education? How about the fields of science..which have added to our country's economy over the years. Or I have to assume that cutting so called entitlements to all even though they mostly are taken out of our pay checksa is ok / It must also be ok to cut further the taxes the wealthy pay while cutting funding to everything else...except it seems the military funding..which ...big business is a huge part of..heaven forbid cutting their profits a dime.
Rational,
Simpson-Bowles includes tax increases. How will he get that through the House??? How does that square with the Norquist pledge? What's magical about Romney, that tax increases will be passed with him in charge?
And you didn't answer my questions...
You just take people's word for it, as long as it supports your preconceived notions? No independant thought or research?
Nor did you respond to the information I posted from Forbes, the CBO, or the Washington Post. What do you say about that? Or are you just going to continue to "ROFL" and post the link to Romney's own website?
And, by the way, is that "ROFL" your way of showing us disdain? So annoying, we all know you're not ACTUALLY rolling on the floor. How could you type, if you were?
Of course you wouldn't care if he was a Muslim, Sarah. But you'll be plenty pissed off if you thought he was a devout Christian.
Awww Sarah ... there you go again, trying to be rational with Damage. Oops, Damage and rational in the same sentence, oxymoron on my part.
Damage,
No, I don't mind Christians. And I do think he's one. Really, I could give a flying rat's ass, either way as long as it's not forced on me or used to legislate.
Pray away, buddy.
And you, oh Superior Being, read this worthless site because .....?
And you have added ..... to the discussion this morning?
Maybe Sarah would, but not me. That's EXACTLY what I thought he was when I voted for him.
And even though I'm not so much of a devout Christian myself.
Late breaking update, and really no surprise -- Sarah doesn't either.
We wouldn't perhaps be projecting our own bigotry, here, would we, Damage123?
no jo,
Surely you know the reason behind those unanimous votes, no jo. Surely you are not so dumb that you don't know. Why do you waste everyone's time setting up straw men? It only makes you look foolish.
@AM
This is exactly why you have to cut taxes and give politicians less power. Whether its Republicans with Neil Bush, Cheney and Halliburton or Obama and Solyndra, once they have your money they cannot be trusted. The biggest robbery in history. Where did the SS trust fund go?
And on the theme that Obama is just a continuation of 8 years of Bush. His comments yesterday on the SCOTUS could have come straight out of Bush or Cheney's mouth.
This has been the worst 12 years of Administration in living memory.
Hmmm...., how many congressional democrats voted for the Obama budget proposal...?
Allow me to explain something fundamental, Ivan-
While a good many people BELIEVE the world will stop spinning on its axis if government cuts spending for their favored programs, once those cuts are made, they never know the difference.
Here in New Jersey, Christie cut the budget to the bone. He completely defunded many programs, and severely cut back other programs. He even cut state aid to schools.
Guess what? He's the most popular governor we've had since Tom Kean.
http://nj1015.com/chris-christies-approval-rating-remains-high-according-to-new-poll-audio/
Another extremely popular governor, Indiana's Mitch Daniels, also cut state spending- real cuts, not just "cuts in the rate of increase"- is on record as saying something to the effect of "people don't know how much government they'll never miss". ( that's a paraphrase, by the way).
He was right. He also has sky high approval ratings.
Spending cuts =less spending= less government=less debt= happy voters.
Well, not liberal voters. They hate everything not stolen from the pockets of some and given to others.
No wonder they're such a minority.
Obama should run on his record! New mile stone for liberals today, 30% of all single mothers, in America, are now living in poverty! Another new high for this president. Obama is telling everyone that the GOP plan will not work, and his is working? Obama on business, Profit is bad, so is poverty what we should all want? Obama like to say that we should all work together, for what? No pay? So I'm sitting hear, and getting more Obama hot air, more talking about expanding government, and how businesses should hire more people, when they don't have the funds to pay them. Now more people are going broke, gas is going up, kids are going hungry, more people are homeless everyday, and this is the presidents hope and change for all of us? So here is the big question that I want to know, is he fallowing Karl Marx ideas on how to run a country or Hitlers scam on how to blame hard working people? We have seen this before, Obama is repeating history, it did not work back then, and it is not working now. Even smart liberals are seeing this president as a failure, but will they do the right thing by voting Obama out in November? I sure hope so. Here come the love from the blind left!! How long before someone will blame Bush? Or claim that it is not Obamas fault? Or old feisty rust head to blame fox news?? Show me something new, Show me how the ice age made Obama look so bad.
Good morning kiddies,
First of all I would like to thank the RWNJ's for their insulting and racist depictions of the President in their avatars. That makes it so much faster and easier then having to actually read their drivel before I put them on "ignore". I really appreciate it guys.
An Open Letter to Paul Ryan and the GOP
Dear All,
The circular firing squad you and your party call a 'primary' continues today and will, no doubt, further damage the GOP. You have lost the election already, why don't you save the country some money, concede the election, fold your tents and go home. Wait for 2016 when you might have a better chance with the open seat. As it is now, President Obama is headed for a landslide re-election of historic proportions. Paul, you and I know that means he'll have a coat-tail affect down the ticket and could really hurt your candidates for state and local offices. You could loose the House and allow the Democrats to gain a super majority in the Senate. Do yourselves a favor and get out now while you still have a slight chance to hold onto the house.
Here's another piece of advice. Take your Tea Party members to the woodshed and tell them to get with the program. Stop acting like idealogues and start acting like statesmen or you're going to hurt your chances in 2016.
I'm giving you this advice Paul, because it's good advice and I know you will not take it. You're going to run Poor Mitt Romney and the President is going to defeat him in an historic landslide. I really just want to be able to tell you, 'I told you so'.
Best wishes,
Skip
Obama/Biden 2012 Hillary/Michelle 2016
Thank you for explaining so clearly the Republican agenda on education.
I mean, besides selling their lame-brain educational software to schools who are trying to comply with their lame-brain educational "reforms."
Did you hear that, socialcapitalist? Get your head out of the sand. THIS is what YOUR side is about.
Well, you had me right up to the President's SCOTUS remarks. I was a little surprise, I must admit, but it's actually about time that someone called out the TRUE activist judges on the Court for what they really are. I've never seen ANYTHING like Scalia's openly scornful, disrespectful, and derisive performance on the bench last week. I notice that you conveniently left that part out.
If anything, Scalia asked for it, and all the President did was oblige. And about time.
Sarah, I have researched Romney's plan extensively, with independent sources and my own reasoning. By closing loopholes (deductions recommended by Simpson-Bowles) revenue will be increased.
And yes, I'm "on the floor" laughing so hard because of your hack questions that shows the double standard for liberals. They would rather have a "do nothing" president that keeps increasing our debt until we hit a "Greece Wall" than one that actually wants to do something...
Yeah what ivan, NC said. Plus you forgot the cutting of NASA which led to losing thousands of highly skilled engineering jobs, science, math, and physics. That cut probably hurt every school in the country and wasted decades of research and study. Wait that was Obama that cut that funding, so never mind.
Why would anyone want to cut 500 billion from Medicare? That is a needed program for our seniors and it is already going bankrupt. That sort of cut will only accelerate the decline of the program. Wait that was Obama that cut that funding, so never mind.
Military spending has to be cut. We simply spend too much on defense. So where has Obama been on defense spending? He kept Gitmo open. We are still in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama got us involved in Libya. Has Obama cut any spending anyplace at all?
So lets go after big corporations and big oil in particular. So what if when Obama was a senator he voted for oil subsidies. This is another priceless Democrat I voted for it before I was against it moment. Besides Obama needs those billions to pass out to more donors I mean green energy companies so they like this country can go bankrupt while still be thankful to the president.
Okay how about the Bush tax cuts, surely Obama cut those right? Oh wait I forgot, its all Bush's fault. Well when you have clowns voting for clowns and then defending those clowns, it is at least good for a laugh even if the country is racing toward a financial catastrophe. If Obama gets a second term, will it be the 23rd or 24th centuries we will be borrowing from to pay for his debt?
So many good posts today by those damn libtards! The "let's collapse" crowd is out in full force today.
Onward libtards! You must be doing something right. Rational can't keep up.
No Jack I don't know the reason why all the Democrats voted against Obama's budget. I found this possible answer. If this is not the case please enlighten me.
If this is the case then the Democrats of 2012 are the same spineless wonders of 2009 when they wouldn't pass a tax to fund the ACA. Tell me Jack which political party has balls? The Republicans who propose highly unpopular cuts Medicare but vote on their principals or Democrats who will not even support their President because it is politically dangerous to be tied to the tax increases required to pay for their spending?
This is the House, not the Senate where the leader may vote against a bill to re-introduce it under the parliamentary procedure.
Ha the only thing that might indicate that the president is a Muslim is that he has certainly sent a hell of a lot them to their promised land, right Damaged.
Personally I would never do what they do for 72 Virgins, you would have to throw at least one good slut in the mix. 72 virgins does not sound like a party, 71 virgins and at least one very naughty girl or no deal.
Rational,
So why don't you answer those questions or present those non bias sources for me to check out? Why don't you respond to anything that I've posted with more than Romney's own website?
Simpson-Bowles includes tax increases. How will he get that through the House??? How does that square with the Norquist pledge? What's magical about Romney, that tax increases will be passed with him in charge?
How is this going to work???...
The deficit??? Get real. Romney's tax plan, according to Forbes, would add 3 trillion to the deficit, over the course of 10 years. Not to be out done, Gingrich's would add 1 trillion, in a single year. And Santorum's would have federal revenues declining by about 900 billion by 2015.
According to the CBO, on average our discretionary budget is about 1.35 trillion. Our defense spending is about 1.45 tillion. And, of course, approximately 1.56 trillion on entitlements.
And please, since you're so wise, answer to the discrepancies found by the Washington Post...
Don't you wanna change my mind? That's how to do it, you know.
@Damage: Romney IS a Muslim, just like you and me, my Muslim Brother! What did God tell you when you prayed to Mecca today?
@Sarah: Are you weaing your Depression Grey today? Remember, it is important to dress right when going to the factory.
.
I totally agree, Emanuel...except for the 'nice' part.
If only.
OBAMA/BIDEN 2012
Derek,
Of course, with my "Conformity Gray" shoes and scarf. Truly, I look about as commie as possible.
Damage 123, If Jesus Christ were elected President, we would have a Jew in the White House. I wonder what devout Christians would think about that.
Bruce,
They'd call him a Socialist and tell him he needed to stop pandering to the "entitlement class".
Derek! My Muslim brother! How's your wife taking that whole "not letting her drive because she's a woman" thing? Mine gave me a little trouble at first but I made her "see the light", praise Allah.
How's your son Little Ali's jihad training coming along? You know, my son Abdullah just completed his first suicide bombing lesson! (Sigh) Ahhhhhh, they blow up so fast these days....(sigh)
Amen to that! Might I add it's refreshing to see the President back at it too.
"If I had a son, he'd look just like Julius Bender." - Barack Obama
Derek,
I don't think Damage is picking up on the nuances that make your posts funny. Those being the similarities between the right wing and fundementalist Muslims.
I just said a prayer for your soul.
Because, first, you reek of someone who's a political hack who isn't interested in changing their mind. Second, because your sources are in Obama's back pocket. Third, the source I did post answers all your questions... Here it is again.
http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/BelieveInAmerica-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Full.pdf
Jesus being interviewed on Fox in 2012.
Do you have a job Jesus? Well uh not really?
Do you always hang around with 12 other men that don't have jobs? Yes mostly.
Are you often seen in the company of a known prositute. Yes, she is our friend.
You and your friends claim to be fishermen but you never seem to go fishing. Well we are fishers of men.
Wow this is not going so well, cut to commercial!
So Sarah,
Is spending billions on an ineffective program better than letting the market take it's course? As far as I see the Administration's policy is to help those who can't pay off their loan under any circumstances, while ignoring the 80%+ of home owners who have negative equity but are meeting their payments.
Rational,
First, Romney's website isn't non-partisan. Second, you can't. That about sums it up.
John lotsa#,
Oh, please.
Condescending dips**t.
Alan,
How about this, let's start with going after the companies that got us into this mess. And don't give me that crap about Freddie/Fannie. They're only responsible for 16% of the proliferation of high risk mortgages. The government said, "You can't discriminate" not, "Get people into bad mortgages, cut them up, swap them around, bet on them, insure them yourselves with our tax dollars, and don't worry about capital requirements". Furthermore, Fannie/Freddie didn't dole out mortgages at all, they provided funds for those who did.
You know where we need the government??? Right, smack dab, in the middle of Wall St. That's where. How about we start with those homeowners using that money they got from Obama to SUE THE PANTS OFF OF THE MORTGAGE COMPANIES. It won't be so "useless" then. Than, I'll tell you what, we create fiduciary duties between lenders and borrowers, he implement capital requirements and limit leverage, we institute some transparency, and we break up the big banks.
Now that's an f-ing plan.
Furthermore, you're contradicting yourself...
You can't complain about the government getting involved, and than gripe about them only being involved for the bottom 20% and not the other 80%. If anything, the less involved they are, the happier you should be.
said JA1 who is the #1 excuser for the person whose favorite line was "you either with us or you're with the terrorists"
John,
Thanks dude. I'll let you know if it helps.
I would pick up on those similarities Sarah, if there WERE any. But since Romney and Santorum are not calling for the deaths of all non-Christians, advocating all Americans live according to the bible, oppressing women and non-Christians etc...there are no similarities.
Of course, you like to think that they are doing all of the above. But that's just because you're a sniveling liberal with that old liberal sickness: the need to feel like you are being oppressed by people. Get alife. Nobody wants to make you go to church. Nobody wants to stop you from having as much casual sex as you want. Nobody's going to stop you from killing your baby if you "choose." Jeez. You people and your adolescent persecution complexes.
@AM
Yep, right up there with Bush and his comments
Reasonable people can disagree on the individual mandate. I don't want it to be declared constitutional because I believe it will used by future lawmakers to pass further laws that mandate requirements by citizens. This is a loss of freedom. There were many other ways the ACA could have been funded. To me this is about setting a bad precedent, not about the ultimate goal of the ACA.
I think we have lost enough freedom over the last 12 years, starting with the Patriot Act through NDAA. Passed by two different Presidents of two different parties. But now we have a law on the books that allows the President to incarcerate an American citizen indefinitely, with no recourse to a court. In addition, we have an AG making the case that it is legal for an execution order to be issued by a President, on an American citizen, with the Executive Branch deciding what due process the defendant(I don't even know what word to use here - victim?) will receive.
And now these two Administrations are attempting to de-legitimize the Supreme Court unless they can get their own "people" in place.
It's scary...
Murdering a baby is a crime. Aborting a fetus is not.
Choose your words with more tact.
Yes, I actually did LOL at this.
@Sarah and Damage....look, all the hyperbole aside (but only for a little while) why is it that I, as a voter, always have to pick someone who say they'll work on the economy as their first priority, and then the moment they get into office, it becomes something else? Is it because the government really has nothing to do with how the economy turns out? So I should really worry about states (Republicans) making more of the laws than Feds (Democrats)? Neither party is giving me ANY legistlation answer to what happened in 2008. Neither. One tells me that somehow no regulation is needed, and the other is regulating healthcare.
What am I exactly supposed to do? Honestly, II don't mind talking about social issues. But why will we not talk about what banks owned by Democrats and Republicans did in 2008? Truth too close to home to these politicians to talk about?
You get my point, right?
Doesn't this depend A LOT on whose interests you are trying to serve?
Besides, what we have now IS a market-based approach. Just the wrong one.
At the beginning of the meltdown, I said that we would be better off putting the bailout money directly into the hands of homeowners so they could pay off their mortgages, rather than being foreclosed. This would, of course, benefit them AND the economy. They would be able to stay in their homes and spend their incomes on things that would actually stimulate the economy. Eventually, of course, it would trickle UP to the banks.
But, no.
What we did instead was exactly the opposite of what we needed to do. We gave the money to the banks, who have not moved inch one off the dime to relieve imperiled homeowners.
Instead of relieving the crisis, which they were supposed to do, banks have reacted selfishly by making it a lot tougher on homeowners. Why? So they could write off the debt to Uncle Sam, grab back all those properties, and sell them at bargain-basement prices to their real estate development cronies. Their cronies in turn fix them up a bit and then RENT them out at outrageous prices to those same folks who used to own them.
Potter's Field, if you will.
We see it in my own community, where landlords are now taking advantage of the rental housing shortage that the banks have created in order to gouge their tenants.
What a big surprise.
David, ouch that hurt. Again you were so eloquent and you are clearly a legend in your own mind. I love how you are now ignoring 95% of what I post and avoiding the substantitive aspects of each of the posts especially those parts that you cant refute. Instead you fall into the same tactic Anna Molly uses and now I see Jack does the same thing. You pick out one fact or statement that doesnt have anything to do with the substance of my argument or more likely the claim that you embellished, were wrong etc and use that as a basis for discrediting me. Then you attempt to use personal attacks or some attempt at belittling in the name of humor that says hey everyone look how stupid Kirk is. Given that you didnt even bother and never do, just like Jack and Anna Molly, to address the actual substance of the post, where do the personal attacks get you? Do you go home at night and say "Hey I just got this anonymous guy on the blog and wow I feel so much better?" I feel bad for you if thats what you are doing.
Lets start from the beginning--if you had actually read and comprehended my posts, you would have noticed that I wasnt a rabid anti ACA hater and most of my posts were discussing the expense side of health care. You clearly dont understand how medical insurance is paid for and you always blame the insurance companies and I was correcting your misconceptions because I figured you would want to be enlightened no different than how you attempt to enlighten me all the time. Instead you ignored all of the statements and posts regarding your errors and focus on something irrelevant. Good job David, you really got me.
Derek,
It's because big money interests own BOTH parties, so they distract people with their pandering and wedge issues. Toss in a little fear mongering, and BAM! You have a delicious caserole of "We're Fu**ed".
skip, yet you ignore the insulting avatars of your liberal posters and you also ignore their degrading and insulting viterol against anyone with opposing views to Obama's failed policies! I would call that a double standard!
I see the liberal collapse crowd is actively working to shut out those folks that oppose the wacko liberal agenda..... the Bill of Rights is for all Americans, not just the left! ...nice work skip!
Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL Comment collapsed by the community
Listening to the Alaskan wild ding bat's screeching on the Today Show is causing my ears to bleed profusely...
Personally, I'll take an avocado, bacon & Monterrey jack cheese omelet of a word salad for breakfast ANYDAY!
What the hell WERE they thinking.
#1.1 - Tue Apr 3, 2012 9:15 AM EDT
They were not thinking. Anyone who would listen to anything that moron Sarah Palin has to say is an idiot Republican.
Beverly in Chicago
Beverly – In all seriousness, I’d like to know WHY you think Obama’s plan didn’t get one vote. In your statement above, you assume if we all just read a couple sources it is clear. It isn’t. I don’t understand why he couldn’t get his at least some votes on his plan and the media has really glazed over this. As an independent, I want a balance between spending cuts and tax increases, but I believe the priority right now is spending less. We simply cannot afford more $1 Trillion deficits. Obama’s plan includes more deficit spending, even with tax increases. The only real cuts take place when he’s far removed from office, which means it won’t happen. Ryan’s plan does cut now and significantly. I don’t agree with all of it but it sure does cut our current spending and can be used as a starting point. (i.e. take some of his spending cuts and add in spending cuts for defense, etc.)
Right now, Obama criticizing the Ryan plan is very petty, even for election year standards. Like it or not, Ryan was at least able to lead and get his party on-board with his proposal. Obama must have (or should have) known that his budget wouldn’t get much support from his own party, so why didn’t he revise it? As an independent, if he can’t even manage a single vote for his proposal, either his plan was just that horrendous or he’s just not an effective leader on this issue. Perhaps a little of both.
I'm still waiting for Rational's link to back up his claim that he has done any research. I don't think you could find it even if you were looking! Keep up the great work Sarah. As usual, I agree with you 100% today.
I won't belabor this because we can never agree. But simply put, those 5 "people" who currently masquerade as the conservative majority on the Supreme Court are perhaps the least legitimate excuse for "justices" that I have seen in my lifetime.
One is inherently unqualified and so hideously clueless on the question of judicial ethics that he refuses to even countenance the possibility that his wife's working as a well-paid advocate for one of the sides in litigation in front of the court could possibly constitute a conflict. Another one is inherently conflicted, but not enough to actually do the right thing when the chips are down. The other three are ideologues of the worst possible sort, but Scalia is a narcissistic, religiously bigoted ideologue in a class by himself. And it isn't first class.
I never thought I'd see the day where I longed for William Rehnquist. But I do.
@Sarah
So you agree that the Administration's efforts have sucked and you come up with your own plan? Great. Who are you going to vote for to get it passed and implemented as neither party has supported what you advocate? Seems to me you agree that doing nothing would have been better than what has currently been attempted.
Now are you taking about capital requirements for the banks or the borrowers? For the banks that it what the Fed's Stress tests have been all about. So you should be happy that the Administration is doing what you want. Same with the FHA lending requirements, although there is already protests that the new requirements will affect low-income and minorities more.
As to complaining about the government getting involved. No I don't want them involved in this aspect of the crisis. Cleaning up the regulations and removing incentives to offer loans that cannot be paid, and then passing the buck, I have no problem with. However, to help the people who got into a mess, when they know they will still default, over the people who are actually paying their debt strikes me as unfair.
Anna Molly--wow and I thought you were an accomplished lawyer and somehow your political views have skewed your understanding of basic real estate economics. I supposed that local community banks in Wisconsin could be doing what your claimed but that would certainly put them at risk of going under but I can assure you that the big banks like JP, Chase, Citi are no where near doing what you think. In fact, I wish it were true that banks were selling off their foreclosed real estate to private equity shops for bargain basement prices because that would help me alot. Its the factual opposite. In fact, its the administration that is providing policy to the banks by not forcing them to mark to mark their assets down in a way that would cause them to sell at bargain basement prices that is keeping our real estate industry from recovering. They are extending and pretending that the loans they have might recover and not need to be sold. Banks dont want to foreclose or get ownership they want performing loans so you have that completely backwards. As for the reason why you are getting landlords to up their price or rent, it sounds like you wish we lived in a communist style country in which supply/demand and private capitalism didnt exist. Rents go up because their is demand willing to pay it. Currently there is so much money chasing multi family and driving the values up because our economy is in a rut and is not expanding and after 4 years whose fault is that? Once we expand where investment capital is invested in job producing areas like new development, new manufacturing we will see investments in very safe areas like this drop. I know you are going to say something about my lack of compassion or say see thats why in dont debate with you because you dont advocate that private business do everything in its power to make sure everyone in this country has the exact same standard of living I know I just dont get it.
Alan,
I was going to vote for someone named Rocky Anderson who's a member of the Justice Party, but than the GOP got too scary in their "I Hate" rhetoric, so now I will be voting against them, i.e. Obama.
Dodd-Frank has been gutted, the banking industry has spent billions seeing to that. What we really need to do is pass a Constitutional Amendment overturning Valeo and Citizen's United, than reenstate Glass-Stegall. Neither party has done that yet.
Chris,
Lol, and here I was really counting on Rational providing that info. Thanks Buddy!
And when have the three women on the court voted against a "progressive" cause? There are ideologues on both sides. And if you think Thomas is unqualified (I may agree with you there), there was always the chance that Robert Bork would be the Chief Justice right now, so watch what you wish for.
Honestly, that's about the only reason I can come up with too, Sarah.
WHO DOES THE ECONOMY NOT MATTER TO? Well, anybody who already has too much money, obviously.
So they line up to get other things they want. Wealthy Democrats on one side, Wealthy Republicans on the other. Then they push other agendas that matter more to them, and some to us. But the whole time, while the hissy fight is over some social agenda, it constantly seems to reset to zero. Meanwhile, the economy just doesn't matter to them, so whatever in that regard.
I personally think we are all stooges for following any of these talking heads that stand up on podiums and just lie about what they are 'reallly' going to work on. Romney, and Santorum will not fix the economy and no, just because they haven't had a chance to not do it yet, doesn't make them better candidates than Obama.
So since you and I don't matter because while we vote, we have no money, the important question is, would you rather wear a funny robe and have to believe a book of mythology (oh yeah, that's right, it is called 'religion') or would you rather get on your finest grey uniform and live knowing a miserable reality.
Really, and we come down on the Muslims for living in a fantasy land with virgins waiting in heaven. As if we don't do the same thing every time we go 'Dancing with the Stars.' Those stars, people we clearly will never be.
Totally agree. Dodds-frank was a turkey (even before it was gutted - by who). Yes, you need a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and at the same time the second amendment because I think there should be stronger gun laws, and I support the reinstatement of Glass-Stegall.
On the unlikely passing of constitutional amendments, why can't the Senate simply propose that all political contributions to any type of organization (503(c)) for example has to be reported to the SEC within 3 days. If you can't get limitations get transparency.
So, I come to the place for politics, and what do I find?
Not this
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2012/Apr/03/ex_dem_official_charged_in_ind__petition_forgery.html
I guess this is the "place" only for politics that benefit Obama.
I'm busy for the rest of the day, but I really must comment on the Klub House Kids plan to spin another aobama budget proposal garnering no votes-
Pretend there was some reason other than the obvious.
See, Jack- and the rest of you- I DO know why no democrats voted for Obama's budget this year- and last year.
There's an election coming up, and none of them want to be tagged as supporting Obama's spending.
What does THAT tell you about what their internal polls are telling THEM?
Sarah, just for comparison purposes, if Romney's plan adds $3 trillion to the debt over 10 years, how much does Obama's plan add to the deficit over 10 years. Its almost 3 times that amount which means that Romney's plan is actually bringing the future anticipated annual deficits down. I assume that he thinks his tax plan actually increases revenue as a result of both economic growth and elimination of loopholes and deductions so that when Backhouse says the top 1% is paying only an effective rate of 18% that when all the deductions are eliminated, albeit with a lower top marginal rate, that it becomes a huge tax increase for the wealthy because now they will be paying 25%.
You cant just use numbers that say that he is adding to the deficit without a comparison to Obama's plan. By the way I agree with you about Glass Steagal, that it was a huge mistake under the Clinton administration to eliminate this act from Bank compliance and investment requirements.
Phine, good morning. Interesting that you bring up AARP and elderly funding as I visited the social security web sight earlier this morning to get an estimated benifits payout summary. They were very clear on one aspect that would affect future payouts. The government website simply stated that by 2036 that they could only meet 77% of the estimated amount in payouts.
AARP and seniors can bury their heads if they choose, but without reforms, SS and medicare as we know it is not sustainable.
Is ryans plan good? Doesn't really matter, the right is willing to do something to make SS and medicare sustainable, whereas obama and company seem to want to ignore it. Really, why should obama care? He will have a bodyguard and healthcare far beyond what we mortals will have.
What disappoints me the most about obama is that he hasn't the chutzpa to tell the senate to come up with a budget plan to counter the houses so that a compromise plan can be worked out. Last I heard was that no one in the senate or house voted yes to obamas budget plan.
Believe it or not, I hear you. But in recent years, Kennedy hasn't been much different from what I imagine Bork would have been like.
At least we don't see the three female justices running around town with ALEC and the Koch brothers, or overtly flaunting their bias, like Scalia did on the bench the other day.
As far as I'm concerned, Scalia ranks right up there with Bork.
Presidents are politicians, Alan. Justices are not. And therein lies the difference. If they want to start acting like that, take away their lifetime appointments and let the voters decide.
Derek-381097 ... odd country you live in. I understand the scallops will be voting for Allah-Yaweh-God as in all cycles past. Scallops need to learn to hate their 'creator-chefs' and disdain the mythic virgin promised land.
Kirk -- all that alleged economic gobbledy-gook that you speak is swallowed up and spit out again by what is REALLY happening on Main Street. There's a lot of demand for rental units now because people have been forced out of their homes.
I've known since college that supply-siders never can make themselves clear. There's a good reason for that. We're living with the results of the fact that it doesn't work.
skip Nicholson, Oklahoma City
Well, I don't appreciate it. The overtly racist cartoons need to be banned from this web site. Where are the so-called "moderators"?
RationalOne-674831
No, you're kidding US. You can't point to a single specific loophole that Mittens and Boy Wonder Ryan actually said they would close, so you're just shaking your Etch-A-Sketch to make the question go away.
OMG...You agree with Newt on this? Maybe the Mayans are right, Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria! (Peter Venkman)
Kirk,
Listen, trickle down doesn't work. Look around you, we're at threshold of economic hell. First, let's get rid of the Bush Tax Cuts, FOR EVERYONE. That alone will bring debt to GDP below 50% placing it at a manageable level. Than, let's take a machete to the DOD. There is no reason this country can afford to have a military 14 times bigger than the second biggest, but we can't afford programs for the poor. Than, all those bloated beaurocratic departments, let's reorganize all of that, and instead of cutting a bunch of public jobs, let's utilize them in smart ways. Yes, let's raise the capital gains tax and make sure every corporation doing business in America pays for the society they proper off of.
Than, let's tackle China, and instead of engaging in a deregulation race back to the Guilded Age, let's force them into the 21st century. Let's even out the unfair trade advantage they currently have and nail them for their human rights violations, along with anyone who utilizes them.
With that money coming in and the increased efficiency, we can create jobs, both private and pubic, in the areas that need improvement, infrastructure, education, apprenticeship programs, manufacturing.
@Sarah
I found this for you...only $115 (probably made in China though)
R by 45RPM Japan blue pinstriped denim jacket coat 2/M chipao workwear mao shirt
http://www.ebay.com/itm/R-by-45RPM-Japan-blue-pinstriped-denim-jacket-coat-2-M-chipao-workwear-mao-shirt-/160764992584?pt=US_CSA_WC_Outerwear&hash=item256e571c48#ht_2235wt_1139
Sarah,
You have got to have one of the thickest skulls ever... or perhaps you are just that stupid... no... I've got it... you simply don't want to hear what he has to say so you refuse to listen.
You asked Rational to provide insight into Romney's 'plans' which he did by pointing you to Romney's website. So you said there was no plan located on that site and gave him a tongue lashing... he then provided the exact link for you to read and your response was the same.
Perhaps you would like for Rational to read it out loud to you. He could record it and point you to a link where you can listen. Would that help?
Not likely! You see... the problem is that you REFUSE to listen so you NEVER LEARN!
Typical left wing lunatic!
(show me the clown nose, fisty!)
SickoftheBickering,
No, I just want Rational to provide a non-partisan source that isn't going to spin things in the best light available. If I'm making a case for Obama, would it hold more water if numerous outside sources deemed it a good plan, or if Obama himself did?
However, you did get one thing right, I am stubborn. So I'll ask the same questions of you...
Can you please answer these...
Simpson-Bowles includes tax increases. How will he get that through the House??? How does that square with the Norquist pledge? What's magical about Romney, that tax increases will be passed with him in charge?
How is this going to work???...
The deficit??? Get real. Romney's tax plan, according to Forbes, would add 3 trillion to the deficit, over the course of 10 years. Not to be out done, Gingrich's would add 1 trillion, in a single year. And Santorum's would have federal revenues declining by about 900 billion by 2015.
According to the CBO, on average our discretionary budget is about 1.35 trillion. Our defense spending is about 1.45 tillion. And, of course, approximately 1.56 trillion on entitlements.
And please, since you're so wise, answer to the discrepancies found by the Washington Post...
Alan,
I have been known to rock a turtle/cowel neck. That's actually not that bad, in a hipster, vintage, commie, kind of way.
I wonder if Al, Jesse and all the others will denounce this attack?
Will Obama announce that the attackers also looked like his son if he had one?
Nice Find, Alan!
SickOfTheBickering, my Muslim Brother! Feisty is just doing her job as appointed by the Committee! Now, get back down with me and pray to Mecca. I think this is the 4th time today. Pray for our brothers Muslim Romney and Muslim Santorum!
John,
Yeah, see the difference here is they have already arrested those who did it, and justice has already begun the process of being served.
That's the key difference.
And no, Obama's son wouldn't have looked like him for two reasons. First, black or African genes are dominant, that's why bi-racial people tend to favor their black half over whatever other race they may belong to. Second, his wife is a black woman, meaning his son, as are his daughters, would be 3/4's black and 1/4 white.
Kirk, contrary to your post I read an article today that described exactlly what Anna Molly said. Investment groups are buying homes in vast quantities in the plans on repairing them and renting them out. It was somewhere on Yahoo, I do not feel like providing a lin sorry.
And to all those on the right with your doomsday theories of how Obama may destroy America tomorrow, I think you are all ridiculous. I do criticize Obama and until maybe a few years ago was highly critical. I did not think he did a bad job, I was simply upset with his message of great change, and how he scored against it. I was actually thinking a year ago he was going to be replaced in the upcoming election. Then out came the replacements.
To all those who claim us on the left refuse to criticize Obama, it is simply not true. The problem is even if I disaree with something Obama does, in that category most likely I dislike your alternative candidate's opinion on it more, or your candidate has commited a more egregious similar action. Many on the right are quick to claim an Obama problem without a solution. They spout Republican ideals that do not offer any solutions to our existing problems.
The removal of deductions does hit the rich and yes, it provides a lot of revenue for the government but it also causes the greatest grive on the middle class. Most of these deductions are capped. In that sense the percentage of income(or less taxes) these deductions provide the rich compared to the middle class is less favorable to the latter. It may be considered by some a step in the right direction but it steps harder on some than it does on others (the rich).
Ummmm, what does all that rambling mean? Obama already said that Martin would look like his son if he had one. I thought Martin was 100% black...I guess that 75% is close enough.
John,
My bad, I thought you were stating that Obama should claim that the victim looked like what his son would look like.
So, you were talking about the attackers? Well, technically yes, they probably would, however how is that situation the same as Trayvon Martin? I guess I don't understand your point in posting that than. Why should Obama make that claim?
I have a strong assumption as to why you'd bring that up, but please explain...
Thread the needle using tax reform. Remove the deductions and lower the rates. Look beyond the rhetoric.
1) The Buffet rule as proposed will collect less revenue than doing nothing. The proposal will remove the AMT, and the new revenue will not replace that.
2) End all corporate taxes and deductions. This immediately removes a huge amount of influence from lobbyists. Replace the revenue by taxing dividends at the same rate as income. Work out a rate and time for capital Gains that protects true investors over short term traders. Added benefits is that it gives companies the incentive to retain and invest earnings rather than distribute them to be taxed.
3) Propose timetable to reduce and eliminate the mortgage tax deduction. Why should people, like me, who are buying a house be subsidized by other taxpayers, especially renters. Probably a 10 year plan as you want to affect the current housing market as little as possible.
4) End deductions for children at 3.
5) End specific deductions for Medicare and SS. They are meaningless. Lowest tax rate should start at 8% and everyone should pay it, after their personal deductions.
Akeem, my comments werent related to foreclosed homes and I agree we have a huge issue that is not as simplistic as blaming the banks 100% or giving money directly to homeowners or blaming mortgage companies or banks. Anna Molly's comments and mine were specific to residential rental or multifamily. I dont believe my comments were that tough for her to understand its just its not what she wants to hear. I am talking mainstreet and I personally own a 4 unit in a very small town and I am in the real estate business now, and she just doesnt understand or want to understand real estate economics. She wants to place blame on the big bad evil banks or corporations or anyone but liberal policies. Its convenient for her and she really believes that a communal anti capitalist form of government is better even though she can look at history all over and see that utopia isnt found. Sorry but I am not buying it and she can avoid real discussion and pick out the small points to her favor while ignoring bigger issues. Home foreclosures are a bigger issue and I wasnt trying to address those.
As for your points regarding Obama and the GOP candidates, I couldnt agree more. I am critical of both and there are several things I dont think Obama has done a bad job. I am the most critical of his economic policies and his naive economic view of the world. Take for example, his foreign tax policy which he seems to not understand will actually drive corporations to move offshore and move jobs away from the US etc. I think the GOP provide a lot of different solutions to various issues they are just not the solutions the liberals and progressives want to hear and I dont agree with many. I am a fan of presidents like Reagan and Clinton who were pragmatic and divisive about their political agenda. Obama and Santorum and ideologues who are divisive in rhetoric and practice which bothers me.
Sarah, you provide much that I can agree with but some of it is simplistic and you are doing what you accuse the GOP of doing. You continue to discuss Romney's tax plan as trickle down when its not. It raises revenue and increases the effective tax rate for the wealthy and you ignore that it closes the deficit gap 60% more than Obama's budget. You cant ignore those while criticizing Romney. Trickle down has worked in the past with both Reagan, Clinton and Bush but Bush didnt follow it up with smart economic policies. Reagan and Clinton both reduced taxes in targeted areas making investment more productive and targeted and then increased rates to take advantage of the economic growth. Bush continued to flounder and increase spending dramatically spoiling and wasting any economic benefit from the increased economic growth.
As for China which you harp on, you cant ignore that so many US companies also see China as market for their goods and just simplistically creating an artificial increase in payroll will create inflation and a depression in the US far worse than we have now. You really want to shut off GM, Apple, Coca Cola, McDonalds, the Pharma from selling their goods to these countries and make their products non competitive in the US? If GM can no longer take advantage of lower labor costs in China or any other US company so they shift the jobs to the US, do you really think European countries and Japan etc are going to stop? So now Toyota can sell their cars far more cheaply in the US. I agree that we need to continue to level the playing field and I am not sure how we impact human rights unless you want to continue to foreign policy of George Bush and try to economically or militarily force our views on foreign countries and look how that has worked in the middle east. The globalization of economics is far more complicated than saying lets pay Chinese workers the same wage and the jobs will shift to the US.
Alan those are bitter pills to swallow.
Though your reason is right, renters should not subsidize interest paid by those on what is an investment, I do not see any politician being popular who chooses to do away with that. I know you proposed a timetable but you could you offer up a proposed time? Do not forget many go into the purchase of a home seeing it as a long investment. Also, smart buyers do so considering that they will get some of the interest back as an itemized deduction. Removing that would have a severe consequence on the lives of many.
I am all for remvoing most if not ALL corporate taxes replacing them with increased taxes on dividends and capital gains less than those held for 5 years (if not longer just keeping in mind seniors).
I do not have any problems with your other claims but one question. Does the Buffet rule as it is currently removed call for a removal of the AMT? I am not sure how I feel about that. It seems with that idea accountants could work a lot of magic for those claiming to only earn 750-999K a year.
Alan,
I like your ideas. I like ideas, period. They lead to compromise.
The only problem is the Norquist Pledge. Closing loopholes and everything else you mentioned is still considered a revenue increase and a no-no. If I were a politician, I'd take your ideas and my ideas and Akeem's ideas and start putting something together.
Alas, what do we do about the House GOP?
@Sarah - John, Tucson simply proved he is an epic fail at his attempt to become a master baiter. It was so thinly veiled, I could see all the way to China, much like my ridiculous pun(s).
I once dated a guy in college who had a Beta fish and named it Masta. I thought it was funny then too. :)
Geez, this is what I've been trying to tell you, Sarah. Romney hasn't agreed to not increasing revenues, only to not raise tax rates. He's already agreed to limiting deductions on rich people.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9906E0DC113EF930A15751C0A9649D8B63&pagewanted=all
He was able to work with a democratic majority during his time as Mass Governor. I'm pretty sure he can work with a republican one to get something passed.
RationalOne-674831
You seem to have missed this paragraph in the article you linked to:
So it appears that I was right: Romney wants to give everyone a tax cut, and he gets very specific about the numbers, but when it comes to balancing those tax cuts with loophole closures, he gets all loosey-goosey, pie-in-the-sky-by-and-by, just like Paul Ryan. If Romney is elected and he follows Ryan's plan, the only thing you can be sure of is that there will be more tax cuts for the rich (including Romney himself), big spending increases for defense, and severe cuts in many domestic programs.
I didn't miss that part, and it's a risk I'm willing to make based on Romney's past performance as Massachusetts Governor, Head of the Olympics, and his time with Bain. I don't believe Romney is like other politicians making promises he can't keep, he's a fix-it guy and is used to balancing budgets. He's already agreed to eliminating the deductions, written it in his plan, and it's going to be hard for him to go back on it.
We may not all like what he does, or how he does it, but he gets it done. That's what we need right now.
Romney 2012
Houston--why do the same thing the Obama critics do and assume Romney wont do what he says. If Romney is only paying an effective rate of 14% and Backhouse is always saying how the rich pay less than the poor so how can a 25% effective rate with the elimination of loopholes and deductions be a tax cut for the rich? Cant talk out of both sides of your mouth. Either the current effective rate of the rich is less or more than 25%. If its currently more, then I want all you progressives to stop the class warfare that is going on now and then you criticize Romney's plan. If its currently less, then you should love his plan.
RationalOne-674831
And do you believe he's a "moderate with progressive views", which is what he called himself back when he was running for office in Massachusetts? If you do, Romney probably has a bridge in Brooklyn that he can sell you, too.
Most voters are NOT going to support Paul Ryan's plan to end Medicare so the rich can enjoy even more tax breaks, and only the NRA neocon Hawks will support more defense spending (that the defense department says it doesn't need). So it's great to see Romney "palling around" with arse-backward Ryan Hood.
And this isn't even addressing the War on Women and other major turn-offs from the GOP/TP. Women care more about the price of gas than health care and access to birth control -- riiiight! Keep up the good work Teapublicans!
That goes for you too Kirk, move aside -- Derek-381097's posts are much better than yours.
Sarah-3043284-- So true about Norquist as well as Paul Ryan and funny business going on. I believe it was Arlen Specter who said to follow the money. Jon Stewart really exposed Norquist's lack of Rule of Reason, and who is funding Paul Ryan? These dweebs are trying to sell out America -- why?
RationalOne-674831 -- Romney is nothing but a vulture capitalist who favors plutocracy. You don't seem to be an investment banker or hedge fund manager, so I assume you're Mormon.
TP--really in what way? Besides political campaign rhetoric you provide, do you have anything of substance to dispute what I post?
@TruePatriot-445959 - Absolutely I am Mormon, I've said it more than a few times here and proud of it. That has no relevance, though, as to the reasons I support Romney. I think Harry Reid, also a Mormon, is an idiot and don't support him, even if he were to run for President.
There is no more relevance of a Mormon support for Romney because of his religion than African-Americans supporting Obama because of his race. So what's your point?
Okay, who are the idiots who actually support the Ryan plan??? To them I ask, what the hell is wrong with you??? The Ryan plan cuts billions of dollars from things like education and job retraining (which are in need of funds) and privatizes Medicare, sending the bill to each and every senior while sending the savings into the fat wallets of the upper class. It sends Medicaid to the states instead of keeping it under federal control (because feds are MUCH better at these programs) while giving the upper class a $3 trillion tax cut and sticking it to the little guy. Why??? Why the hell would anyone propose such an elitist plan, and who the @!$%# would vote for it??? I'll tell ya who: the damn GOP. They lied to us. They don't give a damn for the middle class, not after endorsing trickle-down economics and massive tax cuts for the rich. Instead of compromising at least a little bit to placate a few Democrats, this plan gives a huge one digit salute to the American people while advancing their ridiculous proposals. Tell me exactly how lowering taxes and cutting spending will help the economy and decrease the deficit. All this does is increase the rapid decline of America. Ryan is a @!$%#ing idiot. How can he claim that this stupid plan will lead America to prosperity when it cuts trillions to domestic programs, tears Medicare and Medicaid apart, AND gives trillions to the wealthy. Even more outrageous is the fact that Ryan has the guts to say that the poor people have weak moral fiber, even while the rich lay on billions of dollars of unused capital. How dare that bastard do that.
Obama Biden 2012
Democrats 2012
@!$%# the GOP 2012
Kirk-2957282, BrianB, who ever you are, you're a well-known troll -- Talk to the hand.
RationalOne-674831 -- I didn't know, but easily guessed it. Your religion and supporting Romney does have relevance, if for no other reason than obvious bias, and Harry Reid is easily explained as he and Democrats are an anomaly in the church. You don't just think Reid is an idiot, you despise, even hate him because Democrats are evil.
If folks think the Echo Chamber and Cone of Silence is bad among Teapublicans at large, you should see how socialization works from birth, and how dissent is dealt with in the Mormon church --especially in Utah or a Mormon-dominated community. Heck, if you want to see what a theocracy looks like, go to Utah--Provo or rural areas in particular (okay things have lightened up since the days of Zane Grey's "Riders of the Purple Sage").
And some of us are on to groups like the International Coalition of Apostles with goals of controlling all aspects of society, whether government, the court system, etc., not to mention Mormons pervade through procreation and proselytization. I agree that religion should not be a litmus test for POTUS (which if Romney had any leadership skills he would say this when asked religious questions). However, religion most certainly can be and should be a litmus test against becoming POTUS if unable to represent the entire nation as a result.
Romney is incapable of representing the entire nation on so many levels (and neither can Santorum). So I say to you RationalOne, beware your blind alligiance -- And to fellow Americans beware the high number of Mormons seeking high office compared to the percent of the population they represent. Romney and Huntsman, what are the odds of that? And ask them why there aren't more Mormon women in positions of power, since women are at least half the population.
Okay, enough of this topic... back to the article:
The president provided numbers for the GOP budget that Ryan fails to provide (and doesn't want to reveal because it is radical right-wing social engineering). Why don't you right-wingers come out of your Cone of Silence and ponder this? Each of you are hereby challenged to research the Paul Ryan plan -- and to do it with real math -- not a string of bumper stickers propaganda, and come back and tell us:
1) In order to cut discretionary spending from 12% of GDP to only 3% of GDP, where will these cuts come from?
2) Specify what loopholes will be closed to increase the tax base? Then tell us what comes first, increasing the tax base versus increasing tax cuts? And in what ratio -- will the tax base be increased at least equal to the tax cuts, or actually bring in more revenue to reduce deficits? (Not)
3) Which tax bracket will enjoy the most tax cuts (we already know it will be those earning 250K or more)?
4) Why does Ryan want to increase defense spending, even more than the generals request?
We know the Paul Ryan plan is a JOB KILLER. It destroys investment in education, research, etc. that is needed to grow the economy and compete in the future. We know that austerity in countries like Greece has caused unemployment to skyrocket even higher.
We also know Romney's plan, which is just as bad if not worse than Paul Ryan's plan, would have to completely end ALL trust fund/entitlement programs in order to balance his budget. We know the clear choice we will have in the coming election.
Obama/Biden - 2012!
@TP - Where was your religious bigotry when Obama was attending Jeremiah Wright's church? Is "G.. D... America" representative of your faith (whether or not you have one)?
Second, not all Democrats are "evil". Sure, I make fun of them, because most of them can't think beyond themselves. But, there have been a few Dems I like and respect in my own state of Washington. Jim Matheson, a Mormon Democrat, is well liked in Utah and represented those rural towns you are criticizing. I got nothing against Blue Dogs.
It's the stupid, idiotic, spend, spend, spend Democrats that I hate. Of course, it's the stupid, idiotic, spend, spend, spend Republicans that I hate as well, which is why I didn't like Bush. (Unfunded medicare prescription program?? Gah!) Obama doesn't even care about what he's doing to our country. He has no plans - NO PLANS - to balance our budget. The Senate doesn't even have a budget.
So, there are definitely things worse than Ryan's budget, and that is the spend, spend, spend budget our failed president, and even worse than that, Harry Reid's no budget senate. That's why I despise him, not because he's a "Mormon anomaly".
Next time, come up with a real argument rather than religious bigotry...
Good try TP--try again. Deflection, avoidance and denial are traits of a weak mind. So in essence you dont or cant refute or reply to any of my posts. Thats what I figured.
Freshiee--first I am not a supporter of all of the Ryan plan just like I dont dislike all of Obama's plans but lets get some of your facts straight or maybe assumptions. First, education is funded at the local level and all reforms and issues related to closing the education gap need to happen by eliminating the stranglehold that the teacher's unions have. Nothing cut from the department of education is going to impact that so that actually could be a good thing unless we can untangle the unholy alliance between the teacher's unions and the democratic party so we can get some real reform.
Second, I have not seen any economic analysis or objective review of the vouchers so not sure where I stand, but everything I have seen is the opposite from putting money in wealthy seniors hands. Can you explain how that will work? The plan is supposed to cost more for the wealthy and be progressive so I dont see how your comment is true. As for medicaid spending given to the states, not sure I agree that the feds are much better but that could be an issue I agree. As for your $3 trillion tax cut--that is just total lunacy. Revenue is actually raised through economic growth and the elimination of loopholes and deductions. The $3 trillion number is the deficit growth over the next 10 years under his plan but that is $7 trillion less than Obama's plan so its actually a huge tax increase for the wealthy. There are no massive tax cuts for the wealthy its just your class warfare rhetoric.
Kirk-
Tell me, if tax cuts increase revenues, why did the revenue proportion to GDP fall from 21% to 16% after the Bush tax cuts were issued??? And none of the deductions/loopholes slated to be removed are listed, which simply kicks the can of tax reform down the road. And it would take significant levels of economic growth to raise anywhere near enough revenue to balance the budget.
And if the Ryan plan offers a huge tax increase to the wealthy, how come a third of the tax cuts are going to the wealthy??? How come we are even cutting taxes for then at all???
As for education, the federal government give states and local governments money for education; the cuts to education would impact aid and college grants to graduates. As for the so-called unholy alliance between Democrats and teacher's unions, I can admit that it can hurt education marginally, and I would compare it to the unholy alliance between Republicans and Big Oil. I as a Democrat am for things like merit-based pay, but I also support more funding for education and a more centralized funding system.
And for the Medicaid issue, the vouchers would not necessarily put money in the hands of wealthy seniors, but it would force seniors to pay 68% of their costs by 2030 and be more expensive then Medicare, as private plans have higher administrative and overhead costs then Medicare does. Check these sites (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2011/April/06/CBO-Seniors-Pay-More-Medicare-Ryan-Plan.aspx and http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/28/434007/medicare-chief-actuary-discusses-pitfalls-of-paul-ryans-premium-support-plan-at-budget-committee-hearing/). I am all for shared sacrifice and entitlement reform, but I do not support privatizing Medicare and throwing the lion's share of the burden on seniors. Maybe they could pay about 45% of the costs compared to 35% now, but we should at the very most have the government pay 50-50. That would be fair. But as seniors are relatively unable to work or cannot find jobs as well as young people due to age discrimination, they should not have to pay out their pockets for coverage after a lifetime of hard work. They deserve a time of relatively less stress after their hard work.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
The Ryan Budget
The trouble with the budget devised by Paul Ryan isn’t just its almost inconceivably cruel priorities, the way it slashes taxes for corporations and the rich while drastically cutting food and medical aid to the needy. Even aside from all that, the Ryan budget purports to reduce the deficit but the alleged deficit reduction depends on the completely unsupported assertion that trillions of dollars in revenue can be found by closing tax loopholes.
In the 100 page explanation of his budget what specific loopholes has Paul Ryan said he would close – none, not one? He has ruled out any move to close the major loophole that benefits the rich.
As Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center points out, to make his numbers work Mr. Ryan would, by 2022, have to close enough loopholes to yield an extra $700 billion in revenue every year. That’s a
lot of money, even in an economy as big as ours. So which specific loopholes has Mr. Ryan, who issued a 98 page manifesto on behalf of his budget, said he would close?
None. Not one. He has, however, categorically ruled out any move to close the major loophole that benefits the rich, namely the ultra-low tax rates on income from capital. (That’s the loophole that lets Mitt Romney pay only 14 percent of his income in taxes, a lower tax rate than that faced by many middle-class families.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/opinion/krugman-pink-slime-economics.html?_r=1
America needs Mitt Romney now more than ever. It is the PRESIDENTS job to LEAD, yet all Obama can do is to criticize the other side and divide America. He's created a war on everything. He's proven how bad a president is when he creates an environment where nothing can get done.
Obama has increased the deficit $1.5 Trillion per year since his first day in office and doesn't have a plan to fix it. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
Democrats don't care about the debt and leaving the burden to our children. In fact "liberals" say deficit spending is a good thing. As proof they tout Obamacare, even though it's been proven that it will increase the deficit by an additional $1.6 Trillion by year 2025 (the CBO numbers only carry costs to 2021 but deficits accrue starting 2023).
There are no plans, none. Obama's budget (which was voted down 414-0) doesn't address the deficit, and all he can do is criticize the plan that does. That's not leadership, it's failure to lead. Obama is a failure as a president, democrats are a failure as a party, and liberals are a failure to society.
Mitt Romney 2012
Your hate post still doesn't make any sense. Posting it two (and I'm assuming your going to post it on more threads) or more times won't make it any better than the first time. Sorry RationalOne try again.
Thanks for sharing this information, Dennis. What confounds me about the Ryan budget is that it doubles down on the "trickle down" economics that we have tried for 30 years only to learn that it doesn't work. The 99% are not better off with it.
Dennis, the Ryan budget is a disgrace. When religious leaders issue statements calling the Ryan plan an "immoral disaster" and a "cruel budget plan", we know it is a disgrace and a con game to further improve the wealth of the wealthy while starving Government to the point of irrelevance. What kind of country will we be without a Government beyond a powerful, expensive military?
Rational One, thanks for posting such a humorous delusion but once was enough.
dennis -- so if the ryan proposal is so bad why don't the democrats in the senate do their job and prepare a budget of their own that addresses all of the things that the gop does not include? is that not the way this is supposed to work? one or both sides present ideas, then get in a room and create a budget that works for America?
why do you suppose leader reid is so afraid to discuss budget issues? i am interested in your thoughts and not those of krugman.
Mo, it's worth mentioning more than once to inform everyone of the damage that our failed leader is causing our country. I notice that you didn't try to dispute it. Of course you would look silly trying.
Jody, do you mean ones like this?
Father Thomas Kelly, a Catholic priest and constituent of Ryan’s, felt similarly:
“As a constituent of Congressman Ryan and a Catholic priest, I’m disappointed by his cruel budget plan and outraged that he defends it on moral grounds. Ryan is Catholic, and he knows that justice for the poor and economic fairness are core elements of our church’s social teaching. It’s shameful that he disregarded these principles in his budget.”
Dennis:
The Ryan budget is not merely inconceivably cruel, it is the product of a simple-minded lackey who proposes transferring the remaining wealth of 99% of Americans to the top 1%. The budget comes straight from 1984, Orwell's terrifyingly prescient handbook of the G.O.P.
I had long thought that just about everyone had read that book. Either they have not read it, or they have forgotten what it is about. It describes exactly what Republicans plan for the U.S. Perpetual war, enemies everywhere, a constantly declining standard of living, and subjugation of the citizenry based on lies. That is not hyperbole. Read the book.
A G.O.P. victory is a defeat for America.
"Non-Partisan Tax Policy Center..." Now that is funny.
Dennis, I earn income through my job. I get taxed on that income. I take what is left, and I invest it. That money is at risk, but when the risk pays off, I get taxed again? At my regular rate? Even though that money was already taxed? If you want to kill off investment, if you want to hurt millions of people who invest in the stock market (it doesn't take rich people to move the market; a whole bunch of middle class people like myself can do it just fine), increase the taxes.
And please don't tell me about fair when it comes to taxes when 47% of the people don't pay them...
"Congressman Ryan's Medicaid Reductions Threaten Seniors
The Proposal
On April 6, 2011, the House Budget Committee approved a FY 2012 budget blueprint which includes dramatic reductions to Medicaid funding that jeopardizes long-term nursing home care, could lead to rationing of health benefits, and impairs low-income seniors' ability to pay for Medicare benefits.
The Medicaid program provides funding for health care to our nation's most vulnerable - the elderly, people with disabilities and low-income families with children. The Ryan plan would terminate the current joint federal/state financing partnership and replace it with fixed dollar amount block grants, giving states less money than they would receive under current law. In exchange, states would be provided additional flexibility to design and manage their Medicaid programs. Federal funding would be reduced by more than a third by the end of the decade, for a total of almost $1.4 trillion. Federal funding currently represents about 57 percent of total Medicaid costs in 2012.
Impact on Long-term Nursing Home Care
Currently, nursing home care costs an average of $72,000 per year. Medicaid is the single largest payer of long-term care coverage in the country, accounting for 62 percent of total payments. Under today's federal/state partnership, if state Medicaid expenditures increase, the federal government shares in the increased costs. Under a block grant system, the federal government would provide each state with a fixed dollar amount and states would be left to deal with the problem if they did not have sufficient funds to cover increases in the number of patients or the cost of medical treatments. States could deal with their funding shortfalls in any number of ways, including:
Rationing of Benefits
About two-thirds of Medicaid beneficiaries are elderly and disabled, while one-third are families with children. In the last 30 years, the per-beneficiary cost for Medicare and Medicaid has grown at virtually the same rate as costs for the overall health care system. Over the last decade the per-beneficiary cost for Medicaid has grown even more slowly that the rest of the health care system. Even with these efficiencies, the magnitude of the reductions called for in these block grants will require states to adjust their programs. Beginning in 2013, states could resort to the following alternatives:
Low-income Seniors May Not Be Able to Pay for Medicare
Medicaid currently pays the Medicare premiums, deductibles or copayments for almost 5 million beneficiaries. If states do not have the resources to cover these payments:
Conclusion
The National Committee believes the deficit needs to be reduced, but it needs to be reduced in a balanced way, not on the backs of our nation's neediest seniors. Transforming the Medicaid program from a federal/state partnership to a block grant program will result in arbitrary cuts in support to our most vulnerable seniors. Medicaid is already underfunded and benefits can vary widely in each state. The dramatic funding cuts in the House Budget Committee plan would force states already struggling with their own budget shortfalls to make deep cuts in these critical services.
http://www.ncpssm.org/news/archive/ryan_medicaid/
So Dennis, do you also agree with Krugman's assertion that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme? My god he's even in favor of GWB's idea of individual accounts for young people.
What a RWNJ
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR21.6/krugmann.html
Still waiting for the Democrats budget to save Medicare in it's current form by "simply taxing the rich a little more".
so the ever present left apologists are creaming ryan for presenting a budget -- cruel, misguided, bad for America and whatever other talking points are being disseminated by the soros machine.
can one of you please explain (no excuses allowed) why the democrats in the senate refuse to do anything about a budget?
it is easy to criticize those that do produce a work product. maybe that is why the senate leadership is afraid to present their budget ideas.
Democrats don't care about the debt and leaving the burden to our children. In fact "liberals" say deficit spending is a good thing.
This statement is hilarious. I infer from this that you are implying that Republicans are the opposite? Republicans are the ones that doubled our national debt in 8 years of the Bush administration; 6 of those 8 years with Republicans in firm control of both houses of Congress. As for don't care about the debt and leaving the burden to our children, I refer you to Dick Cheney's famous quote: Reagan proved that deficits don't matter!
The truth is that Republicans are the ones that don't care about the debt! Proof of this is the latest darling of the Republican party - the Ryan plan. Under his plan, endorsed by Romney, the almost certain Republican candidate for president this Fall, the budget would be balanced (budget, mind you, not the debt - we would just quit adding to the debt) by 2040 - that's 28 years!
If Republicans really cared about balancing the budget, they would be looking at tax increases in addition to huge spending cuts.
David Walker..........The budget comes straight from 1984, Orwell's terrifyingly prescient handbook of the G.O.P.
I first read 1984 when I was in high school. At the time of first reading, it seemed to me that most of the terrifying aspects of the book were far fetched. Surely nothing in that book could happen in a democratic society like ours that promoted compassion toward others, democracy for all and a sense that everyone had a chance to live an enjoyable life without government interference.
And here we are, living out some of the very things that seemed so improbable to me at that time.
The Ryan budget plan is a big fat loser. In dealing with the budget, the question I have is why are social issues being thrown up as smoke screens by the House Republicans? Could it be a tool to get people to target the poor as needing to be controlled?
Why would any sane person want to cut the budget that affect the poor, middle class and peoples health? If you cut these programs now, we will pay a heck of a lot more later on.
It was proven by FDR that we have to spend money within our country for growth. So, where do you cut spending? To listen to the right it is social programs and education cuts. We have the super rich and the dirt poor, with the middle class being pushed to the category of the dirt poor and well the rich get richer, with their perks and level low taxes they pay.
As we know, 60% to 70% of the people want the tax breaks taken from the top 2% earners, and the billions given to big oil and defense spending cuts for projects not wanted.
I guess you have to throw out that Republican argument for the will of the people.
Texas Rugger:
If you're still repeating the nonsense about "...47% of the people...." not paying taxes, after that lie has been completely debunked, you obviously have no intention of accepting information that counters your dogma.
However, here goes. Most income is taxed repeatedly. You shop for groceries. A portion of your bill goes to pay the wages of the store's employees. They will pay taxes on that money. They will shop. They will pay for their utilities. The employees of those concerns will be paid with that money. They will be taxed. That's why economists deal with the velocity of money. Are you really unable to grasp that fact?
You want to talk about no taxes? How about the estate that has capital gains? Do the heirs pay taxes on those gains? Check out step-ups and get back to me. They pay nothing, not even capital gains tax. Not a damned dime. Don't give us that crap about who does and doesn't pay taxes.
It takes money to run a government. Governments do not run like businesses. There is no "fair" or "unfair". The sole consideration is how we pay for what we need. To continue with this sorry BS that we get more tax revenue by cutting tax rates is embarrassingly stupid.
Texas Rugger,
Actually you are not taxed on your original investment.
You are only taxed on the profits you take.
By your account if a person invests say $50,000 of their savings and makes enough to make a living from the profits for the rest of their life they should pay no more taxes what-so-ever because it all come from an original investment that they paid taxes on.
ee, job and others castigating ryan and his proposal -- what is the democrat counter proposal? was it the President's attempt at a budget for which not one member of the house or senate voted in favor?
why does leader reid refuse to provide a senate budget?
explanations (not excuses) welcomed. by the way i can read the left pundit comments and media content myself so please share your original ideas and not theirs?
David Walker wrote:
A G.O.P. victory is a defeat for America.
Slightly off... should have read..
A g.o.p. victory is the end of America.
The Ryan plan was never created to be passed. Ryan made it so inconceivable because he wants the Democrats to block it so that he can try to push the 'Party of No' label off on them.
His problem is that it is to blatant and people are realizing what a crock it is.
The argument is over what we need the government to do. In the 70's in Britain the government ran the Postal Service which included the phone service, the national airline, steel works, 2 car companies, mining, rail, most of the housing stock, gas and electricity utilities. So to me the argument is "What is the function of government" and "What are the limits of its Power". Answer those questions and then we can get to the question of funding.
As to the BS, a simple cut in rates will not increase revenue. The argument is whether a cut in marginal rate creates enough economic activity to compensate for the reduction and actually produce an increase in overall revenues. It is more complicated than a simple "This is BS answer". Currently, the argument is whether a cut in rates coupled with a removal of deductions will produce at the very least a revenue neutral result. I believe this is positive objective as it removes some of the ability for politicians to pick winners and losers by bestowing specific deductions on privileged groups.
For all of those who are tearing down Ryan's Budget, you are just wasting time. Maybe instead of criticizing so much come up with something that might work better. Where is the plan from the Democrats? Why don't the Senate Democrats submit a budget and then sit down with the House and work out the differences, like they are suppose to? It's very easy to criticize but much harder to have a solution. When is the democrat controlled Senate going to do their job?
BTW, a note on the President's remarks about the Supreme Court on the ACA. The Supreme Court should not overturn the law since the law was passed by a strong majority of a democratic elected congress. Mr. President have you ever seen a law that was passed by a minority of congress? I believe every law has to be by a majority vote of congress. Further, Obama mentioned "judicial activism" which IMO has always meant making law from the bench, not ruling on the constitutionality of a law.
Hi Sarge,
If they strike down the mandate but then decide which parts of the law are allowed to stand or to be dismissed then that is making law from the bench.
If you disagree please explain.
Dennis, yes, that's one of the examples I referred to.
David Walker, your post in the first thread was excellent.
james, perhaps you should ask Speaker Boehner and the GOP majority House why the budget President Obama sent to the House was put on the shelf and instead was replaced by the Ryan Pathway to Disaster plan. Perhaps you should ask yourself why Senator Reid should bother with trying to pass President Obama's proposed budget because it will be filibustered by GOP senators and if, by chance, it passed it would be shelved by the GOP House. President Obama has submitted a proposed budget every February since taking office. Democrats amended and passed it while in the majority in the House only to have it filibustered and blocked the the GOP minority in the Senate.
I get so tired of you'll putting out that Bushra that there isn't a Democratic budget. Here it is.http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/217991-rank-and-file-house-dems-to-rally-behind-van-hollen-budget-proposalIt's proposed by Van Hollen of Md. and has about as much chance of passing as Ryan's
Dennis,
I disagree, all they are deciding is the constitutionality of the law. They are not making law and I believe they are only deciding 3 parts of the law which is the Mandate, severability, and Medicaid. It appears, in your opinion, every time a court over turns or upholds a law it is "making law", not just deciding the constitutionality of the law.
Sarge,
They are making a decision on the constitutionality of the mandate not the entire law. Day 3 of the arguments were about the severability of the parts of the law.
I believe that Kagan was correct on the severability when she said that it should be sent back to Congress to fix – it would be best if they strike it all down or allow it stand as is.
If the court makes any decision about letting any part of a law stand while striking down other parts then the court is making a decision that our elected officials in the House and Senate should make.
poor libs, The senate can't come up with their own budget plan? Just because reid is incompetent on developing a budget, why not just delegate it to others who can?
Dennis, to a certain extent I concur with what you say about the court simply sending obamacare back to congress to fix it within the 3 areas of argument.
Sfcret and dennis, while congress sets up the law fundamentals, those writing the regs are who defines the law. The court system can then further define the laws intent or its validity.
I can understand some of the scotus concerns with the individual mandate, letting it stand will define what congress can do down the road with personal freedoms. It will be interesting to see what happens in june
Dennis,
They are making a decision, not just on the mandate, but also on the medicaid for the states. We know that they will not and can not rule on every thing in the law, as Scalia pointed out they are not going to read all 2700 pages of the law. There were three votes taken as follows: Mandate, severability, and medicaid. Now if you feel Kagan wants to send it back to congress, then she will vote against the law and in her opinion, if she writes one, I would think she would state that it should be corrected by congress. But let's face it, without the mandate the law can not stand.
Not true. Alternatives to the mandate are ;
1) You can only enroll in an insurance plan during a specified period. (Similar to how employers currently have enrollment periods).
2) Pre-existing conditions can only be ignored if you have proof of continuous coverage.
If they do strike down any part of the law I believe they will sever it and allow the other parts to stand. Then it's up to congress to fix it. I don't see them throwing out the whole bill. My guess is is that the whole bill will be allowed to stand, or only the mandate will be struck down. The Medicaid provisions will be allowed to stand.
Here is my budget proposal: Increase taxes on very wealthy, no tax subsidies for the oil companies, leave friggin medicare and SS ALONE, do away with all of the pensions and health insurance for every single current and past politician because they all have enough money to live and buy their own insurance without our help, all politicians need to take a pay cut including the POTUS (and they will never be allowed to vote for their own pay increase again, that will reside with a vote from their employers...the US people), reform welfare programs so it can't just be a way of life (this should include corporate welfare), issue severe penalties for hiring illegal aliens and for outsourcing, make all of the bailout money due in full by the years end, get all of our troops home, no more aid to ANY countries until we have our debt under control, and I am sure I will think of more as soon as I post this. Any other ideas??
Sarge,
They are making 4 separate decisions where decision 2, 3and maybe 4 will be decided (delayed) by #1 which decides if they have to wait for the mandate to actually be in effect (2014)and someone to be fined (2015) for not having health insurance. I do not think #1 is an issue – IMO they don’t have to wait.
Number 3 will depend on the decision on #2. If it is Constitutional then #3 is moot. I think #4 can stand alone.
I believe that any time any court makes a ruling that changes or modifies a law from the way it was written and passed is the court making law – as could be the case in the ruling on #3.
The courts should only uphold or strick down law - not change it.
David Walker.
I have two questions for you: what is your opinion on the Ryan budget, and how would you offer a replacement. If you already answered please show me. Thank you.
Rational One
I have yet to hear a rational argument from you. Right-wingers like Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney are the scum of the earth: these guys refuse to raise taxes on their rich masters (they actually want to cut taxes for them, big surprise) but have the balls to cut trillions from domestic programs that are the pillars to both our economy and our recovery. Without things like Medicare and education, we wouldn't be an economic powerhouse. Tax cuts to the rich have sucked away life from the middle class while fattening the pockets of the wealthy. 37% of Ryan's tax cuts go to the wealthiest of Americans; and 62% of cuts go to programs for the poor and the middle class. So adding more sacrifices to the poor and tax cuts for the wealthy is going to help??? That's the plan??? This plan isn't even certain; all of it is based on uncertain programs. His plan offers that 30 years ago discretionary spending (including defense) will be 3.5% of GDP; now it is 12.5%. Ask Ezra Klein. This plan will screw the middle class and the poor all for the wealthy. Thank you Ronald Reagan for poisoning the minds of the GOP into thinking that tax cuts and spending cuts for the poor will actually help the economy.
And here's MY plan to fix the budget WHILE improving the economy:
I. Reduce the debt by $8 trillion over 10 years.
I am not joking. Check (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=vie… Just removing 90% of our tax code's loopholes and tax expenditures would save $947 billion a year. Maybe we ought to do that and simply reform entitlements and we'd have practically no debt by the mid-to-late 2020s.
II. Economic Recovery Package
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
DEMOCRATS 2012
@!$%# THE GOP AND THE RYAN BUDGET 2012
@Freshieee - You've actually got some great ideas. However, if you think that Obama has any plans to implement any of those I've got a bridge I can sell you. Obama's entire philosophy is to spend, spend, spend. I haven't seen any cutting proposals from his administration.
Romney has already agreed to cutting deductions for the rich. He's agreed to parts of Simpson-Bowles as a starting point, while Obama has run for the hills from it.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/romney-details-tax-overhaul-urging-lower-rates-and-fewer-deductions/#
PS - I've got a better solution... Warren Buffet said he can fix the budget problem in 5 mins. He suggests that any time we don't have a balanced budget ALL sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection. Things would turn around pretty quickly.
RationalOne
Thanks to for the kudos.
On the other hand, I know that Obama (or any congressman, for that matter) wouldn't take my ideas. For one thing, it comes from an average joe, and not an experienced economist or scholar. And tell me how Obama hasn't offered to cut spending; he offered $2.8 trillion in spending cuts in his $4 trillion proposal, and has signed into law approximately $2.2 trillion in cuts WITH NO REVENUES.
Romney isn't specific on his willingness to cut deductions, and there is proof that his tax plan would actually raise taxes on those who make less than $40,000 while cutting taxes by over $150,000 for millionaires. Plus he hasn't agreed or even accepted the premise that taxes need to be raised. It's all cut cut cut from his perspective. And there is little evidence that Romney's overhaul of the tax code will break even, as it is estimated to cost $3.4 trillion over the next 10 years. Plus it blows a huge hole in the code by repealing the AMT.
And technically, Warren Buffet said that in case the deficits are over 3% of GDP, and even if it was enacted I am not sure if it would work. But it's worth a try.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Unzip Mitt LOL Ha Ha âº
http://gawker.com/5898364/ann-romney-on-mitts-stiffy-we-better-unzip-him-and-let-him-out
===============================================
How many times have I said Rob-ney is controlled by remote? So now his wife wants to give us direct access to his data compression. Isn't it amazing what modern technology can do?
Mitt reminds be of that song by Bob Marley asking who is Mr Brown and is he controlled by remote?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdeWEL5F9Vo&feature=related
Steven Pearlstein: Eat your broccoli, Justice Scalia
By Steven Pearlstein, Published: March 31
If the law is an ass, as Mr. Bumble declares in “Oliver Twist,” then constitutional law must surely be the entire wagon train.
Another of Scalia and Alito’s cute debating tricks was to latch on to an opposing argument and take it to its illogical extreme in order to show how silly it is. By this technique, the individual mandate suddenly became the first step on the proverbial slippery slope to government requiring that all Americans buy broccoli or a gym membership because those, too, will make us all healthier and thereby lower health-care costs.
It is axiomatic, of course, that the power to regulate, or to tax, or to criminalize is the power to regulate, tax or criminalize stupidly. The power to require you to buy airbags for your car is also the power to require you to buy leather seats and a surround-sound stereo. The power to levy a fee for buying a handgun is the power to levy a fee for not buying a handgun. The power to criminalize abortions is the power to criminalize condoms and birth control pills.
But for some reason, when it comes to requiring Americans either to buy health insurance or pay a fee, we are now supposed to believe that “all bets are off,” according to Chief Justice John Roberts, or that “a fundamental shift” has occurred in the relationship between the individual and government, according to Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Really?
For starters, the Constitution already limits the “abuse” of such power by subjecting those who wield it to regular elections in which citizens are free to decide what is going too far and what is not.
And as justices know all too well, there are already in the case law scores of judicial tests that have been successfully applied to a wide range of congressional actions and powers to assure that they are reasonable and rational, that they are not arbitrary, that they are necessary to achieve a legitimate or compelling state interest. Surely Justices Roberts and Kennedy and their legion of summa cum laude law clerks can conjure up a workable criteria to distinguish a law requiring the purchase of health insurance from a law requiring the purchase of pomegranate juice.
If there is a legitimate challenge to the law, my hunch is that it is likely to come over the question of whether the individual mandate is as narrowly drawn as possible to achieve its objective. If regulating the interstate market for health care requires regulating health insurance, and if assuring a healthy insurance market requires solving the problem of free-riders who drive up premiums and taxes for everyone else, then isn’t the solution to require everyone to buy “catastrophic” insurance?
Roberts asked that question twice, but got no satisfactory answer, either from the solicitor general or any of the other justices. The reason is that there is no good answer. The safer ground for health reform was always to base it, at least initially, on policies that cover major medical events such as a heart attack, a premature birth, or treatment of cancer or a serious chronic condition. Yet such an approach has always been rejected out of hand by liberal Democrats and powerful “disease lobbies” who were intent on finally achieving health-care coverage that was both universal and comprehensive. Now their over-reaching has not only driven up the cost of health reform and made it difficult to win broad political support, but has also put the entire law in constitutional jeopardy.
In the end, Roberts will see the institutional peril in overturning the most significant piece of domestic legislation in a generation, particularly in the wake of the overtly partisan decisions of Bush v. Gore and the Citizens United. With Kennedy in tow, the chief is likely to articulate a modest new limit on Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce that would allow health reform to proceed in some fashion. Or, as he hinted in oral arguments, he may duck the commerce clause altogether and simply uphold the individual mandate as a legitimate exercise of Congress’s taxing power. The cacophony of accompanying dissents and concurring opinions will make it difficult to figure out who won, who lost and exactly what precedent was set.
The law, in other words, remains an ass.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/steven-pearlstein-eat-your-broccoli-justice-scalia/2012/03/30/gIQAyGkynS_story_2.html
___________________________________________________________
Obama Derangement Syndrome strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away
There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Terrific article, IR; that song sums it up perfectly.
It troubled me to hear justices using the very phrasing of Frank Luntz talking points, the broccoli argument is stupidity on display in the highest court in the land. It troubled me to hear Scalia arrogantly claim he wasn't about to read the (GOP talking point) 2700 pages. Why not, Justice Scalia? It isn't as if there wasn't adequate time for him to read the law over these many months or to have at least personally scanned it. While clerks do the majority of the reading, it would seem that we don't pay a justice to read the laws but rather their clerks and rely on the clerks to determine the course of the nation and then the justices decide based on other's assessments rather than evaluating other's opinions in comparison to their own. There's something wrong with that picture Such arrogance from Scalia, such broccoli stupidity on display should trouble everyone.
Thanks for sharing the article and reminding me of the song, IR.
Jody--I had that same thought---Justice Scalia---it is your job to read the legislation and understand it. A job for which you received lifetime appointment and are paid a good salary and benefits--like health insurance. And it is legislation that will impact the lives--literally, not figuratively---of all of your fellow citizens.
A thousand people in the street - Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly saying hooray for our side....
_________
What is wrong with the picture is that there is no longer any we the people only our side vs. their side the bad guys. The SCOTUS has every right to review the law, their word is final in our country. If they strike the mandate down we should accept it. If they destroy the entire law we should accept it and despite our disagreement work to pass something that is constitutional.
Come this June we will see if this law stands. Being serious here, I fear that whether it is upheld or struck down the aggrieved party will retaliate. I am also actually worried about what will happen the first Wed of November. We already saw the racist, fearmongering mobs of the Tea Party and the unruly, criminal crowd within Occupy.
Things have gotten worse not better. I will not lie, I am a partisan, in fact I am so left of center that on here the usual crowd is angered whenever I utter a complaint against Obama's right of center policies.
It is conflicting because even I know that unless we work together to try to solve problems we will sink. Discussion and debate has deteriorated to denegrating attacks. The other side is painted as evil incarnate. You see it here everyday. Hooray for our side.
Thanks Mark. Words to live by. That is why I used the 60's song. Excesses on both sides are leading us down a dangerous road. Having lived through the 60's and early 70's believe me folks you don't want to go back there. Free love might have been awesome but the rest of it sucked for both sides and it took a whole lot longer to work out our problems and move on.
Yellowdog Mark D, Excellent post. I couldn't agree more. The American people aren't as polarized as both parties want us to think we are. Moderate reasonable people could solve our countries problems. The sad thing is there a very few in Washington. Special interests on both sides have this country in a vice grip. The leave us fighting for the leftover scraps.
...and once again it's time to play everyone's favorite game of partisan politics...
"This Is Your Looney"
Okay, folks, who wants the shooter in Oakland? C'mon, surely someone has already done the snooping into voter registrations to find out if One Goh is a registered Democrat or Republican, right?
Primary Day, Again. Here we are, another GOP primary day. Over the past few weeks, it has been interesting listening to the pundits chatter, the opinions fly. Chris Matthews talked about what a good candidate Mitt Romney is and that he will be a tough challenge in the general election. Most of his assertions were correct. It will be a tough general election and probably a close one. The general election will be a battle royal since the GOP base has only one goal--defeat President Obama and it does not matter if anyone competent replaces him--they would vote for Daffy Duck if there was an "R" after the name.
What Matthews failed to mention is that compared to the rest of the GOP wannabees, Romney should be a good candidate. The only other qualified one, Jon Huntsman, was ousted months ago by the far right wingers. Romney has been campaigning since 2007, he should be a much better candidate than he is; he should have figured out his mistakes, his lack of people-relating skills four years ago. Matthews failed to note that when the other candidates were Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, Paul, Mitt Romney should have locked down the GOP nomination by March at the latest.
In ordinary election years, Rick Santorum would never have made it this far. Iowa would have been his first and New Hampshire would have been his last stop. However, for the last 30 years, the GOP has been marching further and further right. In 2010, the Tea Party--the latest version of the John Birch Society--stormed on to the political scene and the radical right finally swallowed the GOP whole. Thus, many voters from all sides of the political spectrum watch today with puzzlement as to how a Rick Santorum who thinks contraception is evil, who thinks colleges and universities are to be feared, who prefers a theocracy could possibly still be in the race.
The answer is easy--it took 30 years and for most of those 30 years, no one noticed the steady GOP lockstep march to the right.
Funny thing, Jody is that those 30 years coincide with the tremendous growth of the wealth gap in our country. Coincidence? I think not.
Steeler Fan, exactly right; the incomes of middle class Americans declined or stagnated in those 30 years while the wealth gap steadily rose to the highest point since just prior to the Great Depression. The country was ripe for an economic collapse and it happened yet the GOP continues to promote the same proven failed policies than Reagan began as the way forward.
Another idiotic liberal talking point, the "wealth gap"..
The "wealth gap" is greatest , where? In the Washington DC area.
Rich liberals mooching off the taxpayers, funding 'studies' about the supposed wealth gap...
As usual, the problems the liberals complain about were caused or exacerbated by their beloved government programs.
Government is the problem, not the solution.
Name a government program that caused the sharp spike in the wealth gap within the 2 decades.
I got one; tax cuts for the wealthy. All a part of supply-side economics.
Government is not always the problem, nor is it always the solution.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
First Thoughts.....Final Thoughts
I realize that I tend to be one of the more serious and sentimental posters here, and at times I can sound as if I just lost one of my best friends in the world. Well, last night I learned that I actually had. Sandy, my dear friend from Washington state for the last 38 years, passed away peacefully Sunday morning.
So, what, you may well ask, does this have to do with a political blog? Well, a couple of things. First, the "blog" part. Back in the dark ages before the days of blogs and Facebook and even pc's and e-mail, we were what used to be known (and often ridiculed) as "pen pals". She had written in to a magazine I saw and said she was a long time Dallas Cowboys fan who was just getting into ice hockey. Since I was a long time hockey fan who was just getting into the Cowboys, it seemed like destiny. Yet I still hesitated a long time before getting the tentative nerve to write to her. She wrote back....and I wrote back.....and the rest, as they say, is history. Within a couple of years we were each writing 20 or 25 page typewritten letters, sometimes twice a week or more. We once talked on the phone for nine hours straight. We shared passions for everything from "Les Miserables" to peanut butter pie and from exchanging silly postcards from non-vacation places (I still have the one from Boring, Oregon!) to the dream of us someday taking a trip to the wilds of Chicken, Alaska, just because it was the setting for our all-time favorite book. A few years later, I took an even bigger leap of faith by flying out to Seattle to meet her and her kids and head off for the adventure trip of a lifetime to Alaska (though sadly not to Chicken - we were always saving that for "next time").That became the first of four trips I made to Seattle and more crazy adventures all over the Pacific Northwest, while she - who hated flying - eventually came to Pennsylvania twice. Her daughter came twice more, and the summer before last, I hosted her now grown daughter, son-in-law and two pre-teen grand-daughters for yet another visit. And through her and the underground pen pal network, I met a dozen other people over the years, some of whom I also met in person, and the last few survivors that I've been writing to for over 30 years without ever even talking on the phone. Time flies.....and all that came from taking a chance and writing to a perfect stranger. This is important because today, while the technology has obviously changed, all of you here - whether regular posters or first-time readers this morning - have the same golden opportunity. I took another chance two years ago when I hesitantly responded to a post from our favorite Independent Redneck in VA and wrote my first post here - and since then, have become a lucky part of a cherished group of friends. Many of us have since met some of the others in person, either individually or collectively, and a group of diverse strangers from all around the country have become a close-knit family that feels like we've known each other forever. So my advice to you all is to take that chance too some day - it can be about so much more than politics.
Which brings me to my second point. When we first met, Sandy was a political radical who used to regularly write in Angela Davis in any election where neither candidate on the ballot met her standards. Somehow over the years, as I grew more liberal, she grew more conservative. I'm an atheist; she often claimed that God talked to her just as Rick Santorum does. I hate guns with a passion; she friended a guy on Facebook who was in one of those militia groups in Idaho or Montana somewhere. I began admiring liberal posters here; she listened religiously to Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. I campaigned for Barack Obama; she was a huge admirer
of Sarah Palin.
And yet somehow our friendship not only survived, but thrived. We learned how to focus on what brought us
together and made us laugh, instead of what could have divided us and made us angry - though I suppose on some level we each harbored the dream that we'd someday get the other to "see the light".
Well.....I guess we never will now, any more than we'll ever take that dream trip to Chicken, Alaska. I guess
my third point here is the obvious one - as a favorite c/w song says (and yep, she's the one who got me started listening to country!),"Don't Blink"- the time goes by that fast. I was luckyenough to have the chance to send her one last long letter last week. I hope she had the time and the stregth to read it. I would urge everyone here to take the time today to write or call a loved one you don't see often enough or someone you've become estranged from. Tell them you love them, or tell them you're sorry. Or do it here - if you've admired another poster's writing, speak up and tell them so, or even if you've despised it, try and find something about them you admire and tell them that. The rest of the stuff we write here isn't nearly as important.
I'm glad you're finally at peace, Sandy. I'm so glad for all the silly, goofy things we shared over the years. And I am so very glad that I once took the chance and wrote that letter. This one's for you, my dear friend:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJnjcX8skXk
Beautiful, JoAnne. A true testament to a good friend.
Good on you JoAnne. Good friends are a treasure forever no matter how we come by them.
JoAnne -- What beautiful words you have for your friend. Thanks for sharing them with us. I feel your grief, friend. A very sad day indeed. Heartfelt hugs to you.
Hugs to you, JoAnne, and blessings to your friend.
JoAnne, beautiful tribute to friendship. Much sympathy, and hugs to you, my friend.
My sypathies to you and to Sandy's family, JoAnne---what a wonderful friendship.
And a lesson for us all to learn--our similarities should be more than our differences and we should start with a love for our country.
Good friends take time and cultivation and to be cherished. Too bad we don't do more to have more. How many opportunities for same have we just tossed out as if trash.
Seems to me a trip to Chicken is still in order.
JoAnne - I'm pretty new to this group but you have my complete sympathy as does your friend Sandy's family and friends. Losing a good friend is like losing a family member. My heart is sad for you. But you were so blessed to get to know her and be part of her life. It sounds like you both were lucky.
Rational one/I suggest that you choose a more rational pen name
Joann in pa, Beautiful post.
Awesome JoAnne !!! Beautiful Tribute (wiping tears)
After The Mandate, Government-Run Health Care Would Grow
If the Supreme Court rules unconstitutional the plan for universal coverage through private insurance, the U.S. will continue to evolve toward a government-led system -- albeit one much more expensive, and much less satisfactory, than the government systems of other advanced democracies.
Perhaps after a decade or two of discontent, somebody else will try another reform. But this time, the reform will proceed as an outright government program. There won't be any choice, if the Supreme Court of 2012 precludes as unconstitutional the private-sector alternative -- meaning that today's would-be champions of the free market will have unwittingly brought about the grandest expansion of government control since the 1930s.
@Noid - I read that article yesterday as well and walked away very concerned. Basically, if SCOTUS eliminates the mandate, Obamacare goes from an improvement to the healthcare system to an utter nightmare by discouraging the purchase of healthcare insurance, and forcing those of us who do to pay the way of the freeloaders. If the mandate is overturned, the only reasonable fix is to deny medical treatment to the uninsured if they do not have proof of payment. This must be the cold-hearted system conservatives want .. they are after all, the ones that championed the rally call "Let them die".
That is precisely what they want. And a great many of these "conservatives", who want others to pay their own way, would gladly become what they despise given the opportunity. My own father is blindly conservative, regardless of the fact that he walked away from an open heart surgery at no cost to him because the system permitted it. Once more people are told to go die somewhere else, then maybe their tunes will change.
When I look at my paycheck, I see where Medicare is being withheld? I'm not even eligible to receive Medicare and I'm paying for it?
Because it is a Federal Healthcare MANDATE!
That's next on the tea people Koch republicans agenda Dragon. And after that it's on to Social Security.
Listening to Palin's rant on Today this morning was like listening to finger nails scratcing a chalk board. All she said was any one of the repukes seeking the nom would be better than Obama...she kept repeating the mantra anyone but Obama...problem is that that sounds an awful like the Dem's nom campaign of 2004, when we said anyone but W Bush...but with nothing else to offer, that is a losing campaign.
Then she had it right, ANYBODY but Obama.
How much more in debt do we have to go? How many more record deficits do we have to have? How many more hundreds of BILLIONS do we have to "invest" in failing green energy companies? How many more unConstitutional "mandates" need to come out of HHS and the White House?
How many MORE years do we have to go without something as simple as a budget from Democrats?
Geez, wake up!!!
How long do we have to read the same old tea people Koch republican talking points. Do you people have any thoughts of your own? Or is all you can do is follow along.
CherylLM,
You said, " How many more unConstitutional "mandates" need to come out of HHS and the White House?" Did the SCOTUS come down with their decision? I must have missed that news...
We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
Palin is an idiot that likes to throw around words like freedom, liberty, American way and unconstitutional. However, we all have to remember the continued quote from the movie Game Change, “She doesn’t know anything.” Also, you have to remember she is a bigger liar than Romney, and facts prove this to be so.
So, Job1, you are saying Palin is right up there with Obama on the lie scale. Good one, there,but I doubt Palin even registers when compared to Obama.
Am I getting this right? Rush Limbaugh and George Zimmerman are yesterday's boogeymen? You twits are back to the "evil Koch Brothers" basically because of an E.J. Dionne column? What a bunch of mindless sheep you people are.
By the way, Rush's ratings are better than ever and his advertising has recovered. Doesn't that make you all feel , um...silly?
Is a god-paying job good for eternity?
lol
Job1
I don't know that she's a liar,...just a well rehearsed POSER.
Palin on the Today Show? It's a Bizzaro world. The next thing they'll tell us is that the Republican right wing fundamentalists will vote for a Morman cultist with an angel named moroni and magic underwear. Come on.
Job1 - did she throw out "maverick too"? What a pathetic bimbo she is. But, the right still LOVES her and her stupidity!
Maybe Obama shouldn't use the term "Trojan Horse". In this gretaest idiocracy of ours, the greatest idiocracy the world has known, people will misconstrue it. Half od Republicans will think he's speaking French (or Kenyan), and the other will think that he's promoting condom use.
dumbdonkey
Just because you don't get the joke,...doesn't make it not funny!
Sattire requires wit and intellect,...which explains why you felt the need to project disdain for the art. You must get it by "half".
@Clara - Wit would be far beyond the grasp of someone proudly proclaiming to be a stupid a$$.
Hope all the Democrats in Wisconsin get out and vote for Santorum just to keep the message alive for Romney - the repubs don't like you Mr. Romney.
If they Republicans don't like Romney, then why are you calling on Democrats to vote for Santorum?
The idiocy from the left is beyond belief.
Maybe Romney isn't the most popular from extreme conservatives, but Obama is ONLY popular with the extreme left. The rest are only voting for Obama because they do what all Democrats do, look for the "D" on the ballot and check it.
Apparently, Cheryl is blinded by the GOP light and hasn't seen or rather doesn't care to check the polls lately showing President Obama leading Mitt Romney by double digits. Reality isn't part of the conservative DNA.
Sure, the polls will close the gap but Mitt Romney's unfavorable rating is the highest of any potential candidate since the 1980's. Women voters of all political stripes do not support Mitt Romney, neither do Latinos. However much Mr. Etch-a-Sketch wishes he can shake it up and start over for the general election, his anti-immigrant words, his support of the Ryan budget to kill medicare, his plans to defund Planned Parenthood, his support of personhood amendments, his flip/flops on contraception will not go away, they are on tape, video, audio clips.
It remains to be seen whether the far right evangelical base will actually show up to vote for Romney; maybe they will write in someone else. While this is as much speculation as other prognosticators, the TP faction of the party hasn't cared in the past whether or not they vote for someone who can't win, why would anyone think this same TP, evangelical crowd would not be willing to write in Rick Santorum or some other "real conservative" candidate rather than vote for the establishment GOP's choice of Romney.
No, I just don't like the plan to gut the middle class just to benefit large corporations and the rich who have done extremely well over the "supply side, trickle down" years. At the same time the 1% have had their wealth increase some 300% the rest have either lost ground or remained stagnant.
The lead up to the 2010 election gave us the Republican mantra "where are the jobs?" All they have done since is wage a war on women, elderly and less fortunate. The republican agenda is out in the open and their path ahead is clear. More for the wealthy, less for the rest and if you don't like it too bad because only those we designate will get to vote in the future.
Face it Cheryl, the repubs do not like Romney that much otherwise this circus would have been over long ago. Idiocy is republicans settling on a nominee on strictly a beat Obama ideology. Reality is the repubs have nothing worthy to offer as an alternative candidate or plan of action for the country.
There are a lot of republicans out there fed up with this new GOP. A little push by the dems to keep this going to a brokered convention just might help cleanse the party and get it back to reality.
"Land of opportunity and upward mobility for those willing to work" or in obama's case, just let others work and we will redistribute the wealth to those too lazy to work.
What a hypocrite.
you are right steve what ive always said is when the people who dont are as well off as the people who do work then there is no reason for either one of us to work
I have found the general rhetoric of the liberal posters chilling......"Obama sued Arizona and Wisconsin when they had the nerve to "defy" him.....We are not talking about a dictator who can exact punishment on anyone who fails to follow the party line, but yet you liberals speak of the President in that exact way. And you are willing to accept that? I am so tired of this man threatening everyone in this country from the legislators, to the Supreme Court Justices, all that way down to working people and those who are in poverty-he tailors the threats to the group he is addressing, but they are always the same root cause....Mr Obama feels that he has the authority to take away the rights and priveleges of anyone that thwarts his view of the world....I am staggered and amazed at the number of people that think this is wonderful.
Steve-1266763 - you DO realize that those of us who work are very lucky, right? There are NOT ENOUGH JOBS out there, remember???? You know, the jobs the GOP ran on in 2010 then did nothing about, deciding instead to focus on a woman's rights; their hatred of anything not like the stupid GOP; anti-gay; etc. When there are not enough jobs it is not that people are lazy it is that they can't find work. Most of us realize that are are not too good to help those less fortunate. But, you right wing "Christians" (I have to laugh as the real Christians I know are so unlike you) put them down at every chance. Maybe you should take a good look in the mirror and see who the lazy really are! Your put downs are beyond pathetic!
Sue - you are staggered and amazed at anything resembling intelligence as you continue to talk the Fox news lies. Please, try to pretend you have some intelligence and integrity!
That same old line of no jobs is getting really tiring. Everywhere I go stores are hiring, McDonald's is hiring, etc...so put your foolish pride aside and take what jobs are out there. It's amazing to me that 12 million illegals can come here and find work but yet you liberals can't seem to find work. Seems like maybe you prefer to live off the government or the backs of others.
As for being a christian...where the hell did that come from ? Just so you know, not every republican is a christian.
Steve
this struck me:
There are many of us who would argue that NO republican is a christian, in the strictest form of the term!
@FEISTY DEADHEAD: If you hate Sarah Palin so much why did you listen to her, everytime your worthless leader comes on I change the channel, I never listen to the loser.
Cliff - "You never listen"??? Wow, now THAT'S the way to get educated and then form an opinion. Go back to FOX.
Cliff, turning the channel is for OTHER people. Libs want the airwaves completely FREE of anyone who does not agree with them. They'd also like to ban all conservatives from being on this site. One of those Libs, Skippy From Okie, even advocates JAILING anyone who criticizes Obama and has ALL righties here on "ignore". So much for "tolerance and open-mindedness". They're shameless, idiotic hypocrites.
"If I had a son, he'd look just like Julius Bender." - Barack Obama
Just more lies from odumo pushing his agenda down Americans throats...
The most un-American president the United States has Ever had..
Obama will rebut anything and everything!! As a matter of fact, Obama couldn't find his butt (A$$) with both hands!!
Has any body read anything but hate from the tea people Koch republican posters here this morning?
Mo, nope, nothing else but hate garbage coming from the right. You see, they cannot argue with facts, they see their probable GOP nominee as a disaster so they resort to hateful comments to make themselves feel better. Trouble is, constant ugly and hate leads to indigestion--come to think of it, that's probably what they have this morning.
When getting pushed into a corner (Romoney the eventual nominee), with the majority of people/voters disagreeing with your opinion(s), they/GOP spit hatred. Must suck being them.
Obama's budget got how many votes???? This from a President who has never passed a budget in three years off office.
Here you go again. A lire is a lire is a lire. When was the last time the our glorious leader actually told the truth????????? Well........ I am waiting............ So far since his stepping into the government office, I am actually talking of him as what was it a "junior" senator he has done nothing but L.I.E............ I have not herd anything from the mans mouth other than lie lie lie, oh yea. There is other thing he says, He blames others for "HIS" faller's. But does he step up and takes the heat?????? HELL NO he thinks he is the second coming. He is nothing other than a half bread that couldn't even finish school. Yes if you really look at his school history. His "Real" school history hie has failed and dropped out. But if you look at what he has paid for and forged, then he was born in the USA and graduated top of his class. And with that you, too believe that the moon is made out of cheese.................
Well I do not. He is a fraud and a all time lire......
Normally, I don't comment on misspellings or grammar because we all make mistakes in haste but you really should learn to spell "liar" if you're going to use it so many times in a comment.
@Jody - I thought he was giving investment advice into foreign currency. I hated to tell him that it was replaced by the Euro.
And here I thought he was a dumb Italian. Ciao!
Let's see what we have here - Italian dough (lire) to make half bread, heat quickly (hie) in a forge, serve with cheese on a faller's plate. Mr. President, that sounds yummy!!
outdoorsman- ohhhhhh the little men in white coats are out looking for you. Have your meds. You really should not wander away. It's a scary place for you isn't it????? Booo!
First up, JoAnne in PA, thanks for reminding me,(and many others I'm sure), we're humans floating on this island in space and we can find a way to work things out, if we try. Next, IR, great analysis topped with some lovely Buffalo Springfield sauce, blast back kudos all around.
Romney winning these primaries is like winning the "I hugged the most unpinned hand grenades awards"; certainly impressive but ultimately terminally damaging. I can't understand how anyone can see this deeply flawed candidate coming close to beating President Obama.
Had my first run in with the collapse cowards yesterday, so now, to quote my boy Beck, "Goin' on, Feelin' strong!" People gagging on the reality of the chumps and chuckleheads running on the "R" side, need to relax their throats and suck it.
@ Fore either you forgot to put your glasses on or you choose to ignore those who agree with your point of view. There are collapse cowards on both sides trying to manage the dialogue.
Fore,
Wear the badge proudly! ☺
Goes to show they can't handle the truth!
ForePlinger, it is a great honor to be collapsed by the cowards. It proves you hit a nerve, the collapsers simply cannot tolerate truth to wisdom and as for free speech, they think free speech only applies to them. Nothing like some Buffalo Springfield to get the day started!!
The Repubs are stuck..they just don't know it yet..the health care issue will sink them I'm afraid..Funny but I agree that the "law" is unconstitutional but the premise..the thing at its very heart of whether it is constitutional or not is about the only thing I like about it..The Mandate..EVERYONE should have a stake in their health care..EVEYONE should contribute something..Just like EVERYONE should pay some Federal Tax..EVERYONE... If the Dems want to go around shouting about "fair share" then they should start there. The bear trap waiting for the Repubs is that if the "law" is upheld (unlikely) Obama wins and gets to gloat about it..The Repubs will have to slink back in to a cave. If the "law" is shot down (likely) The Repubs will be held responsible by all those..and there are millions..of people who have sampled the candy that Obamacare has already dished out...If those items like age 26 coverage for children..and no caps on coverage or no pre-existing conditions. are rolled back those folks wil scream and Obabma will play it to the hilt.."The Repubs don't care about poor and middle class Americans" The Repubs are going to look bad either way I'm afraid.. They just don't know it yet..
Wow. As if we didn't need a more graphic demonstration of what statistics tell us, outdoorsman reminds us. Only the uneducated support the Republican Party.
"Lire" "failer" "herd". outdoorsman makes it even more hysterical by claiming a lawyer, trained at Harvard Law is a "halfbread that couldn't finish school."
I will be laughing the rest of the day. Thanks for the comic relief, outdoorsman, and now go outdoors. Leave the computers to the literate.
bill s, nice post. The only point I disagree with is that those who don't pay federal income tax are those who barely make enough money to survive on. The question that should be asked is why do we have so many people who barely earn a living in this country and what can we do to change that? No doubt, they would be more than happy to pay federal taxes if it meant they earned a decent living. They are the waitresses, the waiters, they are the minimum wage earners. They do pay state and local taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes and because they earn so little, they pay a greater share of their earnings in taxes.
NDD, I had to laugh at that myself. The only misspelling I commented on to outdoorsman was "lire" otherwise I couldn't keep it civil.
There you go newday, the Left can rag on outdoorsman and the Right can rag on Bev. Seems like a wash.
Damage-You are over looking the big number - the woman's vote. Rush's numbers are up with the curious and the unguided haters who have a new home. The polls in the entire country and especially the swing states show Rush's real damage. It's too late to 86 his vile words. They will be repeated again and again all the way to november.
I'm a little bit confused over this issue. If 46 million people do NOT have health Insurance. There must be a reason. Is it that they can not afford health Insurance? Their employer cannot afford health insurance ? If that is the case will they not get Medicaid ? Who pays for Medicaid ? Surely these individuals who can not afford health insurance will not be paying anything if they can not afford the health insurance ? So how does this program work so that the 46 million people can be added to the system? Who pays ? How does the health insurance costs go down/ If you add millions of people to Medicaid the cost most go up for everyone employer and employee or am i missing something ? The Mdicaid costs passed on to the States ? Where do they get the money? How do we reduce the costs of health Insurance
Oh, gosh, now it's even FUNNIER: Paul coming on to make some sort of irrelevant remark to excuse that nonsense!
Yep, I checked on Rush's show the other day. Couldn't find it on the station that used to carry it here! ; )
But, when I found a station in a different city, Rushie seems to be big on advertising for gold companies and sketchy weight loss spray plans.
But, good for him!
anyone buying weight loss products from Rush's show would TRULY by ice from the Klondike Eskimo,...
NDD, you made me laugh!
Glad to hear it, Clara!
Romney is so funny. This guy is a joke!
Dumb...your hatred isn't a joke.
I can not think of one thing that is better today then it was 4 years ago---prices on everything have shot up do to higher gas prices---no jobs---economy is as bad as it has ever been in my 60 years on earth--racial tensions are worst today then the 70's---debt goes up by the trillions--still in wars that seem to have no end---still have the Cuban prisons---our president is apologising to arab leaders--Our first lady has made a statement that this was the first time that she was proud to be an American--well this is the first time I am not proud to be an American---please vote this man out
Coach...I've never been more proud to be an American. But, thanks for voicing your opinions in a civil way.
Coach-Osama bin laden is dead. The Iraq War is over. People with existing conditions are insured and not automatically bankrupt. Oprah is off TV.
I can not think of one thing that is better today then it was 4 years ago-
Hey Coach, we were actively involved in two WARS four years ago, the Dow stood at 8,200, we lost 598,000 jobs in January of 2009, and the murderer of thousands of innocent people was breathing free and servicing his many wives right under our noses...
Stock market is over 13,000...
Unemployment is tracking down, every month and more and more jobs are being created...
We are out of Iraq and leaving Afghanistan, meaning that tens of thousands of reservists who have served multiple tours abroad are safe and home with their families.
Our cities are safer than they have ever been, with violent crime at an all time low...
Racial violence is at an ALL TIME LOW (Where do you get your "news"?)
And that guy who eluded us for the entire 8 years of the previous administration now "sleeps with the fishes"
I ain't saying it's a perfect world, but while the glass is half full to some, half empty to others, it isn't empty.
You should always be proud to be an American. You should be ashamed of yourself. This is the greatest Nation in the history of the planet and "The last best hope of Mankind", so being unhappy with the current administration seem to be a petty reason to damn the entire nation of 375 million.
The people will render their verdict soon enough, and the victor will be our President. We will all accept the will of the electorate, because we are a DEMOCRACY...
Bravo, Dangerfield! Welcome back!!! I have missed your insights!
All the main stream media propaganda in the world won't help the Democrats this time. The informed Independents are paying attention to the Liar in Chief and they will be the swing vote in 2012 that closes the book on this disaster of a Presidency.
This informed independent is currently wondering if a vulture capitalist is really the type of person we should elect to fix the economy (i.e. create jobs).
Vulture capitalist? If you listen to Obama, that is redundant. It is also funny to believe that the 99% will be better off with 4 more years of Obama, when we are sinking further in his first administration.
Obama has not come up with a viable economic plan. All they talk about is reducing the GROWTH of government, and taking another trillion or two out of the economy. This is before he has the additional "flexibility" he expects to exert after the election.
If you claim to be informed, you know that Social Democratic societies in Europe are not sustainable without the benefits of developing natural resources (Oil & Metals) and/or a strong manufacturing base (Germany). The countries that do not have these are sinking. Obama is killing manufacturing with regulations, taxes, and policies that will increase costs (Obamacare); and is resisting increasing the availability of our natural resources. He is hurting any chance that his social agenda can be sustainable, and it won't be the 1% who feel the pain when that happens.
Mitt has his biggest problem with women and Latinos. Women certainly do not want a so-called Bishop from a strange tribe with off the wall beliefs telling them what to do with their bodies. Latinos except former Mormon Rick Rubio will not vote for Romney with his racist immigration stance. Add in his bizarre statements about Russia and out of touch statements regarding his wealth and the middle class. Ole Mitt has tough row to hoe.
Bear Bryant--Are you talking about the President that lied about WMD in Iraq causing 5000 troopers dead and 20,000 maimed and wounded? That was George " I do not wake up every day thinking about Osama Bin Laden " Bush doing the lieing.? You must have got the two confused.
Neither have any of the GOP candidates running from what I've heard. In fact I have yet to hear any plan from them whatsoever.
bearbryant-the independents are polling against Romney-especially the women. Thank Rush.
Ruken, if you haven't heard of a plan, then you haven't been paying attention
Coach, the one thing better is Jimmy Carter is no longer our worst President. Of course, that only helps Jimmy.
Guess what? Republicans are losing swing states,,,, Nobody buys your crap, not even real republicans... Quite a lot are voting for Obama. You radical freaks on the right have scared them off with all your nonsense
Maybe available...so why is George W. in hiding? Why is the GOP making sure George W. stays in the shadows? Jimmy Carter continues to put his efforts in helping USA citizens and the world. Your good ol' George W. is one of the worst Presidents in history, and THAT proof is what the USA and world are still recovering from.
k2mn - George W will be known as THE WORST President of our lifetime - bar none!!!!