Want a verbaim, yes, a verbatim account of Romney's Lies? Google: Romney the Liar. Wooden Willard has so many Pinocchio lies, he cannot see beyond his nose.

Mitt Romney Debt Speech: 'Inferno' Oversimplified

AP | Posted: 05/15/2012 5:06 pm

WASHINGTON (AP) — When Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney decried the "prairie fire" of U.S. debt Tuesday, he ignored some of the sparks that set it ablaze.

One was the Great Recession that took hold before Barack Obama became president. That landmark event went unmentioned in Romney's speech. Another was a series of Bush-era tax cuts that Romney wants to follow with even lower rates.

Instead he laid the blame on Obama, a president who has certainly increased the nation's eye-popping debt — but not, as Romney claimed, by nearly as much as all other presidents combined.

A look at some of Romney's assertions and how they compare with the facts:

ROMNEY: "America counted on President Obama to rescue the economy, tame the deficit and help create jobs. Instead, he bailed out the public sector, gave billions of your dollars to the companies of his friends, and added almost as much debt as all the prior presidents combined."

THE FACTS. Hardly. Presidents from George Washington through George W. Bush ran the national debt up to $10.62 trillion, the amount it was on the day Obama took office. Today, it is $15.67 trillion, according to the Treasury Department's Bureau of Public Debt. So it has gone up by $5.05 trillion under Obama. That's roughly half of the amount amassed by all the other presidents combined.

In short, the debt has gone up by about half under Obama. Under Ronald Reagan, it tripled.

ROMNEY: "I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno. We will stop borrowing unfathomable sums of money we can't even imagine, from foreign countries we'll never even visit. I will bring us together to put out the fire."

THE FACTS: Romney's tax and spending plans don't support his vow to dampen the debt fire. He proposes to cut taxes and expand the armed forces, putting yet more stress on the budget, and his promise to slash domestic spending isn't backed by the big specifics. Romney's tax plan would cut the top income tax rate to 28 percent from 35 percent and other rates by 20 percent each. He says he'd broaden the tax base and eliminate many deductions in the process, but details are missing.

A study by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget concluded earlier this year that Romney's plans would not make a dent in deficits, and could worsen them considerably. That study was done before Romney upped his tax cuts, inviting even deeper debt.

That's not to say he can't at some point lay out the spending cuts necessary to achieve his aims. But he would have to slash domestic programs by more than 20 percent — far more than the 5 percent in immediate cuts he has proposed. It is nearly unthinkable that Congress would approve the evisceration of basic federal functions such as food inspection, air traffic control, the Border Patrol, FBI, grants to local governments, health research, housing and heating aid for the poor, food aid for pregnant women, national parks and much more.

Nowhere in Tuesday's speech was there a new idea of how Romney would accomplish the promised deficit reduction. He spoke generally of reforming Social Security and Medicare, eliminating duplicative government programs, and transferring some functions to the states or the private sector, adding that he would "streamline everything that's left."

The closest he has come to laying out a specific spending plan has been in his endorsement of the budget blueprint passed this year by House Republicans, which also fails to produce his promised deficit reductions.

ROMNEY: "The people of Iowa and America have watched President Obama for nearly four years, much of that time with Congress controlled by his own party. And rather than put out the spending fire, he has fed the fire. He has spent more and borrowed more. ... When you add up his policies, this president has increased the national debt by $5 trillion."

THE FACTS: Much of the increase in the debt is due to lower tax revenues from depressed corporate and individual incomes and high joblessness in the worst recession since the Great Depression. The recession officially began in December 2007, when George W. Bush was president and the national debt stood at just over $9 trillion. Financial bailouts, stimulus programs and auto rescue spending begun under Bush and continued under Obama contributed to the run-up of the debt.

But so did the Bush-era tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. With bipartisan support, Congress has extended the tax cuts until the end of this year, and Romney's proposals for big cuts of his own would risk another squeeze on revenue.

EDITOR'S NOTE — An occasional look at statements by political candidates and how well they adhere to the facts.

This analysis from the AP gives the real facts, not the manufactured ones (LIES) that the Romney campaign would have you believe. This is just a small sampling of the LIES they constantly spew. As Romney and his campaign have a reputation for telling LIES, it will be up to media sources and nonpartisan institutions to try to keep them honest, a monumental task at best, given their track record so far.

Ron.....great post, looks like we are thinking on the same topic.

GBM: Indeed we are! Indeed we are.

Feisty: By election day people will realize there is something wrong with Willard because he can't tell the truth.

Sorry for the double post -- technical glitch.

Ben....if you believe what Politifact posts, you will always be playing catchup. Their methods are questionable at best. Find another source for fact checking.

See my post above on this very topic, AP is hardly in the Obama court.

Fiesty the R's didn't cause the downgrade.

Sorry buddy - that dog won't hunt!

From Standard & Poor's own findings;

S&P on US Government: 'Less Stable, Less Effective and Less Predictable'

Standard & Poor's gave strong emphasis to that agreement in announcing its decision.

"The downgrade," S&P said, "reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics."

In particular, Standard & Poor's added, it grew more pessimistic about U.S. debt because of the bitter political fight over raising the debt ceiling.

"The political brinksmanship of recent months," the company said, "highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed."

The agency pointed to political reluctance to make cuts to entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security, and Republicans' refusal even to consider increasing revenues by, for instance, ending the Bush tax cuts.

"Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place," the company said. "We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the [debt ceiling deal]."

Last month, Standard & Poor's warned that the U.S. risked a downgrade to AA status if Congress did not lift the debt ceiling and reduce the total debt by $4 trillion over the next decade. The eventual deal called for barely half as much deficit reduction.

You can thank me later for teaching your something little ATC! lol

Mitt Romney visited Iowa yesterday. Turns out the Romney campaign switched the venue from Drake University to a downtown hotel. What's up with that Willard? Oh, wait, breaking rumors. Turns out he couldn't fill the large Drake U venue so rather than risk another half empty or mostly empty room, he headed to downtown where the business folks hang out.

I've followed politics for decades. I've watched candidates from both sides twist facts to favor them but never have I seen a pathological liar of a politician like Mitt Romney. The man literally cannot speak a sentence without speaking an outright lie. That's not just a "leftie liberal" observation. Conservatives and evangelicals do not trust him; mainstream conservatives do not trust him. Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, Paul all called out Mitt's lies as lies. Worse, Romney is ruthless--anyone who "likes to fire people who work for me" is not your average bear.

Yet here the GOP is today, stuck with a candidate that few conservative FR posters mention let alone cheer as their presidential candidate. Here the GOP is today stuck with a man they know to be a liar and not trustworthy and yet the stand in unison to vote for a man to be their president who lacks character, lacks a core, lies to them daily and they do it because he has an "R" beside his name and his name is not Barack Obama. Mitt Romney reflects a sad commentary to today's conservative politics--it is not about a man they do not trust and do not like, it is about the fact that the other guy is a democrat. For those who will say democrats do the same thing, vote for the "D"--wrong--democrats would never have selected Romney in the first place.

Want a verbaim, yes, a verbatim account of Romney's Lies? Google: Romney the Liar. Wooden Willard has so many Pinocchio lies, he cannot see beyond his nose.

Good Ron, very good.

@Fiesty and Ben

Does it matter who ran up or doubled the debt? Finger pointing and blame will not reduce it one dollar.

The one thing I did like about Romney's speech was that it pointed out the dismal future we are setting up for the country. His example of a sub-prime mortgage with no money down and variable interest was pretty accurate.

I looked up the web site Fiesty mentions above, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. It's pretty stark on the choices we face. I hate to say it because it will affect myself and states like mine, but I think we have to end the (Federal) deduction for state taxes, and push through the Amazon bill so that the states will receive more sales taxes.

Medicare and Medicaid have to be totally reformed. That's where the spending is going forward. An increase in the eligibility age has to be passed, plus some form of means testing.

Ben, you need to do your homework. The credit rating bureau said the US downgrade was a direct result of the GOP being unwilling to work with the President. So, how do you make that seem like the R's didn't cause the downgrade?

And, so what if Clinton doesn't agree with Obama regarding the military? The Democrats are not required to march "lock step" to one opinion. That how the unintelligent GOP acts - do whatever they're told - no matter if it is good for the country or not!

Boehner doesn't have this country's best interests at heart. His only interest is for the crooks - like the Koch Bros., - who are more than willing to line his pockets with money. He is dishonest and a traitor and should be treated as other traitors. When will the people of Ohio wake up?

Obama/Biden 2012

Another debt ceiling debate. Goody. What a total bunch of political crap. If Romney happens to get elected......you won't hear another word about it. It'll get passed as is. Those idiots in Congress couldn't balance the budget of a lemonade stand. And as far as Romney providing any details about anything......he won't. Politically, he'd be screwed. You really have to look back at his record as Mass. Gov. and Bain Cap. and all his past statements to piece together what a Romney presidency would look like. And it ain't pretty. But he sure isn't going to lay it all out at one time for all to see. Ah, but social media and a 24 hour news cycle will be his downfall. Can't wait for the duel screen Romney ads with him arguing both sides of the same issue. And don't give me the "but he evolved like Obama did" BS. You can flip on one or two or even three things.....but on every issue is just pandering. And if Romney wants to even have a chance, he better start defining himself, because its being done for him at this point.

Does it matter who ran up or doubled the debt? Finger pointing and blame will not reduce it one dollar

Holy @!$%# Alan - I actually agree with you on something! (Must be the kilt thingy) lol

Look, I have no problem with responsible reductions (starting with the bloated dept of defense) as long as it is matched by revenue increases...

One thing I know for sure is until these yahoo's in DC decide both sides are going to have to give a little bit - NOTHING is going to happen.

In the meantime, WE the people are going to suffer again this summer...

I see finger pointing. Does anyone have solutions??

Let's just get right down to cases. There is an ideological left and an ideological right. They are going to vote a party line. Party liners, both Democrat and Republican, will hold hands and take a head first dive into their respective fountains of fool-ade.

These are the fools who believe that Republicans ALWAYS get it right or who believe that Democrats ALWAYS get it right. There's little point in presenting facts to these ideological slaves. Facts conflict with their narratives.

You can check tenure in Congress, and you will find that right-wing bitchers have been in Congress happily approving broken budgets as a sea of red ink threatens to swamp the ship of state. Those same people have been drawing welfare checks for several decades. And now, suddenly, they're surprised by government debt? Welfare checks? Damned right. What else would you call them but government handouts for doing nothing?

That makes Republican spendthrifts much different from Democratic spendthrifts. Democrats, you see, have closed their eyes to red ink spending. That way, they can say they didn't know the ship of state was sinking. They're up to their necks in red ink, and still they pretend. They do open their eyes on occasion however. They have to be able to grab their welfare checks.

In most cases, red states are very red, and blue states are very blue. There is little chance that they will suddenly move from red to blue or from blue to red. It's the purple states that will make the difference. There's really nothing new there. That's the way it's been for many years.

It's the relatively small group at the center - the true independents - who are going to decide the future of this country. Let the left and the right overdose on their dogma chow.

Republicans promise more of the very policies that have brought us to the edge of financial disaster. The totally false contention that transferring wealth to the already-wealthy to save the country is embarrassingly ridiculous. Republicans no more understand fiscal conservatism, than goldfish understand particle physics.

On the other hand, Democrats have a rare opportunity to show they understand true fiscal conservatism. We need them to show us a firm plan for eliminating red ink. Show us a balanced plan that deals with out-of-control entitlements, that cuts waste, and raises taxes. A balanced plan. Independents are looking for a reasonable approach. Good grief, that's why they're independents. Show us a plan, Democrats.

I thought this dialouge on a thread last night was interesting:

Interesting indeed when you have the balls to call me a stalker... lmao!

Oh well, nice to see you lost a good nights sleep over it!

You might want to think about taking a break for awhile, I sure manage get under your thin skin... sweetcheeks! ;o)

Envy - really isn't a good look for ya WCA!

*** Risky Business: Given what took place last year, Boehner’s call for a sequel is risky.

Here's a plan to avoid the problem. Have Obama spend less money. Maybe he could put the plan in a budget and send it to Congress? Yeah, I know - too easy.

The sooner the fiscal conservatives come to the realization this is NOT going to happen by only slashing, the faster things will start to get done!

______________________________________________________

Sounds like you are criticizing Barry's lefty liberal pandering to those making less than $250,000/200,000 by saying they don't have to contribute to the tax increase "solution"??????

Nasty DumFux: it's good to see you are agreeing with Slick Willy Clinton on this subject.

LMAO!!!!

White Collar Auto wrote:

"Some of you folks ought to try being strong and Independent some time."

A lot of us are quite strong and independent already. I recommend it. Try it WCA. Let us know how it works out for you.

Maybe he could put the plan in a budget and send it to Congress? Yeah, I know - too easy.

His budget did get sent to Congress. The House voted it down with no Democratic votes and in the Senate, Harry Reid will not present it because he does not think it will get 50 votes and thus embaress the President.

The Democratic-led Senate on Wednesday is expected to reject all four GOP budget plans, including the contentious House-passed proposal authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.). A fifth budget, offered by Republicans and based on President Barack Obama 2013 spending blueprint, also will likely fall short of the 50 votes needed to pass, dealing the White House an embarrassing election-year blow.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76358.html#ixzz1v2bK0n2f

Good Morning to all; Below I have added the posts of the lol (left of left) from some of my favorites, I love it when people get together and try to change the minds of others by doing some Electronic Community Organizing. Notice that when they use articles from lol sites they are called FACTS, however when the other side uses articles they are called LIES. Too bad these lol posters don't go to the other sites (considered to the right) and post their childish half truth. November will tell the truth of how mainstream America feels. The minority on this site(Independents,Conservatives and some Dems) are the ones that have what it takes and we are not staying quite any longer.

Gingerbread Mamma: Ben....if you believe what Politifact posts, you will always be playing catchup. Their methods are questionable at best. Find another source for fact checking.

Ron Indiana GBM: Indeed we are! Indeed we are. Feisty: By election day people will realize there is something wrong with Willard because he can't tell the truth.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, ILRon - Willard's panties were fully engulfed yesterday in IA;

Chris, Dorr, MIGO Obaaahhhhhma 2012! the right is going to pay a price at the polls in November if they hold our economy hostage over the debt ceiling AGAIN

Big ATC --

You just confirmed what i said Feisty. The number S & P put out was indeed 4 trillion. The house PASSED a bill cutting 6 trillion over 10 years. That would have avoided the downgrade. So how could their plan cut 2 trillion MORE than needed and cause a downgrade?

So what? The House has also passed the Ryan budget not once, but twice. They know that what they are doing is largely symbolic because they cannot hope to get their lunacy through the Senate. So to them, it doesn't matter much WHAT they pass. They do it ONLY to appease their Tea Party puppet-masters, and not because it is good policy.

$6 trillion in cuts looks pretty on paper but would have been disastrous. Thank GOD for the Senate.

Conservatives simply refuse to see the big picture of what your policies are doing to the future of this country beyond the impact that they might have today on your personal wallet.

And to answer your substantive point, I do believe that the rating services were actually looking for a combination of spending cuts AND tax increases, and short of that, the downgrade would have occurred in any event.

Not to mention that, at the time, conservatives were actually trying to downplay the downgrade by criticizing S&P because S&P blamed the Republicans mostly for the problem. And now you're trying to shift the blame for that downgrade back to the Democrats, when S&P itself blamed YOUR side, just as much or more than it blamed the Democrats.

There is NO end to conservative hypocrisy.

this debt ceiling should have never been an issue the way politicians have maded it out to be..

politics is showbiz for ugly people, both literally and metaphorically - most politicians are men behaving badly - I mean those Republicans who have tried to make this debt an issue.

What I notice, WCA, is your complete obsession with Feisty. Sort of creepy, if you ask me.

Leave it to Boehner--nothing like a few more near or total government shut downs which will cause greater harm to the recovering economy to show ones superior STUPIDTY and complete LACK OF RESPONSIBLITY and INEPTNESS at governing. Once there was a party called the GOP that was worthy of it's Grand Old Party label. Now it isn't even worthy of being a political party, it's nothing more than cheap dog food with a fancy, pretty package. It is one thing to disagree on principle, it is another to disagree in order to defeat the other side with NO REMORSE for the pain it causes the very people and country they claim to "love". This GOP is the party that since their mythological hero Reagan came along has not been fiscally responsible; in fact, it hasn't even been responsible period. We know that instead of learning from the disasterous debt they created ala Reagan, Bush and Bush, they keep doubling down on the stupidity of the policies that gave us the disasterous debt. "Deficits don't matter" unless there is a democrat in the White House.

Chris, always nice to lead off FR with Obama enthusiasm! Ron, great points; GBM and Feisty, duplication worthy of a repeat for emphasis.

BigATC, you really need to do a better job on your homework rather than repeating what the right tells you. Google makes it easy, try it.

These pathetic clowns in Washington only think about their own partisan goals. Unless we develop a viable third party, the country is totally screwed...

For Republicans, they try to have it both ways...first they want to cut taxes, then they have to borrow money to fund mandatory and discretionary spending, thus more debt.

It's Repugnant Presidents from Reagan, to Bush Sr. to Bush Jr who have contributed to this huge debt. Again it is Republicans who have used this issue of their own making to bother Obama.

Clinton ended budget deficits and ushered in surpluses which disappeared because of Bush's tax cut for the rich.

David Walker,

Republicans no more understand fiscal conservatism, than goldfish understand particle physics.

It's sad, but I think this post is true of leaders in both parties and their (lack of) economic knowledge in general. Let's face it...the real problem is the voters continuing to vote for whoever says they will give the most handouts for the least cost (or, no cost).

Until voters start to demand real solutions to our fiscal problems, the politicians will continue the "borrow and spend" approach both parties have been using the last dozen years. Or, we'll reach our limit, and other countries will stop lending us money...and that won't be pretty.

Ahh NDD, I see you got the memo as well. I figured as much. Nice reflective tactic. Interesting choice of words. Can't wait to see who else jumps on the Save a Liberal Bandwagon today.

AM: They know that what they are doing is largely symbolic because they cannot hope to get their lunacy through the Senate.

So what's the Senate plan, or do we have to wait until after the election to find out?

$6 trillion in cuts looks pretty on paper but would have been disastrous.

When compared to what is it disastrous? When compared to uncontrolled deficit spending perhaps? Have you seen Greece lately and the choices they made that got them there? How about Portugal? Spain? France? Ireland? Italy? Kind of a trend going on there, a disastrous trend of uncontrolled spending and layer upon layer of government safety nets.

What I notice, WCA, is your complete obsession with Feisty.

NDD,

Can you imagine ever being so obsessed with someone you lose a nights sleep & have to bring it up the next day?

I would say I've managed to do a good job getting inside the poor little guys head.... lol

Pigotry,

Clinton worked with a Republican congress to significantly reduce the deficit. They didn't actually run a surplus (unless you consider stealing from SS legit), but they came very close. I don't think it's fair to only give the credit/blame to the President...you have to include congress in the analysis.

Presidents from George Washington through George W. Bush ran the national debt up to $10.62 trillion, the amount it was on the day Obama took office. Today, it is $15.67 trillion, according to the Treasury Department's Bureau of Public Debt. So it has gone up by $5.05 trillion under Obama. That's roughly half of the amount amassed by all the other presidents combined.

So far so good, but that's only part of the story – the part the Obama apologists like to toss about. The full story would include the future implications for the debt of the president's current policies.

Not to worry, CBO does that sort of analysis every year once the president submits his budget to Congress. And based on the Obama policies as embedded in his FY13 budget request, CBO estimates the debt will increase by $3.2 trillion over the period 2013-2017 and another $3.2 trillion over the period 2018-2022. That would be a total of $6.4 trillion added to the $5 trillion in debt Obama has already run up for a grand total of over $11 trillion in debt attributed to Obama.

The bottom line is Obama (by virtue of his FY13 budget request) is on record as proposing a path forward that would add more debt than all previous presidents combined. And if you have an issue with that, take it up with the CBO.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/04-20-Economic_Budget.pdf

ATC - President Obama did not raise taxes on people making less than $250K. He lowered them. This is easily confirmed by anyone interested in the truth.

Try another source of information because the one you subscribe to is not reliable.

I went through all the posts in this thread and voted for the Dumb Fux. Just trying to bring some joy into her decrepit life.

David Walker --

A lot of us are quite strong and independent already. I recommend it. Try it WCA. Let us know how it works out for you.

As you know, David, WCA constantly betrays his authoritarian mindset by repeatedly telling us that we should all think for ourselves, which only means that we should all think like him -- or whoever is pulling HIS strings.

Well, no. I think I'll decline that invitation. Thinking like WCA has never seemed very appealing.

And right there is all the evidence that WCA needs that I think for myself.

JoAnna --

I went through all the posts in this thread and voted for the Dumb Fux. Just trying to bring some joy into her decrepit life.

You have some idea that your voting for Feisty's comments would bring her joy?

You liberals are hillarious! Post after post all saying "Romney's a liar blah, blah blah..." , meanwhile congratulating each other (Nice work GM!) for posting the same drivel you posted yesterday and the day before and the day before that and the day...you get the picture. Unfortunately for you, the rest of America doesn't seem to agree with you. Did you see the latest Gallup/USA Today poll? Republicans lead the generic congressional vote by 6 points. Taken alone this far in advance of the elections this would be meaningless, but coupled with Obama's currently sagging poll numbers it should make you take notice. Maybe it's time to change tactics. Instead of negative attacks against the opposition and the perpetual finger pointing, maybe Democrats could actually offer some solutions? For example, you could follow Clinton's lead and accept the fact that merely taxing the rich will not solve all of our economic problems. He now favors tax increases accross the board, an idea that I might even support if the increses came with spending cuts. Could it be that he is evolving?

Wrong upset and I know for a fact. Two years ago the unemployed in this country (count me as one) had to pay higher income taxes on unemployment benefits because the IRS/Obama administration did not continue the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits exclusion from taxes. I believe the unemployed make less than $250k. Letting the exclusion expire is the same as raising income taxes.

@ScoMata1964 -- And the main pivot person is Feisty and she sure is "sticky." LOL.

BigATC, you missed my point--democrats would never selected a Mitt Romney in the first place. While you make a good argument, the mistake you make is in blaming President Obama. In order for President Obama to keep those promises you mentioned required Congress to pass them and fund them. Why isn't Gitmo closed? Because Congress turned chicken or have you forgotten the legislators fear mongering about detainees walking the streets of NY or elsewhere; they refused to fund the effort. The GOP Senators filibustered every effort by the Obama administration and democrats from job creating legislation to appointees. Our Senate no longer follows the Constitution of majority rule. The GOP's goal announced within weeks of the Inauguration was to "defeat President Obama". I refuse to blame our President for the failures of Congress. Those who chose that route would deserve a Mitt Romney to lead us into another Bush 43 economic collapse.

Coming from a blogger obsessed with little heads! Bloomers for sure!

Clinton: Hike taxes across the board

He knows. In fact he was the last President who had a clue about fiscal tax policy.

Obama should listen to him.

Alan, NJ - Interesting comment about Amazon. Not sure if you saw but Amazon finally gave in to paying nearly $269 million in state taxes, they owed Texas that much since 2006. I'm with you, but have to say am surprised you agree that they should pay state sales tax. Happy that the comptroller and enforcement officers made them pay their fair share. In lieu of paying the back taxes they will...

Then there are those states that have claimed that the existence of an Amazon non-retail distribution center within their borders means the company must collect sales tax. In Texas, Amazon actually closed a distribution center in 2011 after the state claimed the company owed $269 million in uncollected sales tax.

The agreement announced Friday seeks to resolve both the tax and job-loss issues by including a promise from Amazon to create 2,500 jobs in Texas and make $200 million worth of capital investment in the state.

When political parties can convince more than half the public that raising a debt ceiling 14 times in a row is a good idea we all have lost.

The easy political response to John Boenher?

SIMPSON - BOWLES

BOWLES - SIMPSON

SIMPSON - BOWLES

BOWLES - SIMPSON

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

Let the TEA dimwits in the House defend rejecting a known bipartisan deficit reduction plan.
Let the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform defend the plan.
Let Romney be - for - against - for - against - for - against - the Simpson-Bowles plan.

Let the President be the adult in the room.

The TEA Turds will immediately begin screaming for 'leadership' from the President - to help the TEA nimrods with a fight they started. Ryan will wave around another orange chart to confuse the real issues and avoid defense cuts. Cantor will throw another tantrum in the corner - and - Boehner will cry. The unwashed and uneducated TEA Turds will be complaining about Odumbo - and - chant ABO, ABO, ABO.

What a bunch of moronic zombies.

Another debt ceiling debate. Goody. What a total bunch of political crap. If Romney happens to get elected......you won't hear another word about it. It'll get passed as is.

You're exactly right. It was Bush's own VP who proclaimed that deficts don't matter. The GOP only "got religion" about debt after they lost the election in 2008.

Regarding defense spending, President Obama made huge cuts in the defense budget.

Good grief Ron, you really need to get out more. The president has proposed almost $500 billion in defense cuts going forward. Looks more like Dr Ron is lying, not Romney.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/01/obama-defense-cuts/1

Coming from a blogger obsessed with little heads! Bloomers for sure!

This coming from the guy who felt compelled to share his 5th wife's vaginal sling story with us!

Then, there's his fixation with all things anal...

Seriously? lmao

AM: You have some idea that your voting for Feisty's comments would bring her joy?

You're probably right. It's a lost cause.

Fool's Gold --

For example, you could follow Clinton's lead and accept the fact that merely taxing the rich will not solve all of our economic problems. He now favors tax increases accross the board, an idea that I might even support if the increses came with spending cuts. Could it be that he is evolving?

Some of us were already there. It's clear that cutting taxes without revenue enhancement will not resolve the problem. If it means that we continue to take care of our social welfare obligations, those of us who can pay more should be prepared to do that.

But ... and it's a BIG but ... that includes the wealthy paying THEIR fair share as well. And as there can be no question that the wealthy have benefited most by the tax policies of the Bush/Obama administrations, then they should be the ones to shoulder most of the load.

Maybe Clinton has evolved, but we won't be able to say the same for you until you and other conservatives agree that tax increases will be necessary, in addition to spending cuts, which nobody denies are needed.

If Republicans had been this much enlightened in 2011, then the downgrade in our credit rating never would have occurred.

@David

Modern day Dems are wolves in sheep clothing and do not care about "the people" and will not come up with a plan for anything unless it involves exclusively benefiting the dems. I also disagree that republicans policies led us to the brink, there is way too much hard evidence about the housing crisis that says differently. That's not to say I believe them to be a great party either, it just appears that you're pulling for the Dems and I don' think you should get your hopes up that they will actually give a rip in this day and age. Maybe when JFK was around but the lies have penetrated too deeply into the mindless and there's a serious ruling class mentality that has taken over among the Dem party. However, I do agree with the bulk of your post and the fact that the nation is becoming more and more polarized certainly doesn't help when trying to find any common ground. They're all ass-holes and we need an unaffiliated person to come in and really mix it up, but the political powers that be would have to literally vote in favor of their own demise to allow that to happen. That is just not going to happen any time soon. I'm sure you and I can agree on that.

Dems can blame Republicans all they want because otherwise they would have to look in the mirror and you know they're not going to do that. But right here right now barack is the issue. He's more interested in finding common ground with Al quada than he is in finding it with the republicans. With all of your observations you've got to admit that this particular president is a miserable leader. A leader will bring people together under his command even when there are extreme differences, not draw out divisional lines and then stand at podiums claiming "we all need to work together". He's a hypocrite and a fraud and thus the reason for so much animosity at this time.

People love the crutch of falling back to Bush or claiming that it's becuase the Republicans are stopping anything he tries. Personally I'm glad they're stopping a bunch of his crap but at the same time if his policies were really that good for the country and he truly believed in them he would find a way to bring people together and make it happen.

So maybe we need some actual leadership and less proposals on a table because at this stage in the game it doesn't matter what a dem or a Republican throws out, it's not going to be seriously considered without someone leading the people to at least want to consider things. It's all about leadership man, great leaders founded the country, they've won battles and wars, they've built business empires for the betterment of all involved and none of the principals of great leadership has changed throughout time. barack has none of those principals.

But the main reason for my response to you is; Your post was much too logical a point of view to put it up here. You've entered Feisty dead-heads playground and you can't bring a brain to a shi$ throwing fight. Whatever you do, keep your lips parsed because the way she throws it you might get some in your mouth.

Jody: Just curious, you say that Obama is not responsible because it requires Congress to pass them and fund them - correct? So when the economy was doing GREAT through 2006 but Democrats took control of the House in 2006 and BLOCKED all the economy growing policies that George Bush desired causing a financial collapse in 2008 are no longer considered George Bush's fault too - right? That IS what you just said!! So glad to FINALLY get the liberals to understand that the 2008 financial collapse was actually due to Democrats in Congress. FINALLY THE TRUTH COMES OUT!! THANKS JODY!!

There's a lot of talk about politicians lying during campaigns. My philosophy is that they all stretch the truth as far as possible. I took a look at the Washington Post Fact Checker (make your own assumptions about political bias there) and both President Obama and Mitt Romney are averaging "2 Pinocchios". Sadly, it seems that campaigns are all about taking things out of context or including just a tiny bit of truth with a whole lot of exaggeration.

Btw...couldn't help but notice that Alan and Feisty agreed with each other above. Had to pick myself up off the floor on that one!! First round is on me tonight!!! ;-)

I mentioned yesterday that it is "DC Power Players" week on Jeopardy this week and I couldn't help but notice that according to my cable program info, a certain Mr. Chuck Todd is going to be one of the players later this week!!!

You cannot no matter how hard you try separate CAUSE from EFFECT. The nation and by proxy the world was brought to a FINANCIAL COLLAPSE by the previous administration's CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY and policies. Yet somehow Obama is expected to perform miracles WITH NO HELP AND NOTHING BUT OBSTRUCTION from conservatives.

If you love this country you must give this president what he needs to set the country on a steady course of growth. HOWS ALL THAT AUSTERITY STUFF WORKING FOR YOU now that you can see its effects? Precisely why the conservative argument didn't work then nor will it work now.

Obama 2012

70+ Seats for Dems in the Senate (Kill the Filabuster)

Control of the House

Btw...couldn't help but notice that Alan and Feisty agreed with each other above. Had to pick myself up off the floor on that one!! First round is on me tonight!!! ;-)

Grimey,

Does that mean there's a margarita in my future?

I'm telling ya - it has to be his kilt! ;o)

I tend to agree with you, most politicians do stretch the truth.

However, never in my life time have I witnessed one as polished & pathological as Willard!

He takes it to a level beyond surreal!

As to the Deteoit civil rights march

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7524.html

So, I'm guessing that the statements of people who were actually there matter as much as Politifact to the delusional cut members, but, for the rest of the world, the truth is the truth.

You accusations - which are totally unfounded- do wonders for your credibility. Do keep it up.

Ben, Dont be an ignorant troll. Dollars are not the same today as yesterday much less 100 years ago. You must calculate presidential spending in terms of % increase of the debt. It is in fact the only way to get into the spending numbers.

Give It A Rest needs to study what the debt ceiling is and why raising it is critical to the country; defaulting on the US debt is the equivalent of defaulting on a home mortgage times a million--it would be the USA declaring bankruptcy, now how well do you think that would work for the future? The debt is what we ALREADY owe, not raising the debt ceiling does not eliminate the debt or reduce the deficit. A huge amount of that debt is paying the interest on the debt created by Reagan and Bush and all the others. That interest accrues and multiplies just like interest on a CD. The best way to reduce the debt and the need to raise the debt ceiling is by creating more jobs (and yes, deficit spending by government to push the economy to humming along instead of baby-stepping), by increasing revenues (raise taxes on those who can afford it, close tax loopholes, etc.).

Concerned Citizen, your point in #1.41 was exactly what? You do realize this is a political chat room don't you? You know, where people come to talk politics, disagree, agree and yes--applaud or boo. It is nice to know that you will no longer remain "quite" but not being quiet might be a better choice.

ProBusiness --

... but Democrats took control of the House in 2006 and BLOCKED all the economy growing policies that George Bush desired causing a financial collapse in 2008

Exactly what WERE those "economy growing policies"? I was around then, and all I remember is both sides abrogating ALL responsibility for doing anything until after the 2008 election. As far as I know, Bush didn't propose anything new. He did want some more controls on the financial industry, but that was mainly before 2006, when Republicans had the votes to pass whatever they wanted. BUT those proposals -- e.g., Chuck Hagel's bill -- were ultimately blocked by conservatives, owing primarily to the lobbying efforts of Newt Gingrich, among others.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/mortgage-meltdown-freddie-mac-lobbying-held-federal-regulators-bay

Internal Freddie Mac budget records show $11.7 million was paid to 52 outside lobbyists and consultants in 2006. Power brokers such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich were recruited with six-figure contracts. Freddie Mac paid the following amounts to the firms of former Republican lawmakers or ex-GOP staffers in 2006:

-- Sen. Alfonse D'Amato of New York, at Park Strategies, $240,000.

-- Rep. Vin Weber of Minnesota, at Clark & Weinstock, $360,297.

-- Rep. Susan Molinari of New York, at Washington Group, $300,062.

-- Susan Hirschmann at Williams & Jensen, former chief of staff to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, $240,790.

Freddie Mac's chairman and chief executive, Dick Syron, and McLoughlin, senior vice president for external relations, used Clark and Weinstock extensively, Weber said in an e-mail Friday.

"I personally met with the CEO several times and with Hollis and his team regularly," Weber said in the e-mail. "Clark and Weinstock worked effectively and intensely for Freddie Mac under Dick Syron and Hollis McLoughlin."

The tactics worked -- for a time. Freddie Mac was able to operate with a relatively free hand until the housing bubble ultimately burst in 2007.

So, there is no question that Republicans bear their own share of the blame for the collapse of housing bubble, and ultimately, the collapse of Wall Street.

So glad to FINALLY get the liberals to understand that the 2008 financial collapse was actually due to Democrats in Congress. FINALLY THE TRUTH COMES OUT!! THANKS JODY!!

Fail.

Ron

Could you please explain how the housing debacle was the fault of the previous administration? The housing "crisis" (what an overused word) was the keystone in the meltdown. So please demonstrate how the "Bush tax cuts" or "tax cuts for the rich" or the War in Iraq or 911, or the war in Afghanistan, or bush not using a teleprompter to perfection caused that issue.

Thank you,

A little more from the same link for ProBusiness --

Freddie Mac shifted into high gear, secretly paying a Republican consulting firm, Washington-based DCI Group, $2 million to kill Hagel's legislation. The covert lobbying campaign targeted Republican senators in 2005-06.

According to the newly obtained records, DCI's deployment was part of a broader campaign that targeted mainly Republicans on Capitol Hill.

The internal Freddie Mac documents show that 17 of the lobbying firms and consultants paid in 2006 were specifically directed to focus on Republicans and four on Democrats, with varying targets for the rest.

So sorry to burst YOUR bubble, ProBusiness, but THIS is the TRUTH.

@Dog

Again it affects me but the free ride has to be over soon and I love Amazon. I am one of those people who will be in a store and whip out my phone to see the price on Amazon. Apparently they have agreed a country wide categorization of goods because states have different taxes for different goods. Is a Baseball cap apparel or sporting good, that sort of thing. anyway they resolved it to 15 simple categories and state sales tax will be charged based on those categories. Sucks for me but the free ride is over.

Unfortunately, it has to be over in a lot of other areas as well. No matter who is elected in November taxes are going up and entitlements are being cut. My only worry about Obama is that he may raise taxes but try and get out of office before the big cuts to entitlements are forced on the government. He could just make that by 2017.

Jody,

And where does Obama actually start going over the budget, line-by-line, item-by-item like he promised ? When does spending actually get reduced to come closer to meeting the budget ??

Oh Hell ! I almost forgot, there is no FREAKIN budget .... even after 3 and a half years !

The Democrats financial plan is to keep spending like drunken sailors in hopes it will actually stimulate the economy (which it has not and will not to any significant degree) and get Barack Obama re-elected !!!!!! Meanwhile, their game plan is to keep raising the debt ceiling and to point fingers at the Republicans if they fail to follow this path of total financial insanity !!

Pro-Business, you forgot something--the GOP and Bush never paid for a single thing they did; two unfunded wars, two massive unfunded and mostly high income earner tax breaks even while fighting wars, the unfunded Rx medicare plan, etc etc etc.  In 2007 after democrats got control of the House, they still lacked enough of a majority in the Senate to eliminate the GOP filibuster which meant that all their attempts to rein in the GOP spending spree was met with obstruction.  BTW, the economy was not humming along in 2006, it was already in decline because of the housing bubble, and the deficit spending by the GOP--we were poised for the recession and economic collapse.  Neither party is blameless but I can tell you which party bears the greatest claim to the debt, deficit and the economic collapse--the GOP.  Republicans don't call democrats "tax and spenders" for no reason.  Have you forgotten that Clinton left Bush with several years of balanced budgets and budget surpluses and that we were paying down the debt?  Have you forgotten that within the first 8 months of the Bush administration we had gone from balanced budgets and budget surpluses to massive budget deficits?  It seems you prefer to ignore those facts in your effort to claim I'm wrong.  Believe what you wish but i stopped being a republican because of the Reagan policies of "deficits don't matter" and trickle down which never trickled down.    

OK, obama's whole administration has been one of hidden agenda's. now that his term calls for a re-election, his next hidden agenda is to cause turmoil, conflict and concern for the American people by stating boldly that he supports same sex marriage. all the while his standings and blunders on the economy are ignored. he is hoping that we American citizens will be so focused on trying to understand why a man who as PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES could demean us and himself as well. don't forget to keep your eyes on the economy, there is more activity going on in there outside of our PRESIDENT compromising our ethics.

November is the time to vote him out of office.

But ... and it's a BIG but ... that includes the wealthy paying THEIR fair share as well. And as there can be no question that the wealthy have benefited most by the tax policies of the Bush/Obama administrations, then they should be the ones to shoulder most of the load.

Anna Molly:

This statement alone makes it clear that you are not "already there". Maybe I should have made myself clearer. As far as Federal Income Tax goes, after deductions I pay an effective rate of between 28 and 29%. Add to this all the state and local taxes and other miscellaneous fees, and I'm lucky if I keep .55 of every dollar I make. How am I not paying my fair share? For those who are less sucessful than myself, if they are paying any Federal Income Tax at all, it is a considerably smaller percentage of their income. Many are under the mistaken impression that they pay a higher effective rate than they actually do. Most of the posters here (that actually work and pay taxes) are probably only paying 14-15%.

What I'm in favor of is meaningful increases accross the board where everybody (including those currently not paying taxes) hurt as much as I do. Maybe then you wouldn't be so quick to favor tax increases for frivolous and wasteful spending. Couple this with meaningful cuts to current spending including the reform of entitlements and then I would be willing to pay more than my fair share.

“This is just me now, I’m not speaking for the White House — I think you could tax me at a 100 percent and you wouldn’t balance the budget,” said Clinton " “We are all going to have to contribute to this.."

I for one don't mind contributing, but before I contribute one more penny I want our Government to stop spending money on a bunch of crap. I also want to see major reforms to social programs that includes going after those that abuse the system instead of letting them continue to abuse it year after year. I don't trust that the Government would do this, no matter what party holds office. When Clinton hiked taxes he & the republican held congress worked together to cut spending and do away with waste within the government. But you will never see that in Washington today because we don't have a leader in the Whitehouse, Senate or House that can pull it together. So no, Clinton, at this time I don't want to contribute any more. If you want to write a check to the Treasury, feel free to do so.

Just how does government "job spending" help a deficit when it's the largest it has ever been and it's necessary to borrow in order to spend?

Lets say we pass a jobs bill for construction. We borrow one billion to do so. Now lets look at the numbers.

Interest: $15,000,000

Return on investment in form of taxes: $300,000,000

That is a loss of $650 million dollars. So how does government spending improve our deficit?

CUT TAXES - CUT SPENDING.......Accounting 101: you cannot spend your way out of debt.

The worst thing we can do is put this debt onto the backs of future generations. Are we really that greedy - live for today, let the kids pay for it tomorrow?

A leader will bring people together under his command even when there are extreme differences, not draw out divisional lines and then stand at podiums claiming "we all need to work together".

Whew - I have to plug my nose as this wheel barrel piled high with crap passes by. Notice, the rightwingWhACk job can't make a post without including a divisive insult about Feisty, and then he has the nerve to blame it on Obama. Very telling that this poor victim cannot take one ounce of personal responsibility for his own actions. I guess it is always easier to blame Obama for one's personal weaknesses. And to think the crackpot has the nerve to insinuate Dems need to look in the mirror.

Accounting 101: you cannot spend your way out of debt.

Yeah, and you also can't pay it off if you don't have any money coming in.

Here's a question for some of you...

Why do you all assume that the majority of your tax money goes to welfare recipients? Why isn't your outrage focused on needless defense spending and wars, and Medicare Part D?

Here's another one...

How is it fiscally sane to discount 50% of the solutions to our debt problem?

And, by the way, this isn't just YOUR country. It's all of OURS. Why you all think you get to dictate instead of compromise blows my mind.

Fool's Gold --

What I'm in favor of is meaningful increases accross the board where everybody (including those currently not paying taxes) hurt as much as I do.

I agree, but "hurt" is a relative term. A person who doesn't make much to begin with will "hurt" at a much lower margin than someone like you.

Which is exactly why income percentages are used in the first place, and the percentages are progressive, rather than absolute dollars. $1,000 to you hurts a lot less than it does to someone who makes minimum wage. Think about it. What's "fair" is not always "fair."

Maybe we should start with billionaires who don't pay ANY income taxes, like the sycophant from Wisconsin who got caught on that video with Scott Walker. She hasn't paid any personal income taxes for several recent years.

And maybe you should check that out before you start whining about what poor people don't pay.

SeekingSanityBen, you need to do your homework. The credit rating bureau said the US downgrade was a direct result of the GOP being unwilling to work with the President. So, how do you make that seem like the R's didn't cause the downgrade?

Seeking, maybe it is you that needs to do their homework. First it was not the "credit rating bureau" that down graded the US. It was an Bond Rating Agency, the S&P. Has nothing to do with credit like you might have, and everything to do with what the Agency predicts is the future value of our Treasury Bonds.

Second, as an independent agency they do not single out any party. S&P reason for downgrading the US, from their mouths:

S&P was not happy with the $2.2 trillion minimum debt reduction plan. S&P said the downgrade "reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics." It also blamed the weakened "effectiveness, stability, and predictability" of U.S. policy making and political institutions at a time when challenges are mounting.

As far as I can see, S&P blames everyone in charge in Washington. Which is exactly what it is, everyone.

Sarah,

Everything needs to be cut based on the percentage of spending that our budget consumes. Using that logic defense would be the largest cut followed by all social programs.

This deficit is not our faults however we will be the ones paying for it. We all know there will never be any compromise, that's not what politics are about anymore. It's about fighting for votes by any means necessary. Even if it means destroying a country.

Any measure government uses to combat the rise in our debt will most likely result in a depression. We need to get it over with instead of prolonging the inevitable.

@ elb --

Perhaps you would be more credible if you cut and pasted more than just the parts that you liked -- It wasn't just not being able to agree to cuts, but revenue increases as well. And it DID have PLENTY to do with the failure of Republicans to work with Democrats.

http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563

    The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as
America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective,
and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt
ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in
the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our
view, the differences between political parties have proven to be
extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting
agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program
that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and
Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on
discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on
more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have
dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions
only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements,
the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key
to long-term fiscal sustainability.

(emphasis added)

What's the matter Red, Feisty got you on her payroll? I love how you idiots try to make my name worse than it is. I post lots of stuff without mentioning Feisty but when her dim-witted ass is everywhere that I look and she's spitting garbage I just collect it all and give it back several fold. Can't handle that? Too frickin' bad, I don't cower to liberal loud mouths.

Yep, barack is the great divider, I'll stand by it and it can be demonstrated over and over and over again. He's a pathetic excuse for a leader and couldn't lead a starving dog to a steak. But that parts got nothing to do with Feisty...she's just a nit-wit that can't hold her own when it comes to people threatening her with hard information. She can bitch and insult but she just can't even do that very well.

I've got plenty of nerve Red and apparently you aren't as versed on my inward looking as you claim to be. But that's okay, libs are usually not as versed as they claim to be on things. I'm not wasting my time justifying how I look at my own posts or take responsibility for EVERYTHING I write, Crusty's posts or your posts. But I will not run and hide like the self-important Feisty dead-head. So call it nerve, that's cool yeah I've got it but don't be such a minion for your friend crusty. She can fight her own battles....can't she? No never mind, she can't so she gets her disciples to try and fight for her. You're defending a coward, it's very unbecoming.

Thanks for quoting a pretty pertinent point about what a leader is. I dare you to demonstrate where baracks actions have followed suit with his words when it comes to getting along verses his actions of divide. Might want to check those Wall Street donations to the man who claims they are the enemy too.

By the way, the smell you are experiencing is obviously coming from Feisty's ass. You might want to get your lips off of it. In fact if I were you I'd distance myself from that sinking ship altogether. That will probably solve your odorous issue.

I've posted it before and I will do it again, Repubs or Dems, it doesn't matter they all live on different planet than the rest of us. A two headed snake that shares the same body. The division does only one thing and that is to keep them in power. No one is surprised we are here again and most won't be surprised by the outcome. It just happens to be that the problems are getting so big that even if they try the goto of kick the can down the road and the next person deal with it approach, it goes a shorter distance everytime. My prediction, and I hope I'm wrong, is this will be another $hit sandwich that the average American has to take a bite from, yet again, while those in DC (and with all the money on Wall St. for that matter), really won't be affected by.

It is time America. No more of this crap! They argue like spoiled children and continue to do nothing while the country crumbles around them all while ignoring the pleas of the average American. It is time for us to take back control and let them know who is really in charge. Stand united America, if we do they will have no choice but to actually start doing their jobs and do what is good for the country not just the pocketbooks of those who give them the most money. Screw the party line BS and don't be sidetrack by the scraps they will throw off the table to try and quiet us down. Sorry for the rant; I don't about you, but I'm sick of this BS everyday from DC and nothing getting done!

Something that tends to get lost in the discussion is that MOST of the annual deficit is actually because of the INTEREST paid on the National Debt, you know the one that Bush ran up to over $10T....that runs up to be a LOT of money every year and does not even diminish the principal debt, the rest of it is directly due to the Bush Tax Cuts which the Repubs absolutely refused to end and blackmailed President Obama into extending just so we could keep paying folks thrown out of work due to the Bush Recession their Unemployment Insurance Payments.

The Repubs/TPers are the ones who have been working, diligently, to divide this Nation with their attacks on Women, Contraception, Abortion, Their Rampant Rabid Bigotry and Racism, Attacks on Gays, Same Sex Marriage, Religions other than "Mainstream Christianity", Anything Liberal or even Logical. They are the ones who proclaim that they will NEVER compromise as well as LOUDLY proclaiming, on many fronts, that they will do ANYTHING to make Obama a one-term President, NO MATTER THE HARM DONE TO THE COUNTRY, ECONOMY OR THE PEOPLE shows that they are NOT at all intent on GOVERNING for the good of The People, rather only seek a power base from which to enrich themselves and their handlers at extreme cost of poverty and wage-slavery to the rest of us. The FACT that most right-wing posters here have a total disregard for actual FACTS, spew their bigotry regularly and attack anyone who does not conform to their extremely narrow-minded view proves these very facts to a T.

To Jody who wrote:

Concerned Citizen, your point in #1.41 was exactly what? You do realize this is a political chat room don't you? You know, where people come to talk politics, disagree, agree and yes--applaud or boo. It is nice to know that you will no longer remain "quite" but not being quiet might be a better choice.

Jody in case you did not correctly read my post, my complaint was on insults from both sides, but mainly the left. You do not strike me as an lol (left of left). OK so I missed a vowel on the word Quiet, please excuse me for not being so smart.

My point is simple Facts are Facts until proven lies and not the other way around. We can agree to disagree without insults. I'm sure we both respect other people.

Every administration that has faced a recession has used stimulus to diminish the effects of recession. Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and even Bush all used borrowed money to reduce the negative effects of a recession which means less suffering for American citizens. Stimulus, when does sufficiently, will reduce the depth and duration of a recession.

When President Obama proposed an appropriate stimulus package, the Republicans in the Senate opposed it and only by scaling the size of the stimulus was President Obama able to get enough Republican votes to get past the 60-vote hurdle to prevent a filibuster.

So, the Republicans gutted the stimulus package because their leaders said that defeating President Obama was more important than saving American jobs, more important than reducing the debt, more important than resuming the normal tax rate for billionaires.

So Americans got a weak stimulus, and while it did save millions of jobs, it was no where near as effective as President Obama's original proposal. Plus they forced President Obama to extend the Bush tax holiday for billionaires.

When you vote this November, be sure to vote out ANY Republican for ANY office. Throw the obstructionists out! Sure, the Democrats are not much better but they never sold your life savings to line their pockets, while the Republicans in Congress and in state legislatures across the land, have.

• ABAR 2012! Anyone But A Republican!

I think the GOP should just put America into default now, which is what the long term result of their policies would ultimately be, anyway. Why prolong the suffering?

Bush, Boehner, and Romney, and their banking and investment buddies, all vulture capitalists, have destroyed the quality of life that most middle class Americans enjoyed in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Even after being bailed out with tax dollars, they haven't learned their lesson on corporate greed and fiscal responsibility, as has been recently illustrated with billions in investments lost in just a few hours. The gap between the rich and the poor has grown monumentally, and there seems to be no end in sight, as they now control the political airwaves with near unlimited money and a GOP electorate that is mostly too stupid or too bigoted to even vote their own self interests.

Note to the GOP TeaBaggers, don't balance the budget with student loans !!!!!!!!!!

Look at you drones fighting over Obama vs Romney...as if either fascist is much different than the other. Shame on you for being such sheep.

Battle over the debt ceiling? Who are they kidding? They'll predictably raise it at the last minute again. This is a dog and pony show for the sheep. We should just abolish the damn debt ceiling...it's not ever used for its purpose anyway: To contain spending!

And to everyone concerned about losing their handouts from the state...quit being self centered pigs. The world doesn't owe you free anything. Learn to do without, and to support yourself. Society isn't your sugar daddy. That goes for RepubliBloods and their wars of occupation and offense (not defense), and that goes for DemoCrips and their student loans, welfare, and entitlements.

Everyone needs to realize statism and nationalism are mental disorders. Only those suffering from black and white thinking (a symptom of psychosis) see the world through the prism of right/left, DemoCrip/RepubliBlood, Romney/Obama. Seek mental help. The majority of this country is suffering under a media induced mass psychosis.

GOP will never talk substantively about jobs, nor income equality, nor progressive income tax, nor balanced currency distribution. GOP likes fiscal straw men. Universal health care, free or token costs for college educations, and/or vocational training, government investments in energy and medical research, government investments in all infrastructure, along with women and minority rights are all pressing and valid issues of the people, yet GOP blows them off as pure socialistic perversions of a God fearing and righteous Norquist interpretation of true capitalistic pursuits. GOP isn't worth a decently spoken "goddamn" rolling off anyones tongue. Loves to talk to fools about the debt, especially since fools have absolutely no relative comprehension of it.

What's the matter Red, Feisty got you on her payroll?

RightWingWhACkjob - interesting you have twice posted Obama is the great divider, claiming there are several examples, but have yet to post even one example. Well, here is one example of Republicans acting the role of Great Divider. Of course, given that your comprehension skills barely exist, you will no doubt miss it (how was that for divisive and derisive?).

A new book by Robert Draper documents that top Republican lawmakers, including Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Tom Coburn, Pete Hoekstra, Kevin McCarthy, Jon Kyl, John Ensign — and disgraced former Speaker Newt Gingrich and noted spin artist Frank Luntz — decided on election night 2008 that no matter whether he created jobs or did well for the economy, Republicans nation wide would provide a united front against anything President Obama would try to do: http://jeffwartman.com/republican-leaders-have-always-supported-obstructing-obama-programs/

Oh, and as for that odorous smell, it won't go away until you do a self-deportation style double flush and let the sewer system scrub your nastiness clean.

On this site, we hear over and over again from GOP/TP supporters that Obama is the Great Divider. As a reminder to all, it was good old "W" that was first labeled as the Great Divider way back in 2006.

When the president of the United States gleefully bathes in the muck to divide Americans into those who love their country and those who don’t, it is destructive to the fabric of the nation he is supposed to be leading. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/02/opinion/02thu1.html?_r=2&oref=slogin

I have yet to be shown an example of Obama dividing Americans into two distinct groups. What I have seen him do is ask us all to pitch in to solve the countries financial problems. He worked tirelessly to get affordable healthcare for all Americans. He gave tax breaks to all Americans, in every class, unlike the Republicans who wanted to extend tax breaks for the wealthy and letting THEM expire for everyone else.

While Obama will never appease every group every time, he aims for what is best for all Americans, unlike our former leader, who proclaimed you are either for the U.S. and War, or you are against War and support Terrorists. The latter IS the definition of DIVISIVENESS!!

And maybe you should check that out before you start whining about what poor people don't pay.

You're sounding a little defensive there, Anna. By chance are you one of the poor paying little or no taxes? If so, you really don't have any say in how much the rest of us are paying in taxes since the rest of us are paying our "fair share" as well as yours.

I am in the same boat as Fool's Gold in that I barely keep 50 cents of every dollar I earn and I suspect that there are many more like us. If we were to pay any more in taxes in order to support you deadbeats, the various governments (federal, state and local) would then make more money from our work than we do. Does that sound fair to you? Really?

The Quote of the Decade:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies..... Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

Fiesty??? What the heck did you do to these blathering, frothing, flaming, hateful repug/cons?? Tell them the truth or something? Freakin pack mentality and it is disturbing but on the other hand so telling of their hate filled agendas. I do not know you nor do I know the frothers but I'd stand by a thousand fold of you over one of these mental midgets!!

Like their Darling of the Day...Mutt Scissorhands....they spew lies and look oh so surprised when they're called out on them. But they like Mutt...will try a different tact and fleeeep flooooop!! "Flip flop they were doing the bop"!! LOL

Just so we are all clear here,

Current US Federal Debt = $15,700 billion (the amount of money the US government owes someone)

Current US Federal Deficit = $1,300 billion (the amount of money that is the deference between what is spent and what is made)

Estimated increase of revenue if those making more than $1 million a year are required to pay at least 30% of their income (aka Buffet Rule proposal) = 47 billion

Difference between the Current US Federal Deficit and the increase in revenue from the Buffet Rule = $1,253 billion

This means that if we do absolutely nothing, do not add any more expenses, do not decrease any middle class taxes, do not give any college students a loan interest break, do not attack Syria, do not do anything....the federal government will at the lowest amount owe someone $1,253 billion more each year. That US Federal Debt will increase by $1,253 billion each and every year. In order to have a cap that we setting that would make it so we do not have to revisit this discussion for at least 10 years would mean that the cap would have to be set to a minimum of $29,000 billion.

So yes, lets do exactly what many here are asking. Lets set our credit card limit to at least $30 trillion dollors and pass the "Buffet Rule". That will solve our problems. We do not need to cut expenses, we do not need to raise EVERYONES taxes. We can fix the problem by taxing the rich and by increasing our credit limit to twice its current amount. Yep, that will work!

Referrences:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Like their Darling of the Day...Mutt Scissorhands....

eggberta,

I ♥ it! LMAO

Tell them the truth or something?

It does seem to bring out the best in them.. doesn't it? ;o)

Sarah,

check out this link, it is one of the more opened minded ones...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/05/14/152671813/50-years-of-government-spending-in-1-graph

Justredd,

it seems that President Obama changed his tune when he was in power as well.

President Bush's tax cuts would have been fine if he would have held spending. Both parties can spend and do spend more than what is coming in. President Bush was not a fiscal conservative.

President Reagan did what you want President Obama to do, but you critisize his deficit spending.

Until you face the facts that both parties cater to different groups we will never move forward as a country. What makes one political action group better than another?

I'm not a big fan of Boehner, but he is right that we need to stop adding to the debt ceiling. Both sides need to give some and get this done. Taxes have to go up and spending has to go down. Period!

Rev

Really, how old is that post? You've got to jump up to the topic of the month. But I'll respond. Thank God for the people who wanted to stop barack right off the bat. He is who he is, he (ghost writer) has written about his radical beliefs, he was brought up in a world that despised what America is all about and for that I'm glad those guys banded together (if it's actually true, but I doubt it). Screw that Marxist dirtbag and all of his Marxist beliefs! How's that for divisive?

I'm glad there are people who will try to stop someone from turning us into something worse than Europe. So all you've done with your little post was verify that the right people were at the right place at the right time. But again, and again, and again, you thick headed and thin skulled dim-wits always conveniently forget that for his first two years he had a monopoly on the country's legislative system but still FAILED. Thus he is a pathetically poor leader and sucks as a president. He's such a failure that he can't get anything done when everyone was on his side.

He announced to the world that he was going to fundamentally change America, well Red, America can always be improved but it certainly doesn't need "fundamental change". Many people heard what he said and looked at who he was and knew he had to be stopped, others (like you) were willing to watch the big explosion rolling toward them while brainlessly grinning from the pretty colors in the fire until it rolled over them leaving nothing but ashes. Sorry Red, I'm not one of those, and I'm glad I'm not alone, no where close to alone, in fact whether you like it or not I'm in the majority but I'm sure you just miss that do you?

I'll tell you about a book too (since we're bringing up partisan books), it's called "Amateur" but don't bother reading it, just seek out the audio tapes of Jeremiah Write interviews and the things he says about your leader. Not op-ed pieces but actual interview audio. Go ahead, I double dog dare you to defend it. But you've already proved you're unwillingness to find out who someone is before you vote for them so I'm sure you won't even believe your own ears.

NYT op-ed piece, seriously? That's rich Red but it Doesn't deserve a response.

Self deportation?, Nastiness? ahh blow me. Anything you can do I do better Red.

eggberta,

When a beast reveals itself, intelligent people fight it. Mindless sheep will get in line behind it...but end up devoured in the end. Simply put, she's a beast and a coward at that. But it doesn't bother her so why should it bother you? What's with you guys and your "mental midget" statements? Is that the stand by liberal insult? Can't you get more creative than that? You know it's a completely politically incorrect statement against little people right? Lord knows you guys don't want to be politically incorrect, at least that's what's always preached by the left.

Stand beside her proudly egg but you will find she is not a worthy battle mate. In fact I would imagine she's the type that would gladly sacrifice you to save herself, because in her mind she's the greatest and most relevant thing out here.

The end of the Clinton administration saw surplus and projected surpluses paying down the national debt over several years. Bush gets elected with Congress already in Republican hands and the major legislative action is tax cuts, not debt reduction, sending the country once more into deficit spending. They claimed that the tax cuts paid for themselves, a demonstrable lie, a tinkle down. They passed these cuts in the most partisan way possible, tie breaking vote by the dick Cheney and reconciliation, they damn well own them.

These cuts along with the spending the Republicans did on Homeland security, war in Iraq, Medicare D, doubled the national debt and combined with the economic downturn are responsible for most of the current debt, excepting the stimulus, which did what it was supposed to do, also demonstrable, before the stimulus, GDP contraction, after the stimulus mild GDP growth.

Now of course the Republicans didn't give a rats ass about deficits or the debt, as evidenced by their actions, until Obama gets elected.

Consider this, according to the CBO the deficits for the next decade total 10 Trillion, letting all the Bush tax cuts expire, the projected deficits are 3 trillion. Now start there if a real deficit spending argument is to be made. If they'd just left the tax code alone , we would not be where we are today. Of course, maybe that was the Republican plan all along, they want to drown government in a bathtub, and along with it destroy unions, Social security and Medicare (programs they have never supported). Add going along with whatever looney social issue to pander enough votes to keep them in charge of the same government they want to drown, except of course corporate welfare and no regulation for the people who brought us the latest Republican depression. They will however end Social Security and Medicare "entitlements" that's the term they like to use to make it sound as if it's something we all got for free.

Where the hell would we be if McCain had gotten in and continued these same policies? Grover Norquist has no business controlling the GOP. Of course with a SC(R)OTUS allowing Koch millions and turdblossom continuing the scam, we may have Romney to look forward to, considering what lunacy passes for the tea party and what used to be Republican party along with a return to the robber baron days of tinkle down and economic depression.

This debt is America's nightmare mortgage… This is not just bad economics; it is morally wrong and we must stop it," Romney said, per NBC’s Garrett Haake. "The people of Iowa and America have watched President Obama nearly four years now. Much of that time, with Congress controlled by his own party. And rather than putting out that spending fire, he’s been feeding it… The time has come for a president, a leader, who will lead. I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

Are you out of your @!$%#ing mind??? Who the hell would believe this @!$%#??? This guy has NO economic knowledge whatsoever. When you are in a recession, you don't cut spending; you spend money to get the economy back on track. Obama didn't even increase spending; the recession did. And you don't go into harsh austerity during a tepid recovery, at least not when the plan is based solely on spending cuts. This guy is a @!$%#ing bastard, and I'll be damned if he gets elected.

It was a strong speech by Romney. But he still hasn’t provided details how his promises -- like reducing tax rates for the wealthy, keeping the Bush tax cuts, and increasing defense spending -- will actually reduce the deficit and debt.

In actuality, Romney would increase the debt substantially. I believe that Romney's own tax plan would add a total of $3.4 trillion over the next decade to the deficits, making future deficits around $10 trillion if the Bush tax cuts are extended over the same period. The Ryan budget wouldn't come close to balance the budget, as it contains around $4 trillion in tax cuts, while cutting another $5 trillion in spending. Essentially, the Ryan budget would only make a dent in the debt, while Romney would inflate it. And that does not include the defense increases that Romney is advocating for. For Romney to balance the budget, he would have to cut at least $10 trillion from the budget over the next three years, between 25-30% of the cumulative budgets over that period. Essentially, social spending would be stripped to the bone, if not eliminated entirely, and entitlements would suffer massive cuts. The economy would most likely slump along or even go under, increasing deficits and thus the measures to control the budget. Romney would have to cut an average of $1 trillion every year from the budget, just to break even. That is insane. THAT, is why we cannot elect Mitt Romney or his Republican cronies...

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

I actually took out my laptop just to laugh and give a thumbs up to NoJo for this little bit:

"

Sometimes, I think nothing could possibly surprise me. I mean, I know Obama is a narcissist, so what could he possibly do that is so outlandish even I would be shocked?

This"

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/05/15/obama-drops-his-name-into-presidential-biographies/

I noticed the Fake liberals just ignored this.

Personally, I lol'd for real. I had to look it up to see if it was fake, because it sounded so outlandish!

It' all TRUE. Sadly, that man is our President. Joseph Goebbels would be so proud.

Normally I do ignore the lies propagated by the Heritage Foundation.

After all, they're the crown jewel in the Conservative propaganda machine which brought us to this sorry state.

And there's nothing "fake" about my Liberalism. It comes out of being raised in a traditionally Conservative family and watching the Conservative Movement driving gleefully off into crazyland.

The main priority should be climbing out of recession not watching the debt. Austerity does not work in a recession, spending will cease.

Posters will articulate any number of reasons for this impending debt showdown but the real reason is Obama's continued maniacal and unrestrained spending. There is no reason on this earth to think that a new debt ceiling increase will do anything but allow Obama to continue to print ever more (and increasingly worthless) dollars and spend the nation into oblivion.
When this country goes over the cliff into the abyss (and this is sooner than most realize) the entitlement masses will be in for a rather rude awakening.

That will include the wealthiest Americans, wet willy...

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Fresh kid...I keep thinking(and it is true) that I am talking to a school kid who has no real background at all....and yet here you are predicting that Romney would add 3.4tril to the deficit over ten years. You have no idea about any of that, but you are just trying to make your negative opinion believable even if you have no basis for your wild statements. The fact is that none of us know what the deficits will be, but I can certainly believe that they will be better with Romney than with Obama and his already proven failed direction. Whoever is the next president will not be able to right the cart completely in the next few years because our recent direction is so ugly and overwhelming. I can just hope for some spending cuts and some improvments while at the same time an effort at getting the economy going better....That will be 100% better than the direction and efforts of the failed Obama...

I dont particularly care about your dislike and envy of the wealthy....and that has almost nothing to do with our economy or much of anything else. The war against rich people is like the phony war against women, or gay marriage, and that is that they are just smoke and mirrors designed to take peoples minds off of the real problems...that are not being addressed at all by this adminstration...

Fresh kid...If you really want to educate yourself and gain some commonsense, you should start by making a list of what realistically works and why, and another list of what doesnt work and why. You should make an effort to talk to enough people from both sides of politics and make an honest effort to understand. I would suggest talking to people with successful experience in business and private jobs , because they at least know some things that have successfully worked for them....We are more and more getting people in government who have no real background in successful business...and they are dangerous... They are just politicos who have no real basis for understanding the reality of what it takes for success to happen....

Freshieee is right, JA. Yes, he or she has a lot of experience to be gained...but you'd know a lot more if you'd actually study current events. http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/02/29/romneys-tax-plan-would-add-3t-to-deficit-over-a-decade/

John B....The only thing we really know in that respect is that Obama has been operating a plan(or nonplan) that is a disaster and puts our country in definite financial risk....It is his failed plan. You can speculate all you want in your negative manner, but in fact we dont know yet how the Romney economic success will actually fare....We only know that the Obama activity is a disaster for the country...And I dont want to continue it while Obama makes excuse after excuse....The only thing that Obama is sharing is the disaster that he is creating....The wealth continues to just go away with Obama...

J.A-522495

Fresh kid...I keep thinking(and it is true) that I am talking to a school kid who has no real background at all....and yet here you are predicting that Romney would add 3.4tril to the deficit over ten years. You have no idea about any of that, but you are just trying to make your negative opinion believable even if you have no basis for your wild statements.

What ever happened to respect, J.A.??? I am a teenager, yes, but I am more intelligent than you make me sound like. Romney's plan would add $3.4 trillion to the deficit: ask CNN. It is not a wild statement; it's basic fact. Cutting taxes raises the deficit; we all know that (or should know that). And cutting them by 20% across the board (along with eliminating the AMT and the estate tax) would cost trillions of dollars in the future. You cannot deny that. So how is my statement wild????

The fact is that none of us know what the deficits will be, but I can certainly believe that they will be better with Romney than with Obama and his already proven failed direction. Whoever is the next president will not be able to right the cart completely in the next few years because our recent direction is so ugly and overwhelming.

True, none of us will be sure of what the deficits will be, but we at least have an idea of what they will look like. Under Obama, if the Bush tax cuts expire, deficits will be at roughly $2-3 trillion. If not, they will be $7 trillion. Under Romney, adding into account his extension of the Bush tax cuts and his own tax plan, the deficit would skyrocket to around $10 trillion, plus the amount he plans to increase the defense budget. And the only reason why deficits are so high right now are because of the RECESSION. Recessions lower tax revenue and raise spending for safety nets, and that was added to the Bush deficits. Sometimes I wonder whether it is you who are making the wild statements.

I can just hope for some spending cuts and some improvments while at the same time an effort at getting the economy going better....That will be 100% better than the direction and efforts of the failed Obama...

Hmm, so 4 million jobs created, record corporate profits, and a resurgent manufacturing sector and auto industry aren't good enough??? You don't cut spending during an anemic recovery; but if you absolutely have to, you must try to use stimulus spending in the short-term to balance the gap. Romney would have to cut a third of the budget in order to break even.

I dont particularly care about your dislike and envy of the wealthy....and that has almost nothing to do with our economy or much of anything else.

I don't envy the wealthy. I don't like how they control the majority of the wealth in America, crashed our economy during the recession, and now have complete control over our government. And frankly, income inequality does affect our economy, as it discourages the middle class and the poor from working hard AND it slows economic growth, as very little money flows to the real job creators (the middle class).

The war against rich people is like the phony war against women, or gay marriage, and that is that they are just smoke and mirrors designed to take peoples minds off of the real problems...that are not being addressed at all by this adminstration...

Tell me, isn't the fact that Republican states have passed hundreds of bills that limit abortion rights, add burdens to people looking for abortions, limiting the reach of programs like Planned Parenthood, and reduce reproductive rights for women sound just a little like a war on women??? I don't know much about women, as I am not one of them, but I do know that when you restrict the rights of a particular demographic group, they will not take it likely. And just because we are in an economic problem does not bar the government from addressing social issues. In some cases, it forces them to. So don't give me that bull@!$%#, J.A. I expected better from you.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

J.A-522495

John B....The only thing we really know in that respect is that Obama has been operating a plan(or nonplan) that is a disaster and puts our country in definite financial risk....It is his failed plan.

Obama isn't the cause of our massive deficits. The recession and the Bush tax cuts are. Remove that, and our deficit would be much lower. And Obama's plan has worked, as the economy is growing and jobs are being created. It isn't as fast as we would hope, but compared to the rest of the world, and because of global events, we are doing quite well.

You can speculate all you want in your negative manner, but in fact we dont know yet how the Romney economic success will actually fare....

Unfortunately, John is not speculating. He is using experience. 11 years ago, we embarked on such an experiment, cutting taxes across the board during the 2001 recession. The tax cuts, meant as a stimulus package to incur growth and to force the government to cut spending via starve the beast, didn't work. It drove up the deficit, harming small businesses with higher interest rates, and did nothing to curb government spending, as the government increased spending, and thus widening the budget gap. Romney is embarking on the same trip G.W. Bush took: cut taxes to stimulate growth. Unfortunately, that has little affect on the economy, as middle class Americans already have low tax rates and the wealthy don't stimulate the economy in a significant way. The result: we got higher deficits and debt, higher income inequality, neglected schools and roads, and absolutely nothing to show for it. Romney is just repeating Bush's mistake; a recipe for disaster.

We only know that the Obama activity is a disaster for the country...And I dont want to continue it while Obama makes excuse after excuse....The only thing that Obama is sharing is the disaster that he is creating....The wealth continues to just go away with Obama...

Unfortunately for you, Obama's activity was not a disaster for the country. Under his watch, unemployment skidded down from 10% to around 8% while 4 million jobs were created, the auto industry was saved, and our financial industry became stronger. And if wealth is continuing to go away under Obama, how come corporations are making record profits??? How come our economy is growing steadily??? How come unemployment is going down and jobs are being created??? Wealth is not destroyed: it merely changes form. Frankly J.A., I see you as another right-wing fanatic who can't give Obama any credit for helping the economy. Go ahead and call me an immature teenager, but at least I have the guts to point out the facts. All I hear from you is right-wing @!$%# from Fox News. Come back when you have something credible to say; until then, shut up.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Fresh kid...I was not showing you respect..or disrespect, when I said that you are a school kid with little background and that you really have little basis for your promotion of big governement and socialism...That is just a fact. If you cant handle that little truth, you have much more growing up to do. When you enter the arena of politics and what it takes to be successful you can expect that your theories and attitudes will be tested. I am getting the impression that you feel that you should get unqualified admiration for being involved and having attitudes. All young people need some real experience and responsibilities before they can reach some background and abilities to tell others how things should be. You are like the towel kid who is telling the star players how to score.. The thing about being older is that we can all remember being kids with lots of ideas(and little understanding) and after some experience and responsibility, we can point out some errors in thinking that we thought were wonderful news at that young age.

J.A-522495

Fresh kid...I was not showing you respect..or disrespect, when I said that you are a school kid with little background and that you really have little basis for your promotion of big governement and socialism...That is just a fact.

Look, dude, I admit that I am a young kid with little background. But there is more to me than meets the eye. I ask you, implore you, what is socialism??? Define it, give me examples, and then tell me HOW exactly the President is a socialist. I may be young and idealistic, but I already know some of the errors in my thinking, or at least my thinking a few years ago. And yes, I am somewhat arrogant. But that is part of life.

If you cant handle that little truth, you have much more growing up to do. When you enter the arena of politics and what it takes to be successful you can expect that your theories and attitudes will be tested.

I've understood that part. All of my theories and attitudes have been tested here, at this newsvine. My original views when I came here were different than now, but the general attitude is somewhat similar.

Fresh....Socialism is defined exactly as the dictionary defines it. However there are degrees of socialism. If you had lived for the last 120 yrs or so you would have seen progression from almost total unencumbered free enterprise to degrees of socialism. We have been subject to creeping socialism. Obamas history with his friends, associated and organizations has been almost a totally socialistic atmosphere and he has many times admitted his attraction and admiration. Of course at this time any president pursueing socialism can only follow and promote that system as much as he is allowed to do so. Obama found that he had much resistance when pushing for government only healthcare and has had to back off in his efforts. And yet, we all know that he will continue down that socialism path just as much as he is allowed to do so. Sure, the radical socialists are disappointed that Obama doesnt just demand government authority and ownership on a daily basis, but those are just people who are not realistic. Even when Obama was just an activist he was known as a stealth or pragmatic activist and knew that it would be better for him politically to not be known as the firebrand type leftist activist.

Nothing is really tested on Newsvine type situations. Most of the posters here have little to do with reality, but you can get something out of it if you are able to ignore the 25% who are the crazy left and also the 25% who are the crazy right....and the percentage who are either just crazy or know very little. All those people are just the radical name callers and that is how they get their kicks. There must be some thrill for them to be smart ass while hiding behind their keyboard....You have a little of that tendency yourself...

You are a teenager and now you say that many of your theories and attitudes from a few years ago have changed....You are still in that very newby stage and as you see yourself participating in real life situations you will continue to change. Experience is a huge factor and replaces many of the theories that we all have had. That is just one of the problems of youth....that you cannot possibly know that many of the answers until you go through enough stages of life.... I know you will not like that attitude, but ten yrs from now you will be of a dif mind, and ten yrs after that you will have changed much more... We are not all driven by politics when we must accomplish or at least deal with trying to be successful in working and trying to met the requirements and responsibilities of daily and family life. Few of us are as successful(in many dif ways) as we wish we could be or could have been...

JA, you're just deflectiong. I point out that, contrary to what you said Romney's plan would dramatically increase the deficit and debt...you deflect to an unsupported talking point that Obama's economic "plan" has failed. Freshieee points out that you're throwing the term "socialist" around as a casual epithet...you respond "Socialism is defined exactly as the dictionary defines it." You're not answering, you're not supporting positions, you're just talking around the issues. Moreover you continue to treat Freshieee in a condescending and patronizing fashion.

John B...Until Romney is president for a few years, none of us knows where the deficit and debt situation will be. However, the longer that Obama is president that measurement is just getting worse and it will take greater effort to correct. Bush was not as good a president as I had hoped, Clinton was a manchild conman who eventually had to back off from his attitudes. He however screwed many things up with his lack of personal integrity,pardoning criminals and last minute executive orders that we are still living with. He also had his business downturn that Bush had to correct with tax changes. Bush one was a very gracious man who did a really good job for the world but was reluctant to get too involved in domestic affairs and was hurt by all that attacks from the dems and the media. Reagan was a better president than I gave him credit for at that time. You may call all that talking around the issues but I dont. None of our presidents were perfect and none of them wanted to address the illegal mexican issue. Obama is headed towards that biggest failure title....with your hero worship. I fail to understand how that far left ten percent cannot understand how failed this situation has become.

I treat Freshie just the way that truth tells me. He can learn from that if he can get over the hero worship for leftist politics. At this time his head and background isnt big enough to accept the fact that big govenment is a failed system and just kills the economy of a country like ours that was built on production and modernization through new research and engineering and putting that research and engineering to work....producing even greater production and valuable jobs.

Freshieee, Never admit your age, it will haunt you when you at 19 the same way it will haunt you when you are 91. The ideals you hold to are a valuable asset but only when those ideals are not twisted in order to gain the best seat at the table. This is what politics has become, a large festival of "who sits in the best chair" and everybody will tell you what they think you want to hear to get into that chair. You need to start thinking about WHY they want that big chair!!! I was just like you once upon a time and then it really, really hit home when someone asked me " why would you want to president?" "how could you possibly hope to make EVERYONE happy?" and "do you honestly think you can go up against human nature and WIN?"

I grew up loving , absolutely loving, the Star Trek NG idea. No hunger on earth, no money, just an endless quest for knowledge that was coveted by almost everybody and available to any who wished, free of charge. A society so far evolved that we put our differences aside for the greater good and sacrificed not out of demand but out of a desire to sacrifice.

The one concept most liberals have a hard time coming to accept is that we as a species can not be forced to evolve. You can not demand people give you what you want and expect to get it just bc a politician puts it on a piece of paper, society must be ready to give it, of their own free will. I can not make you act like an adult, you have to choose to act like an adult. The government can not FORCE you to act like an adult, you choose to act like an adult.( and do so very well in my opinion) A redneck can not be forced to act like a blue blood but they can choose to act like one. The government can not tell me I have to have insurance to stay healthy, I have to choose to stay healthy and purchase a product that might assist with the cost. The govt can not choose for me to be OKAY with gay unions, I, of my own free will have to be OKAY with gay unions. The big govt overlord is a failed experiment and it should be and was destined to be. The more we demand the govt 'step in', the overall less freedom we will have. Once upon a time a minor could purchase tobacco and it was under the parents control as to if it was okay or not, once upon a time a minor could drink, if it was okay with their parents. once upon a time you could watch a racy movie in the theater so long as it was okay with the owners or employees and your parents.

I hope you will have the opportunity to choose what you do and do not want your children doing and seeing. You have to choose just how involved you want the govt to be in the lives of YOUR children, start asking yourself that question NOW. It is the single most important answer you will ever give and it will determine if you want to be a worker bee, striving for the greatness of a man in a chair or a father striving for the greatness of his child and grandchildren, free to make the best choice YOU raised them to be able to make!! Bc if you choose worker bee, those choices will be stripped from you and their choices as well. Will you be the man who works hard to provide for his family, to afford the options. Or will you choose to be the man who works hard to toe the line of the govt without any options?

P.S Plz tell me you got the Doc Holiday reference? :) Bc if you didn't get it, we need to talk!!!

You can't tell the future based on Romney's positions? That's just about the biggest pile of BS I've seen on FR.

It was predicted that decertifying PATCO was the first salvo in a Conservative attack on union rights that would lead to flatlining of middle class wages...that proved to be true.

It was predicted that the Reagan tax cuts would lead to escalating deficits and increasing debt...that proved to be true.

It was predicted that giving Most Favored Nation trade status to China would lead to destruction of American jobs by flooding the market with cheap goods from a nation that blatantly ignore any and all principles of fair trade...that proved to be true.

It was predicted that letting the Iran/Contra criminals go "in the best interest of the nation" would lead to criminality becoming entrenched within our political system...that proved to be true.

It was predicted that NAFTA would only accelerate the exodus of jobs from America without any real benefit to Americans...that proved to be true.

It was predicted that "welfare reform" would not lead to a decrease in poverty, but might actually increase it...that proved to be true.

It was predicted that the Bush tax cuts would codify a structural budget deficit that would become almost impossible to overcome...that proved to be true.

It was predicted that Republicans were lying when they said those tax cuts would be sunsetted 10 years in the future, that it was only a lie intended to camouflage the exploding national debt...that proved to be true.

It was predicted that a war in Iraq would be based on intelligence that would prove to be untrue and was a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein that wouldn't add to American security but only drain the treasury...that proved to be true.

It was predicted that reelecting President Bush would lead to a radical, Conservative majority on the Supreme Court that would attack the rights of women, workers, and dramatically strengthen the police state...that proved to be true.

It was predicted that the saving GM and Chrysler would save tens of thousands of jobs minimum and the American auto industry to return to a position of strength in the world market...that proved to be true.

It was predicted that the stimulus package, weak though it was would nudge the economy out of recession...that proved to be true.

And now Conservative have the nerve to claim "you just don't know what would happen" if Romney were elected, pretend the economy hasn't been in expansion for nearly 3 years, and beat the drum for some twisted definition of "Liberty (!)" that includes the "Freedom (!) to be dominated by plutocrats with no personal values beyond increasing their already vast fortunes.

Jesus wept.

J.A-522495

Fresh....Socialism is defined exactly as the dictionary defines it. However there are degrees of socialism. If you had lived for the last 120 yrs or so you would have seen progression from almost total unencumbered free enterprise to degrees of socialism. We have been subject to creeping socialism. Obamas history with his friends, associated and organizations has been almost a totally socialistic atmosphere and he has many times admitted his attraction and admiration.

So what is the definition of socialism??? It is easy to deflect a question; it is much more difficult (and yet more honorable) to answer it straight up. I could just as easily talk about Romney being a part of a church that believed in polygamy and racial inequality, but I'm not going to. And so tell me, are sweatshops, horrible working conditions, and child labor a part of the natural order of capitalism???? Might as well do away with unions, as they are just a socialist ploy to have the proletariat rise against their superiors, right??? Don't get @!$%#ty with me on progressiveness. For years before the Progressive Era there was no such thing as child labor laws, unions, or safe working conditions. Would you like to go back to living in a damn textile factory with the danger of losing your hand and spending the rest of your damned life as a crippled beggar??? Would you???

Of course at this time any president pursueing socialism can only follow and promote that system as much as he is allowed to do so. Obama found that he had much resistance when pushing for government only healthcare and has had to back off in his efforts. And yet, we all know that he will continue down that socialism path just as much as he is allowed to do so. Sure, the radical socialists are disappointed that Obama doesnt just demand government authority and ownership on a daily basis, but those are just people who are not realistic. Even when Obama was just an activist he was known as a stealth or pragmatic activist and knew that it would be better for him politically to not be known as the firebrand type leftist activist.

Oh don't give me that socialist @!$%#. There are very few socialist things that Obama has done. Obamacare: adoption of an old conservative idea on healthcare during the 1990s. Deficit package: centrist compromise. Stimulus package: old Keynesian economic practice used in the past by numerous nations (successful). Now give me one good piece of socialism, real socialism, that Obama has done. I doubt that you can. Damn it, J.A., have you no decency??? Have you learned nothing???

There must be some thrill for them to be smart ass while hiding behind their keyboard....You have a little of that tendency yourself...

So do you, my right-wing friend. So do you...

You are a teenager and now you say that many of your theories and attitudes from a few years ago have changed....You are still in that very newby stage and as you see yourself participating in real life situations you will continue to change. Experience is a huge factor and replaces many of the theories that we all have had. That is just one of the problems of youth....that you cannot possibly know that many of the answers until you go through enough stages of life.... I know you will not like that attitude, but ten yrs from now you will be of a dif mind, and ten yrs after that you will have changed much more... We are not all driven by politics when we must accomplish or at least deal with trying to be successful in working and trying to met the requirements and responsibilities of daily and family life. Few of us are as successful(in many dif ways) as we wish we could be or could have been...

My theories and ideas have undergone some change, but my core beliefs are practically the same. I am still the young leftist that I was a few months ago. I still believe in most Democratic principles. I will change in the future; but I am unsure of where that will take me on the political spectrum. I'd assume that my general beliefs will be the same. But we both have some learning to do, as learning pervades throughout life.

I treat Freshie just the way that truth tells me. He can learn from that if he can get over the hero worship for leftist politics. At this time his head and background isnt big enough to accept the fact that big govenment is a failed system and just kills the economy of a country like ours that was built on production and modernization through new research and engineering and putting that research and engineering to work....producing even greater production and valuable jobs.

I am not worshiping big government, or leftist ideas. I have developed my own political theories, my own ideas and philosophical positions. I have learned that no longer will our nation ever be able to sustain small or limited government. Why you may ask??? Because that would require the destruction of our industrial economy. With the old agrarian society, people could live off of subsistence farming and be individualistic, allowing for limited government to be the norm. Yet when the industrial revolutions came along, the new inventions required regulations, as working conditions were revealed to be terrible in factories, and the collective groups of workers sought better conditions. The government expanded with the economy, until now, where our economy is the largest in the world, and our government is among the most powerful. This goes for you too, Texas Fighter Gal. The only way for America to return to the ideas of limited government is to reverse the industrial process and return America to an agrarian society. Unless you want to live on a rural farm making your own food and looking after your cattle, you'll have to accept the fact that limited government is a long-dead concept. The very same innovations in production that led our economy to become the largest in the world have caused the need for a larger government. I don't toe the government line; I disagree with much of the decisions that we made over the past 30 years, both in the foreign world and in domestic politics.

By the way, Texas, I understand the Doc Holiday reference.

Thank god for that!!!

Now as to the topic, I happen to think we as a society need to return to a more natural setting. We should grow some more of our own food, not necessarily all, but more would be best. I grew up gardening and ranching, so this concept is not foreign to me. And if you would look at the economies/societies that tend to last through time, they are the ones in which a higher percentage of the population continued to provide most of their own nutritional products and had or have a system of barter still in place. Ever been to Europe and been to the market EVERYDAY, fresh bread, fresh veggies, fresh fruits, home grown and home made products. you will still see from time to time vendors trading goods for goods, not money.

And I live in one of the few remaining farm and ranch areas of Texas. We have farmers markets every week but only on Saturdays and they are sold out before 10am and they open at 8am. Even the Chinese with their massive economy still manage to have a local market and fresh produce, meat and food daily.

The government grew faster than the economy in my opinion and THAT is what has made us to dependent on the govt, for everything. The govt stepped in when it needed to step back. Just bc you ask you parents for money does not mean they will give you money. The best person will be one that was helped when needed as well as told 'no' when looking for a hand out.

To what innovations in production are you referring to that led to our massive govt? And how were those innovations any of the govts business?

I don't toe the government line; I disagree with much of the decisions that we made over the past 30 years, both in the foreign world and in domestic politics.

All I can say is you are not alone in being disenchanted with decisions made by our massive govt over the past....I would even say 60 years.

Now what we seem to butting heads about (and its very normal) is the ideal of socialism, vs capitalism, vs democracy, vs plutocracy.

I hate to break it to all of us, but we can define all of these until we are blue in the face and we would all be incorrect. What we define as a conservative is not truly a conservative and what we define as a liberal is not truly a liberal. The fact is Obama is a rich man claiming he would give it all away and is DOING no such thing but expecting OTHERS to man up and take the first step. "Oh the poor people of America, they need so much help and,.......Oh, I think I will go on vacation."

Romney is a rich man and thinks he should keep his money, even though it kinda goes against Christianity to KEEP it. "Oh those poor corporations, they are people too and,..... Oh look, a gold bunny."

Rich Hypocrite A, Rich Hypocrite B, or Semi-Rich Hypocrite Old Man Constitution.......

I like semi rich better than rich, he is lower down the poll and therefore closer to me on the bottom.

Freshieee, if you like the concept of a big govt just bc we have a big economy, you might wanna start thinking past this nation and ponder the idea of a planetary govt and just how big that puppy would be!!! Do you honestly feel that a govt large enough to handle the economy of the planet would be at all accountable to YOU? Our nation was founded on the idea that a massive govt would overshadow and control our economy, therefore setting it up as they did, our economy was supposed to prosper under a limited control govt. You assuming that without a growth of regulations and control our economy would cease to prosper, instead what we have is historical documentation that the more involved the govt became in regulation and control we have a decrease in overall prosperity.

Show me one single regulation, law, rule, etc...that has led to an increase of economic prosperity. Thing that do not count are regulations setting up control administrations which first created a job for itself but then removed jobs that were under its purview.

Fresh kid...You have just proven one more time that you are that smartass kid who gets his thrills by being smart ass....You could have at least given thought to the things I said....but, you would rather be smartass......I dont want to waste any more time....waiting for you to grow up.....

J.A-522495

Fresh kid...You have just proven one more time that you are that smartass kid who gets his thrills by being smart ass....You could have at least given thought to the things I said....but, you would rather be smartass......I dont want to waste any more time....waiting for you to grow up.....

Are you kidding me??? Ever since I met you, I have given thought to the things you said. WE BOTH ARE SMARTASSES. Take a look at your posts from the past and then tell me who's the smartass. You don't have to wait for me to grow up; you'll be waiting until I'm 80 years old. If YOU had taken the time to think about what I have said, you'd realize that I am not trying to be smartass; just to show my beliefs. If you interpret it as me being a smartass, fine. That is your opinion. You have your beliefs, and I have mine. Would you like me to say that all the damn time I spent reading your comments was a waste of my bloody time??? I won't; wanna know why??? BECAUSE I learned from them. I listened to you. For once, just once, can you just listen to what I'm saying??? Is that too much to ask??? Enough with the smart ass thing. You've been calling me that for months. For God's sake, show some decency. I have done that for you. All I ask is that you return the favor.

Our nation was founded on the idea that a massive govt would overshadow and control our economy, therefore setting it up as they did, our economy was supposed to prosper under a limited control govt. You assuming that without a growth of regulations and control our economy would cease to prosper, instead what we have is historical documentation that the more involved the govt became in regulation and control we have a decrease in overall prosperity.

Technically, our nation was founded without many economic principles other than free enterprise, which the colonies had thrived under before the Revolution. But most of our economy back then was agrarian, and so because much of the population lived in isolated small towns and rural communities, a small central government was optimal. The size of of the economy is one of many factors that ought to decide the size of the government. But it is natural that as the economy expands, so must the government. And I wouldn't say that we need a continuous growth of regulations; just a regulatory framework that accommodates the new areas of the economy. 200 years ago we didn't have a huge financial sector that invested in bonds or derivatives. And technically, I believe that it is natural that economic growth slows over time as the economy expands; I highly doubt that China will grow at 8% when the GDP hits $10 trillion.

Show me one single regulation, law, rule, etc...that has led to an increase of economic prosperity. Thing that do not count are regulations setting up control administrations which first created a job for itself but then removed jobs that were under its purview.

Well, there is the Great Society program launched by Lyndon Johnson, and with all it's faults it did help the economy and the welfare of the people. There is the creation of the FDIC, which stabilized the banks during the Great Depression, the Glass Steagall Act, which separated deposit banks with investment ones and thus prevented another crash until its repeal in 1999, much of the New Deal, which help the economy recoup after the Great Depression. The Sherman Antitrust Act helped instill competition into the economy and banned monopolies, which helped the economy due to the institution of competition. The law legalizing unions helped improve the welfare of workers and thus increased the poor and middle class' share of prosperity. In short, there are many laws that have either increased economic prosperity directly or indirectly via increased welfare. And by the way, most laws and regulations are not intended to increase growth, but to instill law and order or to constrain the power of certain groups or organizations. Many laws can increase prosperity, but during a good economy (the majority of America's existence) they are mostly to protect citizens or establish government agencies or check the influence of powerful large institutions.

Hope to hear from you soon.

Touche'!!!!! But how have those programs evolved? For the better or the worse? You mentioned unions, which in the beginning I happened to fully support, now however they seem to have developed into yet another greedy entity!!! Unions original intent was to give a unity to workers and a single small party to represent a whole, now the single party has the ability to control its people, demanding union participation in the form of dues and demanding full cooperation from members to renegotiate the unions representatives demands which do not always coincide with the members wishes!!!

All of the things you listed started out as GREAT programs and somehow became twisted beyond their original intent!!!

As for welfare programs that you are referring to, they are one of our largest mistakes. Look up all the stupid people admitting to abusing the system of welfare. It was a terrific idea, generally speaking, but the human flaws inherent in many enabled the abuse and out right theft of funds meant for those who truly needed it and for those who truly wanted to be a self sufficient citizen. Those who were going through rough patches and trying to pull themselves out, now have to compete for assistance from those wishing to suck the system for all they can and will go to any lengths to stay on assistance even lying. Some parts of our society have not evolved enough to contribute which is one reason why manufacturing left and now we are being told the immigrants are the only ones willing to do the dirty jobs. People think its better to stay on govt assistance, dress crappy for jobs interviews to stay unemployed, than to do a hard days labor. Makes me sick!!!

We lost manufacturing jobs to other countries because we have public assistance programs?

Prove it.

If such vast numbers of Americans are so unwilling to work that it forces jobs to go overseas there will be numbers to back them up. Let's see them.

People think its better to stay on govt assistance, dress crappy for jobs interviews to stay unemployed, than to do a hard days labor. Makes me sick!!!

Some may, but not the majority. To be exact, welfare doesn't pay; it's not as profitable as having a regular job. Benefits are far lower than in a regular job. And we could reform welfare; we don't have to abolish it altogether. I would simply make it means-tested, require that able-bodied welfare recipients at least look for work, and crack down on waste and fraud. It does make you sick. But it's not as prevalent as people may think. Believe me.

Freshieee, Here in Texas we have rent assistance, electric assistance, land line assistance, low cost clinics for both health and dental, SNAP, TANF, WIC, CHIPS, child care. Now while each of the programs has a term limit, all you have to do is keep re-applying and if your situation has not changed you keep getting benefits. I have worked with quite a few leeches and boy are they full of information about govt assistance and how easy it is to claim a disability and to get around the govt knowing how much you make or even if you make anything at all. If their credit is bad enough to govt has programs to help them get vehicles with no down payment and low low interest. These are the type of people who will get a credit card, charge the max and not care to make a single payment and could care even less about their credit scores.

But I am all for at the very least making drug testing mandatory for benefits. After all, most of the programs are to help the children stay healthy and fed, but if their parents are using drugs, such things may be difficult to achieve even with assistance.

John, that was more of a corporate lack of evolution, the desire to remove jobs from our nation to another in order to satisfy the pocket book. Both removing jobs and taxes paid by workers, increasing the amount of people on assistance and eliminating the income that would normally be added to those projects. Its a weird catch 22 but its there never the less. The more workers you have working the more money going into assistance programs, but with more jobs you have less people needing the assistance. LMBO and lets not forget that by making those decision to move their manufacturing overseas they are now being held responsible for our lack of revenue and we are now demanding to raise their taxes.

I am glad both of you seem to live in areas which do not have as many of these people but when you see moms 'returning' baby formula by the cases costing upwards of $150, exchanging them for store brand which is usually half price and getting the extra left over in cash. If you have never been on welfare you may not get how it works, but the state pays for whatever brand you want usually up to 10 boxes of formula and while it is dishonest to purchase with food stamps and then return the expensive stuff and make a profit, people have done these things and some stores will let them do it. How do you prove they did not buy the formula themselves? You don't!!! After all, babies can develop allergies to formulas or they may just not like it, so how can you tell them no to exchanging! I have met countless people collecting disability benefits, fit as horses, working at a job off the books, paying no taxes on that income,etc. I have seen women applying for jobs dressed in BRAS and sheer tops, they would walk in belly and boobs hanging out, ask for a business card and an application, fill the application out as sloppy as possible in BIG cursive, never had their I.D on them for background checks, would 'forget' s.s#'s, etc. Then about an hour later I would get a call from TX dpt of unemployment or some such agency to verify they applied. No other questions just a " did they apply?" Yes, they came in and applied, " Thank you." CLICK!

Trust me, its more prevalent than any smart sitting President would allow you to know about. Admitting that it happens frequently would be akin to admitting you are a weak President. That would be like a repub admitting that they are directly responsible for the loss of manufacturing overseas. Or Bush admitting he did us wrong. Its not going to happen!!! Do a little research into what "your" options are for assistance and find out just how hard it would be, for yourself, rather than relying on a politicians word that its not worth it. My hubbs once worked two jobs and we needed assistance for about 3 months while he trained for one of them, when we applied I showed both stubs from each of the jobs, I was TOLD that I should only use ONE of the jobs and consider the other job off the table and we would qualify for more benefits. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU???

Instead of taking that route, bc it ticked me off, I sold all of my VHS tapes and managed to get enough for them way back then to barely keep the lights on, but we did it ourselves and it sucked. But it was better than lying or participating in a program that tells you how to lie to get more.

another round of self-inflicted economic uncertainty could hurt the U.S. recovery and thus Obama’s re-election chances.

THIS IS WHY I HATE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. Republican politicians bet on failure, they work against America, not for us, they root for economic collapse so they can cut social programs and increase the wealth of the 1%, they sacrifice public education, public health and the quality of life of senior citizens all for the benefit of lobbyists and hedge fund managers. What kind of patriot would risk America's financial security for their own political gain?

Does anyone worry that the Red Sox aren't going to win the World Series this year? It doesn't keep the fans from going to the games. It's considered unpatriotic to question our president in a time of war. It's unpatriotic to trade with enemy. But for some reason in a time of great economic stress it's quite OK to accuse the president of being a socialist and to foster the idea that it is quite OK for the "job creators" to sit on their hands for 4 years and not take a risk on the American people. Don't forget the Tea Party was started in Feb. 2009, barely 5 weeks after Obama was inaugurated. In any other time or place this would have been considered a Fifth Column.

Wm - in any other time, with any other President, the Tea Party would be branded as what they are - traitors who are hell bent on the demise of the United States because they don't like the President!

It's considered unpatriotic to question our president in a time of war. It's unpatriotic to trade with enemy.

I disagree. I questioned Bush before and during the Iraq war, and I still consider him one of the worst Presidents in my lifetime. I will also question Obama during his Administration as I think his decisions have been as fiscally irresponsible as Bush and I place him in the same category as one of the worst Presidents in my lifetime.

Wm - in any other time, with any other President, the Tea Party would be branded as what they are - traitors who are hell bent on the demise of the United States because they don't like the President!

You think the debt these two Presidents have incurred is patriotic? Do you see what is happening in Greece? Their banking system is facing run now as people remove their savings. They will resort to the Drachma which will be basically worthless as it faces hyper inflation. Why do think we will be different if we continue on this course? We are spending 40% more than we raise at the Federal level. The Federal government cannot meet it's current commitments without this level of borrowing, never mind the future commitments of Medicare and SS. Our state governments cannot pay the obligations that have been promised by leaders who are now dead or no longer in office. How is this sustainable?

Alan,

Well said.

People need to get past the political party allegiance and start focusing on what's best for the country in the long term. Bush was a horrible president, but unfortunately I think Obama is just as bad. I was hoping Obama would pull a Clinton and become fiscally responsible after the 2010 elections, but it looks like he's just doubling down on borrowing and spending.

Wm - in any other time, with any other President, the Tea Party would be branded as what they are - traitors who are hell bent on the demise of the United States because they don't like the President!

You could have just said "I am a bigot". Much simpler.

Mitt Romney's policies will hammer the middle class. If that's what you want, vote for him. Otherwise, the President has clearly shown his support of the middle class, that which makes America strong.

Voting for "anybody but Obama" is myopic at best and the whole concept brings out the worst in the American voter. Mitt Romney has proven to be right in line with George Bush policy and we all know how that worked out. It put us in the position we are currently in. It has not been easy to correct the course W put us on, but to suggest "anybody" is better than Obama is like making the argument that Obama simply didn't clean up somebody else's mess fast enough for your liking. Well let me just say, he didn't get much help, did he? Yet, we are on a better course than we were 4 years ago and about that I am absolutely certain. 4 years ago we were facing catastrophic failure on all fronts. Today, we are healing.

Dr. Peggy Drexler

Author, 'Our Fathers, Ourselves. Daughters, Fathers, and the Changing American Family'

Obama and the Bully: The Cornering of Mitt Romney

Posted: 05/15/2012 5:41 pm

Ok. Let me get this straight. Vice President Joe Biden happens to mention that he has no problem with same-sex marriage. Then President Obama says that he supports it. Then some schoolmates of Mitt Romney say he and his buddies held down a shy, quiet student they thought to be gay, and chopped off his hair.

The Republicans might want to reconsider their talking points about this "community organizer" who is in over his head. As political theater, Karl Rove could not have scripted this any better.

First, you learn all about Romney's school days -- and you realize you have some credible ammunition. But how to use it? You trot out well-known gaffe-meister Joe Biden to make the statement. If all hell breaks loose, duck and cover -- it's just Joe being Joe. If all looks clear, come out with a presidential position that dominates the news cycle. Then -- wait a couple beats -- let loose the news that Romney was a teenage gay basher -- forcing him into an "I don't remember" non-apology apology -- with a chuckle -- for "dumb things" he did in high school. He is sorry if -- always if -- anyone was offended; the implication being that being held down by a gang and attacked with scissors is more upsetting to some than others.

Adding to the no-win column is the lack of recall. Two options here: either you're lying, or a horrific act of bullying was so trivial to you that it failed to lodge in your memory.

Certainly Obama felt his support was the right thing to do but any scenario other than brilliant political positioning says that all these events happened independently and coincidentally. Really? Nobody gets this lucky.

Putting your opponent in a no-win position is time-honored politics. The Republicans backed Clinton into don't ask don't tell with a threat of an outright ban on gays in the military -- something Clinton couldn't let happen on his watch, leading to a compromise he says he regrets.

What's interesting in the latest round of using gays and lesbians like sumo wrestlers use leverage is how the nation has changed since don't ask, don't tell. Look at virtually any opinion poll, and we are a nation moving on -- leaving politicians at a loss about what to do with their voting blocks of well-organized intolerance.

The heart of the Republican dilemma is the Millennials -- roughly mid-teens to late 30s. There are 79 million of them -- making them bigger than the boomers. The boomers see them as entitled, lazy, and happy to live in mom and dad's basement. A recent Boston Consulting Group study found something very different.

In spite of being raised amid the debris of the epic failures of multiple institutions, they are a generation that believes business and government can change the world. They believe in collective action -- and as the first generation of digital natives, they have an easy command of the opportunities to share their opinions.

They are very clear on social issues. One marketing study listed ten ways the generation describes itself. Number one is "friendly." A close second, at 81 percent, is: "open minded." Other studies show they are less religiously affiliated than their parents, and they feel government is too deeply involved in morality. They believe Christianity has good values, but they see it as judgmental, hypocritical and intolerant -- particularly on gay issues.

Most telling of all, they largely see issues like gay marriage as beside the point. A Harvard Institute on Politics survey found the economy and jobs as their top concern -- at 58 percent. Nothing else got out of the single digits, and social issues barely registered.

So to a generation of current and future voters, Obama has deftly offered a choice: a respectful and inclusive voice of the future; versus a schoolyard tormenter aligned with the intolerant voices of the past.

Not bad for a community organizer.

We need to stop calling what Mitt Romney did as bullying. It was plain and simple, assault and battery. Armed with a scissors, Romney led a posse of his fellow students who held down another student and physically assaulted him, by cutting his hair because he didn’t like the look. Whether the assaulted student was gay or not is irrelevant. When questioned about it Romney didn’t deny it just couldn’t remember the ‘prank’, It was not a prank or high jinks, it was a mean spirited act, meant to degrade and humiliate a fellow human being.

ScoMata1964 - no I could have just said the Tea Party is a group of bigots - THAT would have been much simpler and certainly right on target!

So true, GBM. And today, it would be a hate crime. Interestingly enough, the young man Mittens bullied got kicked out of the school for smoking a cigarette. Mittens, the scion of a wealthy family, got away with assault and battery. No favoritism there, right, folks? Mittens has been handed EVERYTHING his whole life. Which is why he sees other people as those who serve him.

You're SO right, Amy-

Let's just turn back the clock and erase all benefits from limiting spending and just raise the debt ceiling again...and again. After all, 20 million illegals are depending on it, as are the military contractors and our "friends" abroad, to whom we give unfettered aid.

You Dems will not be happy until every illegal and minority are driving Cadillacs.

Why dont you ask the Greeks how continued raising of the deficit ceiling is working for them ?

come on repubs just give in and let the dems have another 15 or 20 trillion to play with. Deficits don't matter, debts mean nothing, ratings mean everthing. The liberals want it all on their terms, disagree and get tagged as a racial degenerate. Liberals are always right they never make mistakes, spend any amount on welfare it will come back to the economy, the government will never run out of money. We can print more and borrow more from the Chinese...interest payment can be made by taxing the rich, that will fix all fiscal problems.

First Read:

The company under Bain's leadership sought and received millions of dollars in tax breaks for creating jobs in Puerto Rico - shortly before closing its facilities, costing nearly 300 jobs.”

Isn't that kind of like theft of public funds? Talking about waste, fraud, and abuse in government spending. Romney was an expert at benefiting from it.

justredd64

Deficits don't matter,

That's what Dick Cheney said. And deficits certainly didn't matter to Willard Mittens when he was running up the debt of companies he ran into the ground. He walked away with big profits, although the workers whose jobs he destroyed didn't fair quite as well.

Boehner is your 101 classic alcoholic, looks like an alcoholic when you see him. He either looks like he just came off a drinking binge or he’s about to go back on another one. Sad, but true.

"Obama 2012" !!!!!!!!!! Guaranteed !!!!!!!!!!!!

Both the senate, and congress should have their pay, and perks suspended until "they do their jobs", and pass a budget! Until that happens, they'll just keep pointing their fingers at the "other side of the aisle"! This has nothing to do with party!!! They keep their standard of living, and all the perks of their office no matter how miserably they fail to do their jobs! What's their motivation to do a good job? They care? Right! How can they empathize with the average citizen, when they, and their families lifestyles are not affected equally with their constituents for "their" inabilities? How can we be a "country of laws", when our own "lawmakers" have been violating the law that states they must pass a budget for years with impunity?

The title of this article ought to read, "Obama, Lamestream Media Desperately Sling Mud, Hope Some Will Stick"... All of you lefties seem to be ignoring the 80% of companies that Bain invested in and helped. Fortunately, the working people of this country have caught onto the Obama/MSM collusion of lies and that fawning media gets less and less relevant every day. Look at CNN and MSDNCs ratings... ha ha ha... they're pathetic...

actually the quote by cheney is not true it is taken out of context but what the heh it is ok for the liberals to make those gaffs and inuendos but not conservatives. Cheney is not in the picture now and hasn't been in 3.5 yrs...time to let that go. Need I quote the POTUS about his standing on deficit? Surely you remember that?

I agree 100% with Alan and Ron. Both sides are keeping us in this mess. I believe Ron Paul sums it up best: "Both sides love spending. Democrats love spending on entitlements and Republicans love spending on wars/military". We need to dramatically scale back our overseas presence and also reform domestic programs like Medicare and Social Security. I don't necessarily object to some tax increases as long as there are SERIOUS spending cuts, not these gimmicks that they keep feeding us.

Good for Boehner and the repubs - don't let the president keep running amuck with his spending policies...hold their feet to the fire and show some sense - this administration sure is not doing it.

Alan and Ron: if Bush was bad, what's the justification for keeping his tax cuts? The GOP spent like drunken sailors, but demand that the Democrats kill Santa Claus. That's what makes the GOP and Romeny so insincere and hypocritical.

Romney NEVER 'created' a single ounce of Wealth, all he did was Extract Existing wealth from the companies he dismantled, saddling them with such massive debt that most of them went bankrupt while he pocketed millions, there is a HUGE difference!

What is truly insincere is picking and choosing or parsing the facts. The GOP did spend like drunken sailors under Bush, but the worst years were when the house and senate were under Democrat control. Clinton did balance the budget with a Republican house. Credit due either party is very much in the eyes of the beholder, just as blame is as well. There really is very little credit due anyone in Washington, but there is more then enough blame to go around.

Unfortunately the country is polarized politically, and it is going to solve NOTHING! Partisan politics is trumping right and wrong, and totally ignoring responsibility. This country is awash in greed, corruption, and a what is in it for me attitude. Even the federal government for as fiscally irresponsible as it has become, is handing out bonuses to workers for up to 60,000.00.

There is truly no one from either party or siting in the White House that has offered any real solutions to the fiscal crisis facing this country. Maybe the reality to solving our nations massive liabilities is to collapse the entire system. We certainly do not have one shred of hope of paying off what we owe with the path we are on, so lets wipe it out and start over.

All of Washington is insincere. All of Washington is hypocritical, and most supporters of either party are as well. There is no justification for supporting anything going on in Washington these days, it is pandering, it is smoke and mirrors, and it has no hope of solving anything. The American people need to face the reality that Washington has failed, and sending the same people back there but expecting different results proves no one cares.

John Bonehead has been accused of an affair with a lobbyist "Lisbeth Lyons" So much for GOP/TP family values. This party is washed up and finish, vote "NO" to these losers for 2012 !!!

Good for Boehner and the repubs - don't let the president keep running amuck with his spending policies

Hahahaha! Then where in the heck were they during Bush's 8 years? I'll tell you where - in Congress, voting for no less than 7 debt hikes with nary a word! But I think I see - IOKIYAR!

Amy B Portland

THIS IS WHY I HATE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. Republican politicians bet on failure, they work against America, not for us, they root for economic collapse so they can cut social programs and increase the wealth of the 1%, they sacrifice public education, public health and the quality of life of senior citizens all for the benefit of lobbyists and hedge fund managers. What kind of patriot would risk America's financial security for their own political gain?

Amy I have a couple of questions for you.

You are saying that the Republicans are betting on failure. I agree that they could have done a lot of things better. This is the question: If the Democrats are betting on success why do we need all of these government programs? Why do we need to increase funding for most if not all social programs? If things are getting better, if the economy is growing, you would think that these things would fix themselves?!

If raising taxes takes money out of the economy that would have been spent, how does that increase or grow the economy?

Pretty much no matter what we do the rich are going to get richer. It is just the way it is. We should be working brining the poor up?! We as individuals do not need to pay more in taxes, we as a country need more people making enough money to have to pay in taxes.

We have tax payer funded education k-12, why do we have drop outs? How would making colleges tax payer funded increase the actual education level of our country?

How does creating, tax payer funded jobs help the over all economy, if we have to raise taxes to pay for these jobs? Or take funding away from something else to pay for it?

So going back to the first question, who has more faith in our population taking care of themselves? The democrats or the republicans?

The Quote of the Decade:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies..... Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

F U Boner you corrupt son of a B!

Justredd

Nice quote but it doesn't matter. The libs on this vine only respond to stupidity. What you just put up was a piece that most would see as a legitimate argument point about the hypocrisy of the current jack-ass in charge. But libs will just ignore that because after all, barack doesn't make mistakes or outright lie, or do anything negative for that matter.

Seekingsanity will just call you a liar, but if you play her right you could win some money betting on her consistent foolishness.

Feisty dead-head will say all sorts of stupid things like "willard is twice the liar obama would ever be. Willard the flip-flopper tea-bagger blah blah blah...baaaa, baaaaa, baaaa" thinking that she just made some relevant point.

Patri-neurotic won't even read it; he who acts like someone that wears a dress, will just shout in all bold font; "Romnutty is just an empty suit!!!!!!!gives to the 1%!!!!!!! teabaggers aaaahhhh!!!!!!!!!!!

Beverly will say "you're just a typical repug who just hates the fact that obama is the greatest president of all time and who has done everything to save this country from the fire doom of hell"...oh yeah, she'll shout that with bolds too.

And AmericanGirl will say "why don't you just take off your white sheet and show who you really are racisit, black man hating repubicon. Barack Obama will win for sure in 2012...yeaaaaaa"

I think that pretty much sums up the type of responses you could expect if indeed they had the guts to respond to you. So either way consider it a win. The bottom line is; we'd never want to hold someone like barack to their own words...that would be racist...according to many of the libs that frequent the vine.

Seeking Sanity writes:

"Wm - in any other time, with any other President, the Tea Party would be branded as what they are - traitors who are hell bent on the demise of the United States because they don't like the President!"

Yeah okay, seeking see's wanting to return to constitutional principles and responsible government as being a traitor. Whew, that sheds some serious light on how screwed up the thought process is on the left. "Don't tread on me" = treason in Seeking's world. That might just tell us all we need to know about my little money machine seeking sanity. What an ugly philosophy, I guess if the shoe fits.

Seeking Sanity is 110% right, the teabagger jokes should be in jail !

Patriotic American,

Really? On what charge would you have them incarcerated? Voicing their opinion? Voting according to the wishes of their constituents? Or would you just make something up?

Last I checked the capital of this country was Washington, D.C. not Moscow or Beijing.........

JC, typical liberal, if you don't agree with them you are an idiot or better yet a CRIMINAL.

Stalin would be SO PROUD!

People are ONLY entitled to their opinions if they are correct, and they are only correct if they are liberal.

See how that works? How convenient for them.

Rightwing - the good news is that the five losers you mentioned in your post only count for five Obama votes (unless they have some dead relatives somewhere). They can spend most of their "work" day posting but in the end each of them and their brain dead ideology is only worth one stinkin' vote. Polls show it, public opinion shows it, Obama = Titanic.

If raising taxes takes money out of the economy that would have been spent, how does that increase or grow the economy?

Well, it depends first on who you take the money from, and what you do with it. If you take it from the middle class, than it does nothing. If you take it out of the wealthy, you might decrease income inequality and help the economy long-term. If you use the money for things like roads, education, paying down debt, you create jobs and help the economy. If you waste it on wars or unfunded mandates, it does nothing.

Pretty much no matter what we do the rich are going to get richer. It is just the way it is. We should be working brining the poor up?! We as individuals do not need to pay more in taxes, we as a country need more people making enough money to have to pay in taxes.

The rich are going to get richer: what we should focus on is allowing to help other people, including the poor, get a fair chance to improve their conditions. And we do need to pay more in taxes: quite simply, we need to repeal the Bush tax cuts and return rates to Clinton levels. We also need to decrease unemployment, and that would happen if we spent money on repairing our infrastructure and hiring more teachers and public employees, we would create jobs.

We have tax payer funded education k-12, why do we have drop outs? How would making colleges tax payer funded increase the actual education level of our country?

Most drop-outs tend to come from poor families or from poor schools. There will always be drop outs: they exist in spite of federal funded education. People tend to drop out because either they cannot afford to have their kids in school (even if its public) or because they are failing. Nationalizing colleges would allow the government to lower tuition, allowing families to send their kids to college to get a decent education. High prices for college is one of the reasons why our education system is under-par, and making college affordable would greatly help us.

How does creating, tax payer funded jobs help the over all economy, if we have to raise taxes to pay for these jobs? Or take funding away from something else to pay for it?

Usually, in a recession, you don't pay for stimulus programs. You use deficit spending. But in this case, where people are weary of huge deficits, we have to pay for spending programs. Creating jobs via government spending helps the economy via the multiplier effect. Essentially, if you hire about 5,000 workers to rebuild all the bridges and roads in the San Francisco metro area, for example, those workers can buy products from companies, increasing demand, which will create jobs as producers need to hire more workers to keep up with demand. The multiplier is usually effective when thousands of tens of thousands of people are hired, but it can have large impacts on local communities. Yes, money will be taken out of the economy via increased taxes, but those taxes can be taken from those who are working and used to help rebuild our infrastructure while boosting the economy via creating jobs. It's a win-win. The government might not profit from these investments via returns and such, but it will strengthen an economic recovery and encourage the private sector to pick up the pace, investing more so that the government doesn't need to keep funding such projects. It acts as both a short-term boost to an economic recovery and as a long-term symbol that gives private investors the courage to start spending more money to generate growth.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Excuse me, but tax avoidance is a common legal strategy employed by most Americans. Every American who deducts mortgage interest on their tax returns is practicing tax avoidance. Would you care to estimate how much revenue that costs the Treasury? And what about the 50% of Americans who pay no federal income tax at all because of the myriad tax credits built into the code, how much are those welfare state giveaways costing the Treasury?

If you want to talk trash about tax avoidance strategies, you might at least acknowledge that in the aggregate the middle class gets the overwhelming share of those breaks. Then you might want to link arms with Paul Ryan who supports eliminating ALL tax breaks in favor of lower marginal rates. Good grief, IR and Ryan on the same page. Who knew?

GOOD GOD. Romney sat out the Vietnam War in Paris, France AND he doesn't contribute his fair share of taxes to the greates country ON EARTH?

Talk about a sense of entitlement. Someone needs to sit the 1% down and explain to them the sacrifices previous generations made, to create a nation where it is even possible for one individual to make millions of dollars, a nation with best military in the world, with the infrastructure to support business and an educated work force.

Bill in Fairfax.......

If you want to compare deductions on your home mortgage with hiding money in a fake (shell) corporation in the Caymans.........You should vote for Romney who will be more than happy to do away with home mortgage deduction (socialism after all) and profit in his Cayman Island IRA with Bain Capital when they foreclose on your house in Fairfax.

[Former Fairfax resident for 16 yrs myself BTW]

Bill, Fairfax - true, but an honest individual, running for the President of the United States should be showing leadership - not how to dodge taxes. Mitt has no integrity and no honor. We don't need him for President. We're just getting over the lies and deceit of George. Why would we vote in George II?

I remember back in the Watergate days when Richard Nixon said there wasn't anything damaging on the tapes but he didn't want to disclose them "on principle". Any time a Republican claims principle, I feel nervous because we know it isn't about principle at all; it means there is something damaging to be disclosed. I have that same feeling about Romney and his tax returns. What I don't understand is why the media isn't making a bigger deal of the story---why aren't they demanding the returns every day?

Bill since you seem to be so proud of Tax Avoidance as a strategy let me ask you one question. Why is your candidate working so hard to cover it up? Hell let's get it out there for all to see and make your case and let the American People decide if it's a strategy that we should reward. Don't have to lie about it. Shucks if I thought that it was good for the People I'd be damn proud of it.

Meahwhile, WTI is BELOW $93 a Barrel & Dropping!

Hot Diggity DauuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuM!

Heck, maybe Malibu Mitt will Renounce his American Citizenship to Avoid Taxes alltogether, like the Facebook dude(the Politcal asylum person that America took in)!

Thanx America, But EF U !

You Betcha!

Occupy SoggyBottom!

Bill,

I agree with you that the tax avoidance measures used by Romney are legal and valid. I heartily disagree that "the middle class gets the overwhelming share of those breaks". I am a CPA and I can guaranteee you that most "middle-class" people do not have personal tax advisors and tax accountants that make sure they structure their income, investments and retirement portfolios to minimize their tax burden. The upper class also have the political clout to lobby for and take advantage of these tax breaks.

I also find it very disturbing that Romney made the statement that his Cayman Island accounts gave him no tax benefits. I would not make a poublic statement that my home ownership offered me no tax benefits! This is yet another example of Romney not being upfront and honest.

TNSEVOL - I think we've all see that "honesty" and "Mitt Romney" should never be said in the same sentence.

Steeler Fan, here's the thing you're missing. That isn't just a Republican trick - EVERY party has used that one, with varying degrees of success. (Anyone seen Obamas school records, etc?)

Really, let's call it what it is - Americans are stupid. Obama made several campaign promises that he reneged on, but Romney is the liar. Now, keep in mind while I think Obama is one of the most detrimental presidents we've ever had, Romney isn't ranking any better in my eyes. People in this country get so tied to party lines and so worried about "my candidate can beat up your candidate" that they forget to open their eyes and actually see what their chosen political god has actually done and said - or not done and said. We MUST evaluate each president and candidate on their own actions and their own merit, and not in comparison to each other. It's like saying an alcoholic is better than a drug addict because at least alcohol is legal. Doesn't matter, the point is that Susie is an alcoholic and that's bad, and Jessie is a drug addict and that's bad too! Obama's actions have labelled him as not only incompetent but willing to skirt the constitution, and that paints a frightening picture for our future. The only positive thing Romney has going for him is that he is well spoken and photographs well - which only reinforces that he will also destroy this country if elected. Instead of the petty name calling and bickering back and forth across party lines about who's is bigger, we as a people should be DEMANDING a competent leader to get us out of the mess this country is in. Alas, Americans are stupid and more concerned about name calling and who got voted off the latest reality show. I haven't given up hope on my country just yet, but I can readily admit I'm pretty darned concerned.

OBXRon - so you have the IRS or DoJ link that confirms charges have been brought against romney for your alledged...

with hiding money in a fake (shell) corporation in the Caymans...

"Obama 2012" !!! Guaranteed !!!!

TNSEVOL @#3.8,

I am also a CPA and I fail to understand your implication that Governor Romney is getting a tax break. He has reported income FROM those accounts and paid taxes on that income. You "insinuate" something evil about this, but if he is paying taxes upon that income, where's the benefit ?

Do you think he should invest his earnings in a safe, secure, well-run company like J.P. Morgan ??

Good grief.....a lot of posts about Romney's tax return. Another deflection from the Obama camp since they will not stay on the major issues facing America today. They just want to attack the opponent and revert to Mr. Obama's 2008 campaign agenda (which has FAILED).

Well folks, how about the 41 Obama White House staffers and some of their aides, along with HUNDREDS of our "elite" elected Congressional Representatives and HUNDREDS of government workers who have NOT PAID THEIR BACK IRS TAXES ?

• http://fromtheleft.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/41-obama-white-house-aides-owe-the-irs-831000-in-back-taxes/

Yep, just give these folks a free ride on the backs of the "real" taxpayers.

Time for the Secretary of Treasury, and the DOJ (if Holder has any lawyers left who are not suing Jane/John Doe), go after these folks. The first question which any political candidate running for office is:

• Have you paid your IRS TAXES ?

Obama is one and done !!!

Hello folks, we have a broken government. Nothing works in Washington for the 99%. When it comes to the 1%ers, no problem, tax breaks for the rich, no problem, less regulation for the financial industry, no problem, more money for the another war, no problem, bailouts for the banks, no problem, another civil liberties Act, no problem.

Our government will pass anything for the Oil, Banking, Corporate, and Military cartels.

When the bailouts are doled out it is always for the banksters not for John and Jane Q taxpayer.

Our congress and the Bernank will bail out the banksters and not the economy as this credit default swaps derivatives fiasco consumes more of our large banks.

The banks get bailed out, we get AUSTERITY. Our government is broken!

Enough is enough!

Dade Behring, which, saddled with debt, wound up shuttering two medical technologies facilities in Miami. Some 850 jobs were lost, while Bain walked away with $242-million - an 800 percent return on its investment. The Dade Behring case has been well-documented, but here's a new wrinkle: The company under Bain's leadership sought and received millions of dollars in tax breaks for creating jobs in Puerto Rico - shortly before closing its facilities, costing nearly 300 jobs.”

Effing cockroaches, ticks, and leeches. Never a .357 magnum around when you need one.

Ido - I pay my taxes every year. My guess is you have yet to pay any taxes - have to have a job for that. Your continued allegations about freeloaders says more about you than I think you know. You clearly know all there is to know about the subject!

Obama/Biden 2012 - then Hillary! Romney can go back to the Caymans - or wherever! We don't want him!

This was a very odd article title. Questioning whether they should debate it again or not when the can was just kicked down the road a year? What's the author suggesting? That because Democrats only control 2 1/3 thirds of gov't and couldn't even pass a budget with 3/3 control that they should just do nothing?

Some tax deductions should be eliminated, ALL of those loopholes were put in by our own gov't that seems to be pretending to care about how "wrong" it is, but this overwhelming all-or-nothing shouting has to stop. You don't want to end deductions for donating millions to build a new wing to a hospital or college, do you?

Honestly, if Democrats really cared this much about it, they would have done something as soon as Obama was elected and they had supermajority for several months. Republicans would have when they had 3/3 control 6 years ago. It's all a show to point fingers and hope to get votes from the uninformed.

I'm not a CPA, however, I recall, Romney was required to file a financial disclosure form when he filed
for president. He argued that he should not have to release his taxes since the disclosure form revealed everything of any importance. Well, the problem is, there were 23 different investment funds shown on his taxes that did not appear on his disclosure form and 11 of those were in overseas, confidential banking centers, conceivably a sign of what he's embarrassed to disclose. if the government can prove it was deliberate and not just an oversight. The biggest concern is his Swiss bank accounts, one of the items not on his financial disclosure from 2003 to 2010, when his accountant closed. He closed it in the middle of an amnesty that the IRS had declared for owners of previously unreported Swiss bank accounts if they came clean, they would not face criminal prosecution for not reporting it in previous years (which was illegal - plus most weren't paying taxes on that money). Was the sudden shutdown of Romney's secret Swiss bank account part of this amnesty program? We can't know unless and until he releases prior returns, moreover, he continues to refuse to do provide. Until the former Governor provides 10 years of tax returns, I believe he’s not to be trusted.

Let Boehner push his agenda and CLOSE DOWN the Government.

Maybe, the out of touch GOP will finally get the message from the citizens what they really think of GOP antics.

The GOP ECONOMICS plan of 8 years is not about to be voted for in 2012.

Ido, great point on the President's staff shirking their tax obligations. That is just disgusting and I don't see any reason why the President wouldn't/shouldn't make an example of his own staff by saying pay up or you'll be replaced. Similarly, with federal employees owing (if I recall correctly) hundreds of billions in back taxes I think it's only reasonable to have them pay up or be put on the street. They are our employees and have no excuses for not paying their taxes. Funny thing, the President's staff also got massive raises too, but they are the ones deciding that when you get more why should you pay more. Hypocracy goes rampant in DC.

On the debt ceiling front- I find it interesting that "here we go again" and the mean Republicans are brought out. How about- "Look at Greece, their debt spending, their impending collapse from the EU, the collapse of their social services and union contracts, their civil disruptions and guess what, the US is in a very similar situation only our scale is much larger." Why can't the media realize/embrace the obvious fact that our country is in such a bad state that we aren't far from Greece-like conditions and if we don't stop extending our ceilings for today's fun, we are all going to be massively (you have no idea how bad) screwed for our lack of interest in dealing with the problems. Sure the politicians can argue and call each other bad names, get some money and votes out of it, but they'll be gone when the currency is downgraded, our debt comes due, and you all will be pointing fingers about who's fault it is that the green stuff in your pocket is worthless. At that point it won't matter who did it, we all did it, it'll only matter how do you move on and survive.

Grow up people and think about dealing with our debt habit. You wouldn't give a crack addict another 5 pounds of crack and a stern talking to about restraint, so don't give our government another few trillion and a note saying "we're watching you now".

Why is Mitt the flip flopper parking most of his cash in overseas banks, is he hiding something !!!

@Allen-968499

This was a very odd article title. Questioning whether they should debate it again or not when the can was just kicked down the road a year? What's the author suggesting?

One democrat suggested that they may try to cut and control spending to the point that a new increase may be either unnecesary or at least postponed. Sounds like a very good idea.

Also, as to Romney's tax issues...to me that's really a red herring. Like the homophobe issue, it's irrelevant and deflects from the real issue which is that he has already proven himself to be a chronic, pathological liar, a parasite who lies about his business background and can't/won't prove his business acumen and his political MO is like rover-SCORCHED EARTH. Don't discuss yourself, jusr attack, attack, attack. I'm sick of lying, thieving weasels like these. I'm not sure who I'll vote for but under no circumstances will it be Romney and the Mormon Church.Amorality personified. I would write myself in before I'd vote for that snake.

"Here we go again: Last summer’s debt-ceiling fight ended like a typical Tarantino flick -- with casualties and blood everywhere and no real winners. President Obama’s approval ratings sunk to the low 40s, from which he’s somewhat recovered"

So perhaps the strategy is to make Obama look bad and get his approval ratings down to the low 40s again, while Romney looks 'Presidential' and takes pot-shots from the side. With the meltdown in Greece getting attention because of their debt problems, our debt problems could become a bigger factor in the elections.

It could work, if Obama doesn't look like he's REALLY willing to compromise, especially if the Republicans offer revenue increases from tax reform - as they have indicated. I doubt that Obama's 'class warfare' strategy will have much effect, nor will his 'everything's on the table' rhetoric (with no specifics). As the CBO said after one of Obama's typical generalized speeches - We can't score (put financial estimates) to a speech.

SeekingSanity.....

I have paid taxes every year for 59 years and continuing. Problem is, Mr. Obama and his administration is allowing my taxes to be GIVEN to Illegal Aliens (Immigrants) who claim Additional Child Tax Credits for non-U.S. children, NOT THEIRS, living in Mexico at a cost of about $ 4,200,000,000 annually:

• http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2012/05/illegal-immigrants-get-42-b-annually-through-irs-tax-code-loophole.html

And my allegations about the crooks in my Post #3.14 are backed by TRUTH, not just some Liberal rhetoric you continue to spout.

Maybe Mrs. Clinton should run against Mr. Obama in 2012 as initially planned in New York with her husband and "friends". That just shows how splintered Mr. Obama has made the Democratic Party. LOL

Mitt the flip flop would be a rubber stamp for the 1% !!!!!!!!!!!!

"Romney also focuses on cutting spending, but where’s the beef (specifics)?"

Don't hold your breath - Obama got elected BECAUSE he didn't give specifics about what he would do. Obama's record is his specifics (failed policies).

Romney will give the same nice sounding, vague speeches that Obama has become famous for.

Excuse me, but tax avoidance is a common legal strategy employed by most Americans.

So now we are calling mortgage deductions loopholes, and offshore tax evasion maneuvers deductions. When will conservatives ever get it thru their thick skulls that the middle class and the wealthy class have very little in common. Making 57k per year will never equate to making 57k per day no matter how you slice it and dice it.

Don't get me wrong, I do not envy the wealthy, in fact I applaud their path to riches. I for one, wish I had been smart enough to invent and patent the intermittent wiper so I could join the ranks of billionaires. Oops, I forget, entrepreneurship doesn't lead to wealth. Let me try again, I wish I had been born into a millionaire family, thus guaranteeing my path to success wealth.

Vulture Capitalists Unite...Willard "Mitt" Romney is your man! The Great Job Creator.......

Romney parried the question, noting that Bain Capital had launched Staples and Sports Authority.

"We didn't take things apart and cut them off and sell them off," Romney said. "We instead helped start businesses."

OK Mitt, what kind of businesses are you claiming you created?

STAPLES AND SPORTS AUTHORITY WAGES CAN’T SUPPORT A FAMILY OF 3

Average pay at Staples and Sports Authority is $8.95/hour according to www.glassdoor.com

The federal poverty level for a family of three is $18,530.00

Average pay at Mitt’s start up companies is just $86 over the poverty level for a family of three.

STAPLES DOWNSIZING /CLOSING LOCATIONS

Chain store news -May 18, 2011 Framingham, Mass. -- Staples reported Wednesday that first-quarter profit results were softer than expected, and the company slashed its full-year earnings guidance and said it is scaling back on new store construction. Same-store sales slipped another1%.

The retailer now expects to be closing 10 stores, Reuters reported. In addition, Staples is also in the process of "trimming significant square footage" from its current 18,000-sq.-ft. format, Sargent said. He also said the chain "plans to be aggressive in reducing the size of existing stores," as it has about 500 leases up for renewal over the next three years.

STAPLES INTENTIONALLY UNDERPAYS EMPLOYEES

Chain Store News Jan. 28, 2010 - Framingham, Mass. Staples said Friday that it has agreed to pay $42 million to settle several class-action lawsuits related to overtime pay violations. Staples will also drop its appeal of a verdict against the company last year in New Jersey; the $42 million settlement amount includes those associated with the prior New Jersey verdict. The settlement is subject to court approval. It resolves claims dating back to 2002 and covers more than 5,550 current and former employees.

STAPLES VIOLATES PATENT LAWS

http://tacticalip.com/2011/01/13/bad-tactics-staples-stapler/

A lawsuit filed in 2007 against office supply mogul Staples accused Staples of infringing on three of Accentra’s PaperPro patents. A federal jury in California agreed with Accentra last December.

“We created the best staplers in the world, only to have Staples intentionally try to steal our technology,” PaperPro CEO Todd Moses said.

Apparently, Staples met with Accentra in September 2003. Back then, Accentra was shooting for a distribution deal with Staples and offered them a sample of its “One-Touch” spring-powered stapler.

When Staples showed Accentra it’s own “internally developed” stapler technology, Accentra said that Staples’ product raised patent infringement issues. According to the suit, a Staples official even told Accentra executives: “We have tried to work around your patents and have failed.” Nice.

Critics raved and raved over Staples’ (infringing) spring-loaded stapler, while Staples basked in the stapley glow of its game-changing stapler.

In a line sure to be imitated in cease-and-desist letters for ages, Accentra’s suit stated, “While imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, imitation by way of patent infringement is theft.”

Since the jury determined that the Staples’ infringement was willful, there is a possibility of treble damages and injunctive relief, and possibly legal fees as well. Federal District Judge Audrey Collins will probably rule on damages (the jury awarded a total of $2.2 million, which the judge could change) in the first quarter of 2011.

Let's use the Mitt Romney guaranteed method of balancing budgets. After all - Governor Romney balanced the MA. Here is how Romney balanced the MA budget -

- raising $500 million in ‘fees’,
- receiving an additional $1.3 billion from windfall capital gains taxes enacted before his election,
- raised $180 million in sales taxes (including applying sales tax to internet sales),
- closed $300 million of tax 'loopholes' (for a net tax increase),
- cut state distributions to cities by $700 million (transfer of taxing from state to city),
- made $900 million of cuts to state government.

Romney's budget record as a government executive shows he used increased tax revenue more than spending cuts to balance the budget. (Three time more tax increases than spending cuts.)

The Romney plan worked for MA - and - since he is THE Republican candidate for President - the Republicans should embrace their candidate's record of accomplishment.

Which 'failed' policies, Roy? GITMO, which was obstructed by the GOP? The Stimulus that saved the suto industry, which Romney said before wouldn't have helped, but NOW takes faux-credit for? Jobs, which HAVE been growing, despite GOP claims to the contrary? Do you usually use an improper argumentation towards reasoning that often results in a misconception or presumption, or are you naturally that way?

Wasn't it President Obama who said, when he was a Senator, that asking for an increase in the national debt shows a lack of leadership in the WH and was only saddling our children and grandchildren with our debt therefore I can not vote to increase the national debt (or words to that effect)?

Why is it the liberals seem all hell bent on raising taxes but not cut spending? Over the past couple of weeks there has been numerous articles on billions of dollars being wasted by government agencies but I don't hear Obama trying to rein in his executive agencies. Recent articles included GSA and the IRS.

I have often said on these threads that cut out the waste (GAO has identified a lot of waste & duplication) duplication of programs, consolidate programs or eliminate them because they have outlived their purposes and revise the tax codes. When that is accomplished then we can talk about increasing revenue. Right now if taxes are increased, the money will just be used for more government programs that we don't really need, like billions into the so called green energy businesses.

Ido - doubtful you've ever paid taxes.

Your allegations about Hillary running against Obama are just that - baseless allegations. We're supposed to believe you have "inside information" about the Clintons and their friends - in your dreams.

If you do pay taxes maybe you should stop the stupid "freeloader" comments. It makes you look incredibly stupid! And, it just reinforces the lack of sanity in the GOP!

Obama/Biden 2012

Why is it the liberals seem all hell bent on raising taxes but not cut spending?

Why are conservatives hell bent on perpetuating this myth?. Name one liberal who wouldn't support cuts in defense spending. And now for the big question, why are conservatives hell bent on continual, persistent lying?

I, as a conservative, agree with spending cuts in defense (which it seems that is the only one the liberals can come up with) but we need to cut spending in ALL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS AND AGENCIES. What part of my post didn't you understand? It sounds to be that RedDevPS is o.k. with the billions wasted by GSA and that it should just continue wasting money, and how about the IRS giving 2 to 4 billion to illegal aliens for children that don't even live with them in the U.S., I guess you are o.k. with that too. If Obama even got his wish for the so called "Buffett Tax", it wouldn't even cover the waste of the IRS and GSA.

• REPUBLICAN CONGRESS is the CULPRIT!

Every administration that has faced a recession has used stimulus to diminish the effects of recession. Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and even Bush all used borrowed money to reduce the negative effects of a recession which means less suffering for American citizens. Stimulus, when does sufficiently, will reduce the depth and duration of a recession.

When President Obama proposed an appropriate stimulus package, the Republicans in the Senate opposed it and only by scaling the size of the stimulus was President Obama able to get enough Republican votes to get past the 60-vote hurdle to prevent a filibuster.

So, the republicans gutted the stimulus package because their leaders said that defeating President Obama was more important than saving American jobs, more important than reducing the debt, more important than resuming the normal tax rate for billionaires.

So Americans got a weak stimulus, and while it did save millions of jobs, it was no where near as effective as President Obama's original proposal.

When you vote this November, be sure to vote out ANY Republican for ANY office. Throw the obstructionists out! Sure, the Democrats are not much better but they never sold your life savings to line their pockets, while the Republicans in Congress and in state legislatures across the land, have.

• ABAR 2012! Anyone But A Republican!

@SFCret - are you a disk jockey or a ballerina? From the way you spin, you make a top look like it is standing still. Where did I ever say I support waste in government? By the way, you might want to research the role of the IRS. It doesn't give money to anyone. It collects taxes based upon the tax code established by Congress.

The state (mafia) taxes (extorts) on the threat of prison (kidnapping), and if you resist that prison (kidnapping) when they send a cop (thug) to arrest (assault) you, they shoot (murder) you.

Avoiding taxes is civil disobedience, and patriotic. Nationalism is not the same as patriotism. Love of your country (people) is not the same as love of the nation (state). The two concepts are opposed to one another, as often what is good for the state is ruiness for the people. Heroes go to prison for violating tyrannical laws. I consider extortion tyranny. But hey, I have a consistent ethical and logical belief system...so I must be crazy, right?

If any other person or institution "taxed" (extorted) you, you'd call it what it is: Extortion. All logic and ethics go out the window somehow when the state does it.

Stop making excuses out of practicality and pragmatics because you're too lazy to look for alternatives. The greatest atrocities in human history were carried out for "the good of the collective", pragmatics, and practicality. Whether directly or by proxy, you cheerlead for extortion. It's time to consider alternatives and stop riding the coattails of men who have been dead for hundreds of years.

Think for yourself, question authority.

The Quote of the Decade:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies..... Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

It was the people at the IRS, against the advise of their IG, that sent the checks to the illegal aliens for children that don't even reside with them in the U.S.

Red, I have never read any posts of yours calling for cuts in waste, duplication or revising the tax codes, only raising taxes and spending more. The left just wants to keep spending, why don't you join with us that wants the government to get their act together before giving them more money to spend? I can sure as hell make some deep cuts in many of the government programs and agencies.

Oh contrare I believe the government glut of agencies is killing us. Until those agencies are disbanned and/or controlled...that won't happen, things will not change. The liberal spend a thon is dooming our economy and this country to poverty and soon.

On the debt ceiling front- I find it interesting that "here we go again" and the mean Republicans are brought out. How about- "Look at Greece, their debt spending, their impending collapse from the EU, the collapse of their social services and union contracts, their civil disruptions and guess what, the US is in a very similar situation only our scale is much larger." Why can't the media realize/embrace the obvious fact that our country is in such a bad state that we aren't far from Greece-like conditions and if we don't stop extending our ceilings for today's fun, we are all going to be massively (you have no idea how bad) screwed for our lack of interest in dealing with the problems.

Yes, we are on the path to Greece. The problem is how Greece got into debt. Greece overspent, yes, but they also failed to grow to compensate spending. But we are not acting with our debt in a responsible way. Instead of focusing on deficit reduction over the long term, stimulus to increase growth over the short term, and a mixture of both in the medium term.

Grow up people and think about dealing with our debt habit. You wouldn't give a crack addict another 5 pounds of crack and a stern talking to about restraint, so don't give our government another few trillion and a note saying "we're watching you now".

You also don't tell an overweight person that they cannot eat anything. We have approached our fiscal problems in the stupidest way possible. When our leaders come to the table to negotiate a solution, the first thing that one side says is "Just so you know, tax increases and defense cuts are off the table." They literally do that. That is insane! Every country that is engaging in austerity in Europe is at least raising some sort of tax. We aren't. That is insane. We NEED more revenues; for God's sake they are only 14% of GDP!! You cannot simply cut your way out of debt. Let's say that the government is a middle class family making $100,000 a year but spending $120,000. The Democrats (along with economists and most sane people) propose to cut spending by perhaps $15,000, but want to raise another $15,000 by getting a raise and/or having the other spouse or aged child to get a part-time job. That, in itself, is the practical way to reduce fiscal shortfalls. The GOP (and their Tea Party masters) advocate a $35,000 a year cut, and actually ask for a $50,000 pay cut (or get a low-paying job) in order to give them "fiscal discipline." This is officially the most idiotic, boneheaded, low-breathing Congress in the history of mankind. The solutions are all in front of them, and yet some are hijacking the recovery (and the deficit reduction process in general) by refusing to use all options. If all options are on the table for dealing with Iran, I think all the options should be on the table. Don't you think???

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

General Motors is alive and bin Laden is dead.

General Motors is still alive and bin Laden is still dead.

General Motors is still alive and bin Laden is still dead because of President Barack Obama.

General Motors will continue to live and Osama bin Laden's body will never become a shrine to jihadists

The Left is chanting again. It's all they have left.

$15 trillion in debt, $5 trillion added in in 3.5 years. 2% GDP growth. High unemployment, record numbers of people collecting welfare, food stamps, and unemployment. You have Obama to thank for those results.

And Johnny B, you forgot to say "amen" - here let me help:

Obama/Biden 2012

JAS1 -

You recite those statistics like a chant, and blame Obama for all of them. What were some of the major contributors to the debt?

1. Bush Tax Cuts - started by Bush, extended by Obama
2. TARP - started under Bush, agreed with by most Republicans, continued under Obama
3. Auto bailout - started under Bush, finalized under Obama
4. Iraq War - started by Bush, ended by Obama
5. War in Afghanistan - started under Bush, continued under Obama
6. Stimulus - implemented by Obama

So except for the stimulus package all of the major contributors to the debt began under Bush and the Republicans.

Romney's plan callls for further tax cuts and increased military spending. How does that address the problem? Its ironic how for the last three years Republicans have accused Obama of blaming everything on Bush, yet all Romney does is blame Obama and offer no clear alternative.

JAS - and yet you have nothing to "chant" for Mitt because he is an irresponsible blowhard! But, he's just your speed - stupid and proud of it!

Absolutely no sanity in the GOP and you prove it daily!

TNSEVOL: So except for the stimulus package all of the major contributors to the debt began under Bush and the Republicans

And the Libs go back to their most basic chant - "It's Bush's Fault!"

And SeekingSanity continues her personal attacks on all who would have an opinion different from hers.

How does she continue to get by with daily, ongoing personal attacks ? Is Tyler on vacation ??

JAS1-

Obviously you missed my statement about irony - and then proved it! My point as listed was that Bush and Obama now both own these policies.

You were the one saying it was ALL Obama's fault, I was merely pointing out the obvious fact that it was at least partially Bush's fault.

JohnB - Ford motor company and chrysler are still alive as well, yet ford opted out of the bankruptcy route and chrysler has essentially paid their bailout back.

Are you suggesting that GM couldn't have survived bankruptcy without government intervention? Filing bankruptcy is not a corporate death knell.

As for bin laden, I doubt that he will ever be missed except perhaps by some of his followers. Just what is your point? That Americas new foreign policy includes the option of invading another sovereign nation to carry out a US sanctioned assassination? Then brag about it to promote it as a re-election ploy?

Don't even try the argument of bush2 stopping the search, after all it was on his watch that the courier was found and tracked over time. I'm sure that the FBI still has many on its "most wanted" list that are still being looked for longer than bin laden. Of course, one might say that the FBI has it easier by looking mainly domestically. I am sure you think that searching internationally is so much easier.

BTW - got the link that states that obama once again put the manpower in play that bush2 reduced?

jim-1455434 - amazing that you hone in on my postings yet you let the rantings and ravings of posters like JAS, nojoe, Ido - go by without a glance. Little prejudiced are you? Too bad.

JAS1,

You keep saying- "And the Libs go back to their most basic chant - "It's Bush's Fault!""

Why shouldn't that be said? How is it not true? Referencing the post #6.2 where is the problem with pointing out that these things were done by or during the Bush term?

I see the Conservatives are tap dancing around the main point, which is right here:

Mitt's rise to presumptive nominee of the Republican Party has been an interesting show of what's inside the candidate's mind. Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment, do not speak ill of a fellow Republican is dead. It's been buried under a mountain of negative campaigning, a vast flood of attack ads, purchased at immense cost for the explicit purpose of pummelling any and all opponents into meek submission. Remember, Mitt Romney doesn't remember bullying anyone.

vwterry - because it doesn't fit into JAS's limited intelligence. Now she's going to stomp her feet and walk away!

GM is alive ----and well in China! The CEO of GM announced back in 2011, you must have missed it that 7 out of 10 vehicles made and produced by GM are from China! Obama's Sixty Billion Dollar bailout of your tax dollars benefit the Chinese and have employed the Chinese people, not the U.S.worker. There are eleven manufacturing plants and more are being built along with moving all of the technology to China and your ole' chevy will have a new badge, built by "China Motors". Their new motto; A rice burner in every driveway, sucker!

"AMERICA" Lets not make another mistake like "W" again"

jusbkoz,

Spoken like a Republican who has to focus on the cloud and not the silver lining. Whether or not that is true, it is also true that about 1M manufacturing workers in the US have jobs and are paying taxes and contributing to the consumer economy thanks to the auto industry rescue. The other thing to consider is that many of the parts being used to assemble cars in China are manufactured here by American workers. [Just like the Japanese and Korean transplants ship parts in and use them to assemble cars for the US market.] At least some of those ships bringing in the cheap junk for Walmart don't have to sail back empty.

Nice post, John B. But it's safe to say that rove flushed that rule down the toilet- along with the Constitution- well before the Mittster came along to try and buy the last trinket he doesn't yet own. His scorched earth campaign isn't much different from what rove did to John McCain in 2000 in South Carolina. At least Mittens was attacking a bunch of cavemen. McCain was a war hero who truly suffered for his country and-at least at the time- was an honorable man, in my estimation. And the dung beetles that smeared him never faced anything more threatening than a dry county.

JoAnna can't chant for Romney. She would have to learn a new chant tomorrow. And another the day after that...

fielden - true. And, she can't memorize all that new material day after day!

Here's an idea - How about we discuss this issue as civilized adults. Let's stop the name calling (leftist Libs, Reich Wing, etc) We sound no better than either side of this campaign. I'm generally a Democrat, but IF a Republican has valid points I'll listen. Here's a few things I believe and if they're wrong someone give me the facts to show otherwise.

1) Bush started an 8 year unfunded war. When he left office I'm guessing he ws laughing all the way back to his multi million dollar ranch. Did his party really think things would be hunky-dory?

2) Under Bush's tax plan Big corporations and the rich in this country pay about 13-15% tax while the working class pays 31-35% and have to hold down 2 jobs and sometimes both parents have to do it because while at work they have to pay for daycare. they don't have nannies. Someone said to me when I mentioned a little tax revenue. "Don't punish them because they're successful". My reply "So why punish the middle class guy for not being as successful"? They are the one's who gave the CEOs their 5 million dollar bonus. I can attest to that. I worked for AT&T wireless/Cingular. in any given quarter the people who field the angry calls from customers (business and consumer) can earn, at most, $750, that's if you make the "stretch" bonus, the COO who would come for all employee meetings got, in one quarter, 2.5 MILLION in a bonus. We had concerns during a particular meeting. Here in western WA, we don't normally get snow. So we don't have the snow plows and general equipment to take on a snow storm on our streets or highways. Yet AT&T would not close our call center, even though the state police are saying on the news cast "stay home". Theb COO's answer to that question? "our customers expect us here" Even though there are multiple centers across the US. Oh yea if they close the call center bc of weather? they have to pay us.

A good example of this "policy" we were at work an Seattle had that major flood a few years back. The business park we were in was on a little higher ground (10-15ft) the ENTIRE business park was flooding. AT&T kept us at work until the state police threatened them with a $10,000 fine PER PERSON if they didn't send us home. There is no local management to look at weather conditions and send us home. Those decisions are made from southern CA. So while they sit in their air conditioned office we are the one's who have to deal with it.

When Joplin had that horrible tornado. The call center there wasn't damaged and guess what? They didn't close. They offered a place for people to stay but people still went to work. Granted, some went because it took their mind off of what happened, but still.... REALLY?????

3) The current issue of Student loan rates doubling in July. The Democrats want to tighten a tax break a little to help. Whereas the Republicans want to take the money from HEALTHCARE. Come on really? They'd rather screw the elderly and disabled than have the people who will be hiring these grads help pay for their education.

This crap has to stop and it has to stop now. The Republicans are so focused on this "One-term" deal that even if a bill comes across that will help America they kill it then blame the Obama administration for not doing anything.

Like this article saying Romney is saying he'll fix the economy. Okay, how? I have a feeling he won't tell us his plan because if we knew he wouldn't stand a chance of being elected. I have a feeling, if he gets in, we can say goodbye to Social Security, kiss medicare goodbye, and most other social services will be gone as well (Planned Parenthood, low cost medical care of ANY kind will be history) Not to mention I think Roe vs Wade will be over turned, ANY kind of female contraception will be gone. If Mitt could do it I'm sure he could it, he'd get rid of equal rights of any kind and reinstate slavery. Sorry, if you support him, but his rhetoric and his "values" really don't match mine, or my wife's. If we go back to a patriarchal society millions f people would end up homeless, and dead because they depend on Mom working either to help or hers is the only income for some reason. I also don't want anyone's religious values imposed on me. Do I believe in God/Vishnu/Buddah/Allah? Yes. I think everyone is talking about who I call God. Do I believe that any religion has the right to tell me how I must worship, what my relationship is or how much I need to fork over to "assure" my place? HELL NO.

Ok enough ranting, I know there will be people who will read only the parts they disagree with and bash me, but that is part of doing this. Taking the flak for it, but I feel better after airing my thoughts out. If you don't agree with them, oh well, I'll find out I'm sure.

SeekingSanity,

Your "opinion" is their posts constitute "rantings and ravings".

You, however, continue to make DIRECT, PERSONAL ATTACKS as anyone can plainly see when you make remarks about "JAS's limited intelligence" in #6.11 above. This is but one example of your many personal negative, hateful "putdown remarks" where you go after another poster ..... then try to diminish them directly.

Then, in #6.17 you try to insinuate JoAnna memorizes her material every day in yet another attempted put down. I sure hope you are being well paid for all these character assassinations. All anyone has to do is click on your screen moniker and COUNT the personal attacks flowing from you on an ongoing daily basis.

For further proof, scroll down to #7.12 and witness yet another personal attack !

$15 trillion in debt, $5 trillion added in in 3.5 years. 2% GDP growth. High unemployment, record numbers of people collecting welfare, food stamps, and unemployment. You have Obama to thank for those results.

In actuality, Obama only added $4 trillion in debt, if you count out Bush's last budget for 2009. And technically, Obama is not at fault for most of the deficit. The vast majority of the deficit comes from the Bush tax cuts and the recession.

As for GDP growth, it is small, but it is actually quite better than most of the industrialized world. Growth is slow essentially because of how Europe collapsed because of crushing debt and too-harsh austerity and we haven't been spending enough money to create enough jobs. Like it or not, the government is supposed to spend money during recessions to cover the shortfall when private investment goes down. Unfortunately, while the federal government has been doing the spending, the state and local governments have not. They cut half a million jobs during Obama's term, increasing unemployment and decreasing demand, which moves the economy. That brings me to my next point. Low government spending is the cause of high unemployment. Had the states kept their workers instead of firing them, unemployment would be at about 7.1%, a full point below our current rate. Obama even forwarded a plan in the fall of 2011 to create 2 million jobs, but the GOP opposed it because it was paid for by a tax on millionaires, even though many millionaires have consistently called for higher taxes.

And finally, you cannot blame the president for record high numbers of Americans relying on welfare, because that is normal. I mean, for God's sake we suffered a DEPRESSION. No wonder people are out of work and relying on safety nets; I mean, that's why we have safety nets. If you really want to get people off of welfare, you have to create jobs, and that requires federal funding. You bitch about how the deficits are big, but you fail to realize that you still need to spend money in order to create jobs. For God's sake, JAS1, pick up a book about economics. And I mean REAL economics, not that trickle-down @!$%# that we have been following for decades.

Your "opinion" is their posts constitute "rantings and ravings".

JAS1 does the same thing. Why aren't you criticizing her????

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

@Nash Fan - Romney is working on his plan....after all...he's only had 6 years to think up ideas......

GNOP - "THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH"!

Romney has made his plan very clear - undo everything Obama has done, and redo everything Bush did.

Nashville_fan - Mitt's plan is to do everything the Koch Bros. tell him to do - how do you not know that??? I think he's made it perfectly clear!

Yea youre right, Romney should change the dialogue back to gay rights or abortion or treyvon or why we need to support illegals, those topics are the lib fallbacks so they dont have to accept any accountability for the mess we're in.

I cant believe they are going to talk about another topic as well as jobs just because it falls into the same concept of fiscal recovery and responsibilty, two things libs know nothing about.

I also wonder why FR never tells us how many people are in attendance at Mitt's rallies and speeches. We never see photos of the crowds---wonder why that is?

Wonder why we never see Mitt's tax returns, either?

Mitt sure doesn't disclose a lot of information, does he?

Romney says "I don't think I'll play the president a round of golf but I'll be happy to take him through a waterski course," the presumptive presidential nominee said on Fox News on Thursday when asked whether he was as "hip" as the commander-in-chief."

It seems appropriate that Mitt would prefer water skiing. He's best when being pulled around by something with real power to the places they want him to be without having to think too much about where that is. Great leadership skills there.

Steeler fan ...

The only fascination about tax returns is whether the IRS has ever found any intentional tax evasions.

Just ask treasury secretary geithner on it or warren buffet.

BTW - you think the average joe would understand his tax returns when they pay to have someone else prepare their own taxes? Are you even qualified? Like obama once stated, our tax codes stack up over 5 feet.

*waves to Steeler Fan*

American:

Trust me, Steeler Fan is VERY qualified to speak about taxes.

Very.

Nashville is "Hot", Have a nice day !

Mr. Flip Flopper would be a puppet for the Mega Rich !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

^ and your fascist Obama isn't the exact same puppet for the mega rich as the fascist Romney? You need to wake up. His thetoric is not his actions. Take an economics class while your at it...at Mises Institute, not these idiot Keynesian institutions that avoid all data that undermines their theory.

ProIndividual - you DO how idiotic your rantings sound, right? The "facist" and "Keynesian" words just let everyone know you are a hopeless idiot!

ProIndividual-

Wasn't Mises part of the group of theorists who supported laissez-faire economics??? Where did that get us??? Deregulation and low taxes (modern forms of laissez-faire) destroyed our economy and caused our debt to skyrocket. The banks made reckless bets and collapsed, and because they controlled the vast majority of the assets in this country they dragged the entire economy with them. Those tax cuts for the wealthy over the past three decades (in addition to a lack of focus on manufacturing and middle-class jobs and more on the financial sector) have dramatically expanded our income gap and caused record deficits.

And how is Keynesian economics undermined??? The stimulus saved the economy, which proves Keynes' theory on the benefits of deficit spending. In addition, the bailout of the auto industry saved hundreds of thousands of jobs, as they would collapse if the auto industry collapsed because of a lack of demand for manufacturing supplies and demand from auto workers, proving the multiplier effect. Essentially, Keynesian economics trumps laissez-faire, as it is shown how deficit spending and the multiplier effect can greatly help an economy during a downturn.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Nashville_fan - I'm not a big fan of Letterman but last night was OUTSTANDING. Brian Williams is one of the few true journalists left.

Loved when Letterman asked Williams what happened to the attack dog that was with the Seal Team when they got bin Laden. Williams reply - "the last I saw him he was strapped to the top of Mitt Romney's car....."

That is what I've said all along, you look at what was handed to the man 4 years ago and how he handled the situations. Sure, some things aren't as they should be, or going as fast as everyone expects it to be, but we are heading the right direction. In any other election year, everyone would be a hero for getting rid of Bin Laden, but remember Ghaddaffi & Sadam also were killed during the Obama administration, so there were THREE enemies of the US.

Letterman is on Mitt's elevator playing with the flip floppers dog, the Letterman show is going to the dogs !!!!!!

Letterman's show went to the dogs a long tome ago. Jay Leno is much better.

Wanna know how stupid conservatives are?

They think that the national budget can be compared to a family budget or run like a business. It can't in either case; a family cannot print money or raise revenue at will, a business is concerned with profit, a government is not.

They think austerity measures are a good idea when the economy is floundering, when in fact it is the worst thing a government can do - as is presently being proved in Europe. Austerity always has and always does absolutely nothing but make matters worse.

They think the wealthy are job creators and the government cannot create jobs. Both are absurd thoughts not matched by reality.

They believe the wealthy have middle class interests at heart. The only interest the wealthy have in the middle class is how much more they can dupe them and how much more money they can rip off from them in how short a period of time.

Conservatives think they are the majority and most people think like them.

And the stupidest thing conservatives think is that the United States was founded on conservative rather than liberal ideas. The words "liberty" and "liberal" are based on the same root. Conservatives are not for freedom and progress, they are for exclusive control and repression of progress. Nothing is more abhorrent to a conservative than progressive change and inclusion.

They claim to want their country back...but what they really want is a kingdom and a theocracy to back it up.

I would not presume to conflate their words with their beliefs. If there's one requisite skill for a politician, it's lying about what you believe, and Boehner didn't get to be Speaker by being bad at it. Some may truly believe that government austerity would be good for the economy, but most of them know that is not true, and they are happy to do what they can to stand in the way of recovery because it helps them politically.

I think most of them are not really hard-core, Ayn-Randian social-Darwinists, or bible-believing, Christian-fundamentalist dominionists, or aggressive, expansionist, adventurist, militant neo-cons, but are simply doing what they see as being in their own political and economic interests. The problem is that they have decided their political and economic interests lie in placating these dangerous philosophies.

Nathan...to a point, I agree. After all these years however (I'm 63), I am not so ready to see their speech and beliefs as separate...so I don't think I am conflating much...at least in terms of the new style conservative Republicans. The Republican party of today is not at all what it once was. The conservative movement of today is intransigent to a fault and has made our government unworkable. I resent their destruction of the democratic process and maintenance of their willful ignorance as a point of pride. That is why I don't simply see them as merely ignorant, but willfully stupid...as they say, you can't fix stupid.

LMAO, since difficits add to our public debt I wonder why the left is so afraid of looking at the growth of our debt over time with the various administrations, let alone the events of the times. I believe that the web site treasury.gov even provides the actual historical number based by budgetary year.

The mantra of either side should be to spend wisely, not just spend for votes.

Wanna know how stupid conservatives are?

Now tell us why liberals are stupid...since there is just as long a list.

We're looking at two fascist candidates...Romney/Obama is a false choice if there ever was one. RepubliBlood/DemoCrip...makes no difference.

They have the drones at each other's throats over nonsense topics. War, drug war, intergenerational theft, extortion of the masses of tax cattle on their tax farm (the state), corporate personhood being banned...these are some the REAL issues they should be debating...but they won't Culheath...because these elections are dog and pony shows.

If we're stuck arguing conservatard vs libtard we'll never get anywhere. These are false choices in a false dichotomy.

The Quote of the Decade:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies..... Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

ProIndividual-3906907

Wanna know how stupid conservatives are?

Now tell us why liberals are stupid...since there is just as long a list.

lol...not my job...but feel free to expound on your list of liberal stupidities.

I agree for sure with the dog and pony show assessment...but...conservatives seem way stupider to me than liberals.