Just about the only two things government and private enterprise have in common is that both need money to run, and neither are paragons of efficiency. Most of us can cite a failure in government, but business seems to get a free pass. Auto manufacturers don't make lemons and their service departments hire only experts to repair your car. There are no recalls. No consumer has ever had a dropped call, had a computer crash, or their passwords compromised. Appliances never break, food is never contaminated, and no one is ever, ever, ever overcharged.

Come on. Neither government nor private enterprise are models of perfection. Yet the myth persists that if only a "businessman" were running government, he could balance the budget overnight, have the mightiest military on the planet, end welfare, and pay off the national debt. And how will that happen? Well, a compliant Congress will simply do everything he wants. Right this second. Just like we're seeing now.

That's not going to happen, but still people believe a businessman will magically cure our financial ills. Want proof? Yesterday, a poster wrote this nonsense touting Governor Romney - a stellar business man - and excoriating President Obama. Take a look.

"Romney's Bain Capital "successfully" invested private money in: Staples, The Sports Authority, Toys "R" Us, Dominos Pizza, Dunkin Donuts, Burlington Coat Factory, Burger King, AMC Entertainment, Clear Channel Communications, Guitar Center, Warner Music Group.

OBAMA INVESTED "YOUR HARD EARNED TAX DOLLARS" in companies owned or managed by his campaign contributors (talk about corruption): Solyndra– now BANKRUPT, Ener1 – now BANKRUPT, Beacon Power – now BANKRUPT, Eastern Energy – now BANKRUPT, Spectra Watt – now BANKRUPT, Abound Solar – now BANKRUPT, Amonix Solar – now BANKRUPT

Do you want a BUSINESSMAN WHO GENERATED MILLONS OR A SOCIALIST WHO HAS WASTED TRILLONS?"

Let's put on our thinking caps. Take a look at each of Bain Capital's investment, and ask how did this investment generate millions. Bain didn't generate a single penny in the creation of wealth. Not one cent. In every single case, someone ELSE created the wealth. Whether it was Staples, the Burlington Coat Factory, or the Guitar Center, all they did was tack on a handling charge. They moved the wealth around. That's it. For this they raised the price of the goods, and moved capital from your pocket to theirs. This is wealth redistribution. Period. They added no value. They added costs and Bain took a cut for.....Well, for what?

Our clever poster lies through his teeth when he talks about the President wasting trillions. That simply hasn't happened, and only the weakest of minds is going to believe that kind of nonsense.

That said, in every case this empty-headed poster cites exactly the kind of investments we must make if we are to achieve energy self-sufficiency and to fight global warming. Did they fail? Hell yes? That's what happens when you take risks. Do you see "venture capitalists" like Bain taking these risks? Hell no, and they won't because they hate risk. They'll sell you paper, or donuts, or guitars, but they sure as hell aren't going to take a risk on producing energy. Nope. That takes guts and a willingness to take a loss now and again.

That's what government will do and it is what private enterprise will NOT do. Government is not about taking profits for today, it's about investing in our future for tomorrow and it is precisely why President Obama correctly says, if you open a successful business, you got help. You got it from the government, and folks that's you and me. It sure as hell isn't Bain Capital.

Willard's excellent overseas adventure was to put it mildly, an absolute disaster!

Thankfully, he is safely tucked back in at home, unable to insult and embarass us any further on the world stage!

Now it's time to bring on the debates & show us your tax returns!

Plenty of *popcorn* to go around! ;o)

Pure Arrogance:

"No Apology: A Case for American Greatness" was written by Mitt Romney in March 2010. In his book he states, "England is just a small island. Its roads and houses are small…It doesn't make things that people in the rest of the world want to buy." Those words alone suggest pure arrogance. Surely there are those in England who read Willard's book and were offended by his comments.

Fast-forward 27 months and we see Romney visiting England as the presumptive GOP nominee. Does he become any less arrogant? No, not at all! He questions their readiness to hold the Olympics; completely ignoring the British preparation of William and Kate's wedding and the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. In short, he insulted our closest ally.

Then going to Israel Romney again demonstrated his arrogance by insulting the Palestinian culture. His role in Israel was to pander to the Jewish community in hopes of obtaining campaign donations and votes. What the Israelis and the Brits saw was arrogance.

In Poland, Romney fared no better. He spoke with Lech Walesa, the past leader of the Solidarity Union movement. The people of Poland knew that Romney was President, CEO, and sole shareholder of Bain Capital. They knew he was anti-union and opposed the rights of workers. It was pure arrogance on Willard's part to think that he would make any impact on this segment of the Polish population.

Now Romney is back in the United States and still has questions to answer regarding his tenure at Bain Capital and his refusal to reveal his tax returns. It is sheer arrogance for him to think that he can run out the clock and not tell the American people how little he paid in taxes. Those Americans who do pay their fair share in taxes have a real problem supporting a tax dodger.

Starting today. At no extra cost, further preventive services for women c/o the Affordable Care Act:

Well-woman visits, screenings for cervical, breast/other cancers.
Gestational diabetes screening for pregnant women.
Domestic violence screening and counseling.
Breastfeeding support, supplies and counseling.
HPV DNA testing.
HIV screening.
Contraception.
STD screening.

Early screening save lives and saves health care costs. Birth control allows women to plan their families.

And to all of us who lost sister, daughter, mother, friend or family member to domestic violence - this is a victory.

Comments about ACA preventive care: http://youtu.be/lKejT13Jh9g
Today at 1.30pm ET, Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius will participate in a discusssion on-line with WebMD at www.healthcare.gov/live

The Obamabot’s are getting very worried about the 2012 Presidential election.

Barry is actually coughing up $5k of his own money for his campaign. (Where’s Michelle’s contribution??) And that moron Harry Reid is trying to use unsubstantiated, anonymous sources in his Mitt Romney smear campaign.

BTW, I have heard from an old college classmate that has a high level position in the Penn State administration that Membership Committee Chairman Harry Reid was Jerry Sandusky’s membership sponsor when he wanted to join NAMBLA.

From Politico:

Harry Reid floats claim that Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years

By MAGGIE HABERMAN |

7/31/12 4:20 PM EDT

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used the T-shirt gun of unsubstantiated claims in an interview with The Huffington Post, saying a former Bain investor told him that Mitt Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years, hence the lack of disclosure:

"His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son," Reid said, in reference to George Romney's standard-setting decision to turn over 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in the late 1960s.

Saying he had "no problem with somebody being really, really wealthy," Reid sat up in his chair a bit before stirring the pot further. A month or so ago, he said, a person who had invested with Bain Capital called his office.

"Harry, he didn't pay any taxes for 10 years," Reid recounted the person as saying.

"He didn't pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain," said Reid. "But obviously he can't release those tax returns. How would it look?

"You guys have said his wealth is $250 million," Reid went on. "Not a chance in the world. It's a lot more than that. I mean, you do pretty well if you don't pay taxes for 10 years when you're making millions and millions of dollars."

And from the campaign:

Asked for a response to Reid's latest comments, Romney campaign adviser Kevin Madden said his candidate had "gone above and beyond the disclosure requirements by releasing two years of personal tax returns in addition to the hundreds of pages of personal financial disclosure documents he has provided to the FEC and made public."

Madden added that it was "troubling and disappointing that Senator Reid would cite Governor Romney's father, George, as part of a personal attack against the governor. We have many substantive disagreements with the senator and his policies, but using insults about a father-son relationship is a step too far."

Reid did not identify his alleged source.

tyler

Ruken banned, never rehabbed.

#2.43 - Tue Jul 31, 2012 5:47 PM EDT

Guess Foul Mouthed and ignorant is no way to go through life.

RIP Ruken.

The Tax Man Commeth: Romney Thinks the Olympic Logo Are Tax Loopholes

Mitt loves to tout his 2002 Olympic success.

One issue that's dogged Romney is the release of his tax returns. This is no hobby horse. Ann and Mitt Romney classified their Olympic dressage contender, Rafalca, as a business in 2010 (the one income tax-year filing Romney has made public). Of its more than $77,000 in losses, though, the Romneys were only able to take a deduction of $50
http://images.businessweek.com/slideshows/2012-07-30/a-guide-to-mitt-romneys-tax-breaks#slide1

He's insisted the two years he's released is plenty, however a majority of voters in all three states disagree with him. Just over 50 percent in each state say a candidate should release several years of tax returns while just under 20 percent in all three say one or two years of returns will suffice.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57483962/obama-leads-romney-in-three-key-swing-states/?pageNum=2&tag=contentMain;contentBody

Harry Reid: Bain Investor Told Me That Mitt Romney 'Didn't Pay Any Taxes For 10 Years'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/harry-reid-romney-taxes_n_1724027.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

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

Sooner or Later Romney will have to clear this matter up. If it's a lie, imagine how much of a "golden opportunity" Mitt has to prove he has paid taxes for those ten years. Will Mitt do it though?

Don't count on it.

Mitt Romney said he would "Kill the Affordable Care Act dead" on day one.

Republican congressionals are still trying to block women from reproductive healthcare. Yesterday, Senate GOP Leader McConnell called for another vote to repeal the ACA.

GOP House has already voted 33 times to repeal the ACA at a cost of approximately $48 million to tax payers. According to CBS News, the House has spent at least two weeks or 80 hours voting to repeal the law.

To Republican senators & representatives with partners, wives, daughters, mothers, sisters and friends: Please quit legislating the vaginas of American women.

From Politico:

"Harry Reid floats claim that Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years"

Way to go Harry!

Meanwhile, Romney wrote a National Review op-ed -- entitled “Culture Does Matter”

In typical Willard fashion, when you're on the losing end of the argument...

DOUBLE DOWN on stupidity, like the majority of his supporters! lol

I am not supposed to drink alcohol while doing chemo. Hope I am done with chemo when it is debate time. Don't think I can stand watching them sober!

The difference between liberal and conservatives:

For conservatives, cultures matter. Time-tested values and systems of family and religion matter. But the problem is that many conservatives also stick to old prejudices such as racism and pigotry.

For liberals, politics matters, because good government policies, such as social security and medicare, can help the poor who are poor not because of laziness, but because racism and other prejudices has denied the poor opportunities, and also because the conservative vultures like Romney just want all the wealth for themselves.

Fool's Gold

"He didn't pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain," Reid said. "But obviously he can't release those tax returns. How would it look?”... Reid’s charge is a low blow -- akin to asking “When did you stop beating your wife?” It’s dirty pool, folks.

So, to what depths are you actually willing to sink? In November when you're looking back on all of this, just remember you got there taking the lowest possible road.

Democrats/Liberal

Fool, put it this way--Senator Harry Reid has boxed Mitten in.

Sooner or Later Romney will have to clear this matter up. Polls in 3 states show people want R-money to release his tax returns. Mittens FAILED European vacation under the quise of showing expertise of foreign policy has caused people to view Willard "Myth" Romney in a very dim light.

If it's a lie, imagine how much of a "golden opportunity" Mitt has to prove he has paid taxes for those ten years. Will Mitt do it though?

Don't count on it.

Obama/Biden 2012

It's hard to believe that less than four years ago you and your candidate were all about "Hope and Change" and now all that you have left is bitterness, divisiveness and deception.

Yes, because the GOP was perfectly ready, willing and able to work the President, right?

Joe:

You say the Democrats are worried. Care to interpret the above poll numbers. If I were a Republican, I would be worried.

Backhouse -- McConnell is a faux conservative otherwise he would quit wasting American tax dollars for his personal pathetic agenda. They've wasted millions of dollars making asses of themselves. ENOUGH ALREADY!

Vote these idiots out of their cushy government jobs.

Feisty -- Double down? Heck, Republicans are going "all in" when it comes to stupidity. Ha!

"The Obamabot’s are getting very worried about the 2012 Presidential election."

Right-o, JoeMo. I think it's all the dismal numbers from Ohio, Fla and Pennsylvania this morning, don't you?

And remember kids- Drugs don't kill people- the people that ingest them kill people (and usually only themselves, by the way). Thanks for the insight, NRA!!

The US Chamber of Commerce, which is the largest lobbyist group in the nation, ahead of the second largest, Exxon/Mobile, is in hot water for pouring out-of-state funds into Maine in an effort to install a figure head Republican in our Senate seat instead of popular, pragmatic, moderate INDEPENDENT former Governor Angus King.

Even the Maine Chamber of Commerce is distancing itself from these efforts. It's enraging to Mainers to watch attack ads bought and paid for by this national group, who, apparently favor an inexperienced Republican, who refused to endorse Olympia Snowe (75% approval rating) in her primary, over a moderate former governor with a proven record of being pro-business! All to get that precious "R" on a seat in the senate. Why? To keep taxes low for billionaires? We've got news for the Chamber of Commerce: Maine's Senate seat is not for sale!

You say the Democrats are worried. Care to interpret the above poll numbers.

You beat me to it Ron!

what Reid said is precisely why the story about Romney’s tax returns won’t go away anytime soon…

Nor should it!

We deserve the right to view Secret Squirrel's balance sheet(s)!

WCA: Guess Foul Mouthed and ignorant is no way to go through life.

That's too bad. He represented the Left's message very well.

If I were a Republican, I would be worried.

Ron:

If I were you, I wouldn't be counting on the veracity of the polls. Remember Carter/Reagan? There are some parallels between that race and this one and at this point in the polls, Carter led Reagan by a substantial margin. In fact, he led until the last week leading to the election when most pollsters had the race in a dead heat. None of them even came close to predicting the landslide victory for Reagan.

FR: "You guys have said his wealth is $250 million," Reid went on. "Not a chance in the world. It's a lot more than that. I mean, you do pretty well if you don't pay taxes for 10 years when you're making millions and millions of dollars."

It's come to this. Pure slime.

At least Reid didn't call Romney a felon like this Obama ad did: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-campaign-brings-felons-latest-ad_649152.html

Obama 2012 - "Smears and Slime, that's all I got"

Is it true SoS Hillary Clinton texted Romeny asking him to "stay home" before he starts another war?

If so that is LOL funny. ☺ ☺ ☺

Senator Reid has sunk to the level of Karl Rove. The innuendo about Gov. Romney's taxes was unwarranted, and worse, based on alleged hearsay. That's crap, and President Obama's supporters should be very embarrassed. I certainly am.

It is quite clear to me that Gov. Romney does not want us to see what is in his returns. We may ask and even demand that he release more returns. However, it seems likely that whether he has paid income tax or not, he has hired tax preparers who have been instructed to minimize his tax burden, but to stay within the law.

When you are behind, polls don't matter. When you are ahead the results look sweet. Dennis is spot-on, breaking the 50% barrier is a big deal.

Really, WCA and poor JoAnna? One wonders if you will take the warning. JoAnna, how many times have you been in time out?

The extremists in the Republican Party are too ignorant to know the damage they do. As this country evolves into a more diverse population, what will the future hold for the Republicans? Let's see. They have insulted women, gays, and every other ethnic group that exists.

Who will be left to vote for you, Republicans?

You mean THIS Harry Reid?

Oh, Harry, Harry. Have you lost another submarine?

Harry Reid, the Democrat Senate Majority Leader and the national government's highest-ranking Mormon, has admitted now remarking apparently with some amazement on the nation's highest-ranking black Democrat as being notably "light-skinned" and having "no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/01/harry-reid-barack-obama.html

...and this is the same guy

According to Open Secrets, Senator Harry Reid has a minimum net worth of $2,827,056.00, a maximum worth of $6,307,999.00 and an average net worth of $4,567,527.00.

Still, taking that nearly $4.6 million average for Reid seems fair – if it’s really off, then it’s up to Reid to correct the record. And that is quite a rise for a man who endlessly reminds us was born poor.

I’m pretty sure I’m safe in saying that for everyone reading this, that is quite a lot of money. In fact, more money than any of us are likely to (a) ever have or (b) even know what to do with, if we did have it. Lots of people start poor, work hard, and get rich – in the private sector.

The problem, for Harry Reid, is that since he graduated college, there hasn’t been a lot of time outside of government service. Reid was elected to the State Assembly in 1966 and in the past 43 years (when Reid went from 27 years old to 70 – and your humble correspondent went from 2 to 45), the only gap in public service was the two years in the mid-70′s between his term as Lt. Governor and his service on the Nevada Gaming Commission. And during that time he ran for Mayor of Las Vegas, leaving little time to build up a fortune in the private sector.

Right now, as Senate Majority Leader, Reid earns $193,400.00 per year – a back-bencher earns $174,000.00.

Reid has been earning that 193 grand for a few years, but when he first entered the Senate in 1987, I think the Senate salary was about $125,000.00 per year. In order to build up $4.6 million dollars over the past 43 years, Reid would have had to sock aside – out of various government salaries – nearly $107,000.00 per year.

Does anyone want to believe that Reid has done this? That he has saved his government-salary pennies (including for all those years when he made far less than even $107,000.00 per year) and built up his fortune just out of the money we know he’s been earning since he entered public office? And what if Reid’s fortune is actually closer to the higher estimate of $6.3 million?

It’s just not credible that Reid has done this just out of his government salary. The man has raised 5 kids, through college. His various government salaries were enough to live on but how, with all the expenses, did Reid build up so much money? What did he do? How did he do it?

How does a man who’s “product” is legislation make so much money that he can build up more than four and a half million dollars of net worth?

Its small wonder that Reid believes in the power of government to make things good. They’ve certainly made things good for him. He’s risen from the son of a hard-rock miner to a fabulously wealthy Senate Majority Leader. Being in government, for Reid, has been like finding the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. He hasn’t had to work for money, but he’s managed to acquire quite a lot of it.

http://nevadanewsandviews.com/archives/2975

So, to what depths are you actually willing to sink? In November when you're looking back on all of this,just remember you got there taking the lowest possible road.

It's hard to believe that less than four years ago you and your candidate were all about "Hope and Change" and now all that you have left is bitterness, divisiveness and deception. How truly sad for you.

Speculating about why Mitt Romney won't release his tax returns (even after his own party has called for it) is taking the "lowest possible road"? This from a party that has publically questioned President Obama's citizenship, religion, and patriotism?

Apparently it is "wrong" to use actual facts about Romney (Bain, tax returns, etc.) to reach a conclusion that Conservatives disagree with, but it is okay to take President Obama's words out of context and distort them beyond belief.

Add Unrepentant Hypocrisy to the list of things I don't understand about the current Tea Party/Conservatives running the Republican party.

I would not go around shouting those poll numbers, Dennis. Q pulled an NBC and skewed their polls.

In Florida, last month Q had democrats +3- this month, they have democrats +6. They had the same kind of skew in both Ohio and Pennsylvania. So, all that Q and NBC have proved is that if you add more democrats to your pool, you get better numbers for Obama. In other, breathtaking news, water is wet.

As to First Read touting how much better the democratic "brand" is, according to their poll- if you skew democrat +11, and the best you get is a 40/40 split, I'd worry more about the democratic brand than the republican brand.

Bev: Is it true SoS Hillary Clinton texted Romeny asking him to "stay home" before he starts another war?

Hill should have sent one to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta who stated:

Panetta on Wednesday said repeatedly that "all options," including military force, are on the table to stop Iran, should sanctions and diplomacy — the preferred means of persuasion — ultimately fail.

Source: http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/panetta-asks-israel-for-1488587.html

Panetta sure got his butt over to Israel fast. Looks like Romney got the Golfer in Chief's attention that there might be a problem going on in Iran and he got his minion Leon on the case asap.

JoAnnaSmith1

At least Reid didn't call Romney a felon like this Obama ad did:

Obama 2012 - "Smears and Slime, that's all I got

Sniff1, that is taken out of context. The words if this is true, it is a felon. No one called R-money a felon. Next time use this when you're looking for trouble Sniff1:

http://thefamousfrugalista.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/magnifying-glass5.gif

Romney --> Money, Money, Lies, and no backbone

4morefor44 for sure

Obama/Biden 2012

Dennis, great news and thanks for posting. I notice the poll began before Romney landed in London for his disastrous trip abroad; it's possible some of the numbers could be even higher.

David W, Ron, Beverly, Feisty, way to start Wednesday!

Backhouse, on the Senate floor yesterday, Mitch McConnell tried to introduce an amendment to the Cyber Bill, that would repeal every one of the Affordable Health Care regulations that begin today. But, hey, there's no GOP War on Women so saith the GOPTPers. Cheers to Harry Reid for pointing out just how stupid McConnell's efforts against women sounded.

What are you hiding Mitt Romney? Why won't you release your taxes? While it is not yet verified, it seems a Bain acquaintance(s) of Harry Reid said Mitt Romney did not pay any taxes for 10 years. Imagine, a multi-millionaire not paying a single penny in income taxes, and claiming he loves his country.

This poll has me wondering. One of the questions asked was this:

Did you vote for Barack Obama, John McCain, or someone else (follows a question on whether or not you voted in 2008)?

FL: Obama 53, McCain 40, (Obama +13)

OH: Obama 53, McCain 38 (Obama +15)

PA: Obama 54, McCain 40 (Obama +14)

The actual results from 2008 were:

FL: Obama 51, McCain 48 (Obama +3)

OH: Obama 51.5, McCain 47 (Obama +4.5)

PA: Obama 54.6, McCain 44.3 (Obama +10.3)

Doesn't it seem as though they are oversampling Obama voters in these polls? Or are they saying that the states have gotten substantially more liberal? Dennis...any thoughts? You are always good at interpreting poll results and I admit to only scanning this quickly. Appreciate it.

Happy Wednesday all!

When you are behind, polls don't matter.

I didn't say that polls don't matter, I said that I wouldn't count on their veracity. But go ahead, as a conservative I want you liberals complacent as that will only further depress the already sagging voter enthusiasm on your side.

I agree, by the way, that Reid should not have spouted off about Romney not paying taxes based on a conversation with someone.

It plays to the worst of politics.

But then, I have long said that Reid should be replaced in leadership.

NDD: The extremists in the Republican Party are too ignorant to know the damage they do.

Let me express my condolences to you newday on the loss of your good friend and spiritually mentor, your dear friend Ruken. And you greeted him so warmly the other day on his return, it's a real shame what has transpired.

Perhaps, in his honor, you can take up the mantle of the intellectual rhetoric he brought to this board. It would be a fitting memorial for your good friend.

You have a nice day newday.

So Damage123: Religious values are GOOD unless they're Athiest, Agnostic, or Islamic. Regulations are BAD unless they are tax cuts, farm bills or oil subsidies. Government is BAD unless it's the Department of Homeland Security or the Military. Freedom is GOOD unless it's the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure in airports - for things like bottles of Coca-cola, wearing your shoes through the security section or NAIL CLIPPERS. Respect for the President is GOOD unless it's Obama. Blaming everything on a President is BAD - unless it's this one... or Clinton... or Carter... or JFK... or FDR for that matter - that damned New Deal, Fed Loving Winner of WWII...

I mean .... hell, Hypocritical much?

Remember Carter/Reagan

Remember the Iranian Hostage Crisis?

Poor, POOR JoAnna, still have nothing of real import to say.

So help me out, poor JoAnna, how many times have you been in time out?

Have you been "rehabbed?"

Used to be a Democrat. Then a Republican. Now an independent.

Tough being a moderate in the GOP?

Try being an independent with so many hopelessly polarized right and left.

Starting today. At no extra cost, further preventive services for women c/o the Affordable Care Act:

Well-woman visits, screenings for cervical, breast/other cancers.
Gestational diabetes screening for pregnant women.
Domestic violence screening and counseling.
Breastfeeding support, supplies and counseling.
HPV DNA testing.
HIV screening.
Contraception.
STD screening.

At first I was against this as it seemed that it forced the taxpayers to subsidize the sexual activities of others. After thinking about it, it may be the one part of the ACA I actually support. If a man and a woman are such losers that they can't afford their own contraception, we probably don't want them reproducing anyway.

Mittens:

Instead, I will point out are that the choices that a society makes has a profound impact on the economy and the vitality of that society.

One good choice is to take lots of money from the U.S. as Israel has. A really bad choice is to be occupied as the Palestinians are.

Backhouse

Starting today. At no extra cost, further preventive services for women c/o the Affordable Care Act:

Well-woman visits, screenings for cervical, breast/other cancers.
Gestational diabetes screening for pregnant women.
Domestic violence screening and counseling.
Breastfeeding support, supplies and counseling.
HPV DNA testing.
HIV screening.
Contraception.
STD screening.

Worst Backhouse the @!$%# T-baggers and squirrely G0Phers will have...NARAL to score House abortion vote.

Groups that support abortion rights say they will score Tuesday’s scheduled vote in the House on legislation that would ban abortions after 20 weeks in the District of Columbia

Can you believe these jackasses? Instead of focusing on J-O-B-S this is how they vote.

I took two things from this article. Currently PA is being considered a lean Obama state but should be considered solid obama. I think the reason this is even a question of it being a blue or purple state is due to the fact that the local govt there passed a seriously flawed voter ID law designed to keep as many as a million people for voting. A million people! That is the only way Repubs can win the state. Millions of votes cast but records show that less than 1% of votes in that state were suspected of being illegal votes. So it is essentially a solution that is looking for a problem.

The second thing that i took away from this article is that the writer of this article is right in calling what Harry Reid did a low blow. A member of congress should not stud so low as to levy accusations at someone running for president using info from an anonymous source. For such a threat, that source should not be anonymous and if this is not made public Reid will just lose credibility in my opinion But then again, Romney can prove that Reid's attack is inaccurate by showing us his TAX RETURNS...

Davy "The Axe" Axelrod met with Senate Democrats yesterday to discuss campaign tactics. Reid's inane comments seem to reflect the Obama campaign strategy that "The Axe" discussed with them. Smear, slime, spit on Romney. Make fun of his wife, his hair, his dog, and demand to see that tens of millions Romney has paid in taxes.

Interesting that Reid doesn't want to talk about the economy.

This is the disease that has infested our country...The lack of moderates...You cannot come to any consensus on any issue unless there is a willingness to compromise. No one knows everything.

I remember watching a program hosted by George Stephanopoulos discussing the division of America. I believe it was aired either during the last election or in 2004. Whatever the case, it profiled how focus groups were put together with questions provided that asked if they approved or disapproved and provided a range, from 1 to 5, if you approve, partially approve, etc...You get the idea...

What happened next should disturb ALL Americans. Those people who approved of certain scenarios at varying levels were put together. In these cases, the most extreme individuals forced the hands of those moderates to vote extreme as well. Basically they were bullied.

So here we are, a nation infested with bullies, forcing the hands of Americans to take a hardline position on issues in fear of reprisal.

Let's be honest with ourselves for a moment, moderates on the left and right are always vilified. That's the ugly truth. Special interest groups on both sides have caused this to happen and politicians play into it to only ensure their re-election.

Americans need to step up and take back our country and voice our TRUE opinion on issues, even if it's at varying levels. Otherwise we are doomed to implode.

It's slowly slipping away isn't it Willard? Your stupid remarks and insults of people have caught up with you. You've proved your a lightweight. Your lack of speaking skills have turned voters away. And now, your disastrous Foreign tour (where you've found a way to insult and antagonize all the Countries on your tour) has also shown the World that you have no skills to be our President. Throw in the fact that your "afraid" to release your tax returns and your total disregards for Womens rights and needs etc. etc. and you can see why your image and poll numbers are dropping like a rock.

Your going to hate coming in 2nd place. A loser again.

OBAMA IN 2012.

The air is so thick with fear around here this morning, it's getting hard to breathe!

Although, it is pretty entertaining watching the right wing nuts look for a corner in a round room! lol

Pigotry, perfect description in #1.13.

Amy, seems the US Chamber of Commerce has joined the ranks of ALEC in an effort to buy elections for their clients, 'er members.

David Walker, Reid floated a rumor allegedly told him by someone at Bain but how do we know it is a rumor unless Romney releases his tax returns? While I understand your position, after years of watching Karl Rove and republicans float rumors and lies as facts (without so much as a hint there was no evidence) about democratic candidates and President Obama, I cannot muster any outrage at Harry Reid's comment. Reid at least, unlike republicans, said he had no proof and did not float it as fact but he gave the media a reason to keep digging and keep questioning Romney.

NDD -- The right, because they demand people to fall lock step in line like robots, has a problem comprehending that Democrats have free thinking individuals and the Party is comprised of people with a wide range of views. Quite the opposite of the Republican Party which is comprised of dictators that demand you follow their narrow view of things. Stray from that small reservation and they will label you with nasty names like RINO or moderate.

Remember the Iranian Hostage Crisis?

Presumably, this was already factored into all of the polls. The point is that none of the polls were adequate in predicting the beat-down you Dems received from Reagan.

"Interesting that Reid doesn't want to talk about the economy..."

As interesting as it is that you don't want to talk about your time out history, poor JoAnna.

DCIA: The Republicans do like to "purge" those who do not think in lock step.

Where are the moderates in the *Democrat* party?

This is the party that filibustered women's suffrage

This is the party that filibustered the Civil Rights Act, led by Klansman Robert Byrd (D)

This is the party that, since their leadership commenced in 2007, has driven our country into 16 TRILLION in debt with 47 million Americans on food stamps and 18% real unemployment.

A party whose only solution is the same, tired, old, raise-taxes-and-spend-more ruse.

Where are *their* moderates????

FR: ON Reid's comment about Romney's alleged non-payment of taxes:

“When did you stop beating your wife?” It’s dirty pool, folks. Two, what Reid said is precisely why the story about Romney’s tax returns won’t go away anytime soon…

Chuck Todd must have flunked the analogy questions on the SATs. This was NOT a "when did you stop beating your wife" question because first of all, Reid made a CLAIM; he didn't ask a question with a unfounded premise built into it (you have to have beaten your wife in order to have stopped doing it). If Reid was told that Romney paid no taxes for 10 years, he's got every right to inform the public of what he was told. He's got free speech just like anyone. If Reid's informant was wrong, then all Romney has to do is release his tax returns. If Romney doesn't want to do it, then he'll just have to live with the totally reasonable suspicion that he's got something to hide in those returns that would blow his campaign out of the water -- like not paying taxes for 10 years.

Dcia: The right, because they demand people to fall lock step in line like robots, has a problem comprehending that Democrats have free thinking individuals and the Party is comprised of people with a wide range of views. Quite the opposite of the Republican Party which is comprised of dictators that demand you follow their narrow view of things. Stray from that small reservation and they will label you with nasty names like RINO or moderate.

Please Dcia, they're all the same when it comes to spending. You got one side that says "Hey, lets spend a lot of money!", to which the other side replies to them "You people are idiots, lets spend a lot more money!"

Lock step indeed.

Harry Reid - swipes a classic TeaTard maneuver from the Fixed News playbook - and it sticks like glue! It just don't get any better than that, eh?

FYI - Dems are independent enough that they don't feel the need to label themselves, Arthur.

Bitterhawk,

Why do you think ACA is YOU subsidizing anything? Are you just willfully misinformed? Or did you get your bitching points from a box of Fox Toasties?

Healthcare plans must provide the birth control,...not your tax dollars. We now have a mandate on health care coverage.

THANK YOU ACA and President Obama. Pssst. Did you hear where about 31% of those with Health Care Insurance are getting REBATES because the Insurance companies collected more in premiums than they paid out? Yeah,...even YOU can benefit from ACA. Your welcome.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/health-insurance-rebates-is-your-check-in-the-mail/

PS. Regarding the poll results, perhaps the MODERATES were sampled appropriately? I see it's still a bad thing to self identify as a Republican. Bat @!$%# crazy doesn't begin to cover it,...good luck with that. Isn't it pretty much common knowledge that breaking 50% means a done deal? The undecideds will usually break with the perceived winner and in this case:

Obama. Obviously!

Houston: Reid made a CLAIM; he didn't ask a question with a unfounded premise built into it (you have to have beaten your wife in order to have stopped doing it). If Reid was told that Romney paid no taxes for 10 years, he's got every right to inform the public of what he was told. He's got free speech just like anyone.

How delusional can you get.

So if Speaker Boehner got word that Obama was pulling a Sandusky for the last 10 years, he'd have ever right to inform the public of what he was told. Free speech and all, correct Houston? Obama of course would have the obligation to prove this unsubstantiated smear to be untrue.

You sure have a perverted view of how justice works in this country Houston.

What I can't get a clear answer on from the conservatives on this board: if every presidential candidate who made it this far in the part 20 years could release their returns why can't Mitt? Until he does he'll have to hear about the implications that he hasn't paid any taxes. As a tax accountant CPA I can tell you it would be pretty easy for him to do so in a capital gains world.

JoAnna - there's a huge difference between spending money to improve our own country, and spending trillions to destroy others. Get a grip, dear!

ctdad - you are spot on. I was just thinking of the bullying aspect when compared to this thread, or any thread on any news site.

When the first comment is usually not only negative but derogatory with name calling and such it's difficult to not get defensive. I consider myself a moderate but when I am on this site I take the right wing side only as a knee jerk reaction to "Willard", "Mittens" and all the other disrespect that is hurled in the first few comments, the onese that set the tone for these discussions.

Obviously it behooves MSNBC to have the most hyperbolic comments first and not collapsed because it gets people involved. It makes money for their website but it really divides the country.

I think neither President Obama or Mitt Romney are evil men. Both seem pretty decent (minus all this campaign rhetoric) but we have to pick them apart like some sporting event.

It says a lot more about us than anything else.

Seems to me that if Mitt didn't pay any taxes for 10 years then he's part of the 48% the conservatives hate so much for not paying any taxes , huh?

cdahl, well said. I agree with your comment. You are right that moderates have disappeared but they have not disappeared as dramatically on the democratic side; it is the republican party which has been "purging" its members with litmus tests and pledges to Grover Norquist who threaten primary challenges to any republican who dares vote to increase taxes. We sit and wonder why our Government is in fiscal trouble but those to blame are not liberals but rather the GOP which insists that increasing government revenues to meet the infrastructure, education, research needs--to name a few--is not allowed. There is evidence to support the decline in infrastructure, education, middle class wage earners as a direct result of the 30 years the GOP has been shifting further and further to the right away from moderate and responsible thinking.

There is a graph which shows clearly going back into the 1800's, that liberals positions have remained relatively steady with some modest shifts to more liberal and then back closer to the center. On the other hand, it slows a clear shift by conservatives to the right then back toward center until 30 years ago when conservatives continued a shift further and further to the right.

I say this, not because I lean left, but because all one needs to do is look at the GOP Senate filibusters since Jan 20, 2009, to see that compromise has left the republican party for whatever reason. We had a country in economic crisis beginning in 2008, yet the GOP doubled down--not on principle--but to oppose one man who occupies the White House. Never in all my years of following politics, government and elections, have I ever seen a party which refused to put aside politics to help the American people and the country recover.

As cdahl said, the country needs moderates but I say the country needs more of them on the GOP side. We have a good percentage of blue-dog, conserva-dems but we really could use a truck load of Eisenhower republicans and soon. Sadly, the only way that will happen is IF moderate American republicans stop voting for the "R" just because....

Frank Grimes:

Doesn't it seem as though they are oversampling Obama voters in these polls? Or are they saying that the states have gotten substantially more liberal?

Maybe they've become more liberal, or more likely not. But if voters have become more liberal, it's not likely that their present more liberal attitudes could have somehow increased Obama's margin in 2008 over what it actually was. So oversampling of Democrats seem likely to me, too.

However, there's another possible factor: It's almost always the case that polls find that substantially more people "remember" voting for the winner in a presidential election than the percentage that actually did vote for him. So the results may be a mixture of both oversampling of Democrats and the "winner" effect.

PS. Arthur,...you are referring to the DIXIECRAT party,...that ship sailed in 1965. When the Teapublican wing of crazy moved on and co-opted the Republican Party.

But good of you to bring it up. Oh, and how did the Dems force W to sign all of that DISASTROUS legislation in 2007 and 2008?

D' Nile isn't just a river in Egypt,...the Economic Downturn started based on the failed policies from 2001-2006. Cut taxes and launch two wars, Medicare D (RX fiasco), etc.

Republicans overspent like drunken sailors all the while claiming deficits didn't matter.

Oh, and here's the Politifact to dispute your Fox Toastie claim:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/

Basedrum - your question is no different than when people ask about President Obama's birth certificate or college transcripts. It's a red herring, distraction etc that has nothing to do with the election or the man, really, but extremist nuts on whichever side come out in droves to demand they get what they want.

I wasn't concerned about where Obama was born and I am not concerned with Mitt Romney's taxes. But nuts on either side will pick at both because they both smell of conspiracy and cover up. Just rise above it and worry about the economy, nothing else matters right now.

David Walker:

I cannot support your claim on 1.25. Harry Reid generally works behind the scenes and does not go public unless he has a reliable source. You may want to rethink your position on this one. I believe Reid is telling the truth.

Healthcare plans must provide the birth control,...not your tax dollars. We now have a mandate on health care coverage.

Hey Clara, I thought Obama didn't believe that top down control worked. He said he was an expand from the middle out. If a mandate from the federal government, that supersedes state and local control, is not top down what is?

So saying Obama's birth certificate is a fake, that he is a Muslim and even the anti-christ is okay but suggesting that Romney didn't pay taxes is disgusting and all that the dem's got??

Love the hypocrasy of some of the conservatives on this board.

Houston...good response and very interesting. I hadn't thought about the "winner" effect in the phrasing of that question. Thanks!

Frank: I assume you have been watching some soccer. As an old FIFA referee I've spent some time there. BTW, How is that sone of yours doing? He was a defender if I recall.

Hey Ron...Been watching the Olympic soccer when I can. Still a shame the US men didn't qualify. And Spain making an early exit is stunning. But I am cheering on the US women! :-)

My son is still tearing it up on defense. He is a beast...no fear. I played D-1 soccer in college and my dad says that my son is much better than I was at that age. LOL...I believe it!

Dogma - no (did you even read what I said?) it's saying they are the same thing. Stupid snipe hunts that are irrelevant to this campaign, perpetuated but dumb@ss extremists on both sides.

But I love how quickly you jump to conclusions.

Sheesh!

I see this election turning out as well for republicans as Goldwater did in the 60's. The shrill pitch of the extreme right wing is now coming from the party platform of the GOP. I used to be a republican, but the party left me long ago. Extremists can win congressional or senatorial seats, but they don't win presidential elections. Ask Barry.

JoAnnaSmith1

Houston: Reid made a CLAIM; he didn't ask a question with a unfounded premise built into it (you have to have beaten your wife in order to have stopped doing it). If Reid was told that Romney paid no taxes for 10 years, he's got every right to inform the public of what he was told. He's got free speech just like anyone.

How delusional can you get.

So if Speaker Boehner got word that Obama was pulling a Sandusky for the last 10 years, he'd have ever right to inform the public of what he was told.

How stupid can you get, JoAnna? As you recall, the witnesses in the Sandusky trial WERE anonymous at first and their identities were protected. But Sandusky is in the slammer, now. It depends on the reliability of the witnesses.

Reid says he was told by a former Bain investor, not just some random guy on the Internet. If he judged the source to be reliable, he had every right to report what he was told.

You sure have a perverted view of how justice works in this country Houston.

Uh, who said this was about "justice"? Reid didn't claim that Mittens broke any laws. Romney employs high-powered accountants to make sure he's not breaking any laws when he shuffles his money around to places where it cant' be taxed. You're the one who's brought up Romney's possible criminality. Your Freudian slip is showing, JoAnna.

Damage123

Harry Reid? Isn't he the MORMON that said he likes Obama because he "doesn't speak with a NEGRO dialect"?

So, lemme get this straight...Mormons are BAD, unless they are Dems. Using the word "Negro" is bad, unless used by Dems. Have any of you people ever gone to the doctor to see if he has a tool to remove the rank hypocrisy from your asses?

Don't forget Biden and his silver tongue.

Frank:

You have every reason to be a proud dad.

Good morning Jody:

I think what Reid did was unnecessary for two reasons. The first I already explained. It's soooooo right wing. It's hearsay. While currently nothing more than a rumor, it may turn out to be true, but that takes me to the second point.

Most of us firmly believe Romney is hiding information. Imagine this. He releases his returns and we discover everything is completely legal and above board. (Personally, I think that's the case.) However, what we will also see is that year in and year out he pays a tax rate that is considerably less than folks making less than six figures. We already know that based on the return he has shown.

There is another possibility that would really bode ill. Suppose he has not donated his 10% salvation bribe to his Mormon cult. That won't exactly please Mormons, but they will make an exception. (It's not as though President Obama has a base in Romney's cult.) However, there are members of other cults who have had to twist themselves into knots to support him because he IS a Mormon. Finding that he is stiffing the Almighty may be too much to take.

There are of course other possibilities. My point is that most of us know this and we didn't need a push from Senator Reid. We are almost certain that Romney is hiding something, and given his past performance, we are justified in thinking there's some serious fire in that smoke.

Ron Indiana:

I happen to agree with you completely. I think Reid does have his proof or he would not have opened his mouth. He's not that dumb. For Pete's sake, how many times has he outflanked McConnell? However, there are better ways to deal with this.

This is the party that filibustered the Civil Rights Act, led by Klansman Robert Byrd (D)

Arthur: Once again, I have to teach you and others like you a bit of history.

Most of the southern Democrats who filibustered the Civil Rights Act left the party and became Republicans over the course of the 60's, 70's and 80's. Byrd is one of the exceptions. I wish people would stop using that example, as if it has anything to do with today's Democratic party. It only exposes their complete ignorance.

Do you folks seriously thing the IRS would let a single cent slip through their fingers?

All these dispersions that Romney is a crook are totally unfounded.

The independent voters are getting tired of all the BS from the left and would like to focus on the economy now.

Time to ask the obvious questions again: 1) If Romney is so bad, why is he tied with Hussein in some polls and AHEAD of him in others?

2) How much worthless irrelevant crap are you people willing to talk about as long as you don't have to talk about Obama's economy?

And...RIP Ruken. Maybe now he can get a job. My wife has several dozen pairs of shoes that need to be shined and buffed.

I am utterly embarrassed as to what our political environment has become on both sides of the isle. When you vote for the most conservative and the most liberal, it's a wonder these two can even piss standing next to each other without arguing over the correct way to do it.

Separately, I feel so helpless to make change. My vote, my single vote, in and of itself doesn't mean squat and will not change the outcome. There's so much that needs to be improved and none of these lying bastards (and bastardesses) have the guts to make it happen.

Does anyone else feel the same?

JAS1-

So if Speaker Boehner got word that Obama was pulling a Sandusky for the last 10 years, he'd have ever right to inform the public of what he was told. Free speech and all, correct Houston? Obama of course would have the obligation to prove this unsubstantiated smear to be untrue.

That has to be one of the worst arguments ever. Romney could easily prove or disprove Reid's statement by releasing his tax returns.

A more fitting analogy would be the "citizenship" smear. President Obama had to prove his citizenship on several occasions by presenting his birth cetificate. What if he would have refused to do so, claiming he had no legal obligation? Would you have been okay with that, and accepted him at his word?

Michael L, please show me some Democrats who voted against the Civil rights act of 1964 and became republicans.

Mitt Romney spent much of his speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention last week blasting President Obama for leaks that no one except the President’s political opponents have connected to the White House. The next day, Romney promptly revealed a secret conversation he had with the Australian Prime Minister.

Some leaks cast light on secret activities that need light cast on them—such as the leaks that revealed the wide-scale spying on American citizens the NSA was engaged in post 9/11. Other leaks make a false case for war or actually put America’s armed forces and our allies in danger.

Here are the six examples of the worst leaks since 9/11.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/%E2%80%AAthe-six-worst-intelligence-leaks-since-911/

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

Mitt is the worst hypocrite in American history.

Redhead Ranting,

I actually agree with your statement that the fringes of our discussion will take it and run with it as a red herring. Here's where I get caught up a bit though: I usually pick my political candidate based on who I think is going to follow through on their vision of the country/city/state and how well that vision matches with my vision. I consider myself a fiscal moderate, social moderate and understand that I'm almost never going to get a candidate in that mold. If I'm going to be required to put my trust in a candidate I don't want to find out after the election that the person was really using a law that I think is unreasonable (I am a tax accountant btw) to avoid paying taxes when I see my paychecks get cut in half by taxes and other withholdings. I'm not stupid enough to believe that him not paying taxes should be a goal of mine because I also have brothers who are far less well off than me by no mistake on their own (born less enabled lets say). They'll be expected to pick up any slack.

I can't be expected to trust a man who won't even use his evidence to show me why I should trust him. I know what his tax returns already say as my office at the accounting firm I work for has them in our file room. I have seen them. I just want to see how upfront with the American people he is willing to be.

1) If Romney is so bad, why is he tied with Hussein in some polls and AHEAD of him in others?

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

Simple, its a reflection of the quality of the candidates from both wings of the Wall Street Party.

2) How much worthless irrelevant crap are you people willing to talk about as long as you don't have to talk about Obama's economy?

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

All of it? Seems to be a taboo topic for both sides.

Separately, I feel so helpless to make change. My vote, my single vote, in and of itself doesn't mean squat and will not change the outcome. There's so much that needs to be improved and none of these lying bastards (and bastardesses) have the guts to make it happen.

Does anyone else feel the same?

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

Tiggle, yes, many folks feel the same. Please take a good look at Jill Stein and the Green Party.

Beverly in Chicago

meet

Dianne Feinstein

"Harry Reid floats claim that Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years"

Which certainly wouldn't disqualify him from serving in the Obama administration. There are so many tax cheats in the Obama administration it almost appears it was a prerequisite for employment. Funny how liberals don't mind an Obama administration full of actual tax cheats, but they are screaming against allowing someone they only perceive to be one. I can only assume they are against Romney because he has yet to be proven a tax cheat. If proven a tax cheat, Romney should have the full support of liberals.

To quote Harry Truman, DEMOCRAT and POTUS....If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.

If the RWNJ Facist wannabes are, as Willard obfiously is unable to handle the heat, we won't see the tax returns and Harry Reid is correct. What has Willard got to lose by showing his tax returns. His father showed 12 years worth, for crying out loud. After all Swift Boat lies were okay and no one should dare complain but this, welllll this is against Willard and the shoe is on the other foot now so the hypocrites are whining.

2012 GOP--- Here's What We've Done For You; Why Don't You Like Us?

The Tone Deaf Edition:
1.) Waged a war on the rights of 50+% of the electorate---Women
2.) Done everything in their power to pass discriminatory laws against a large segment of the population---Gays
3.) Continued their attempt to nullify the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to disenfranchise a particular ethnicity---African-Americans
4.) Portrayed another ethnicity as a bunch of illegals stealing all our jobs and "freeloading" our social services---Latinos
5.) Vilified another group's right to worship as they please and insinuated they're "all" terrorists looking to destroy us---Muslims
6.) Waged an all-out war against a group that gave us the 40-hour work week and safe working conditions with benefits---Unions
7.) Railed against efforts to protect our planet for future generations-Environmentalists
8.) Belittled scientific thought to the point that they want to ban the teaching of critical thinking---Anyone with an IQ of 90 or above
9.) Jettisoned anyone of their own that had the audacity to work with the other side of the aisle---GOP Moderates
10.) Campaigned on "jobs, jobs, jobs" in 2010 then did everything in their power to sabotage job creation---The Unemployed
11.) Maintained a laser focus on tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest 1% while doing everything they could to stop tax breaks for everyone else---The Bottom 99%
12.) Ran a dozen buffoons for President then selected a chameleon as their mascot---Romney

So for the 2012 GOP their constituency looks like this:
1.) Rich old white guys
2.) Bitter middle-aged white guys who take out the resentment they feel for the failures in their lives by blaming their shortcomings on everyone on the list above.

JoAnnaSmith1

Houston: Reid made a CLAIM; he didn't ask a question with a unfounded premise built into it (you have to have beaten your wife in order to have stopped doing it). If Reid was told that Romney paid no taxes for 10 years, he's got every right to inform the public of what he was told. He's got free speech just like anyone.

So JAS1 Mittens should simply sue Harry Reid for defamation. Release his tax returns and prove Reed lied. Easy enough eh?

What are you hidding Mittens?

Houston: Uh, who said this was about "justice"? Reid didn't claim that Mittens broke any laws. Romney employs high-powered accountants to make sure he's not breaking any laws when he shuffles his money around to places where it cant' be taxed. You're the one who's brought up Romney's possible criminality. Your Freudian slip is showing, JoAnna.

This is too funny Houston. You see Houston, not paying your taxes is a crime, and Reid is accusing Romney of doing that deed. What exactly would another Bain employee know about Romney's taxes? Do your co-workers know about your taxes Houston? It is just so amusing watching you on the Left try to make a crime out of nothing but air. You've got the #1 Democrat in the Senate smearing someone for tax evasion with nothing but innuendo as evidence. I guess it's out of desperation.

I hope if you're ever in the same position Houston that you are provided with evidence that you committed such an act.

Now, back to your "over-sampled" polls.

Elliot: Strom Thurmond.

It's not great to be a moderate Republican in the primaries but it is far, far worse to be a moderate Democrat in the general election. Just ask Claire McCaskill and Ben Nelson.

TNS: A more fitting analogy would be the "citizenship" smear. President Obama had to prove his citizenship on several occasions by presenting his birth cetificate. What if he would have refused to do so, claiming he had no legal obligation? Would you have been okay with that, and accepted him at his word?

I couldn't care less about Obama's birth certificate.

You on the Left have become as nuts as the birthers were about Obama's birth certificate. You look just as stupid too.

Reid was out of line, however Mitt could possibly embarrass him by showing his tax returns, I think the question then is who does Mitt think will be more damaged by showing them himself or Reid.

Now that Mitt is the candidate and the republican primary candidates cannot make general statements of all sorts against Obama, Obama's numbers will go up. As the focus is on Mitt Romney now to stand on his own, and face the nation on his own merits, he will suffer daily. The closer people look at Mitt the less they like him, and his constant contradicting himself, doesn't even sell with republicans, they turned him away as a presidential candidate 4 years ago, and they still don't trust him (and why should they) and can barely stomach him. He is not an underdog as a candidate, he is just a dog of a candidate.

JoAnna Smith 1, I have never responded to your posts but have unfortunately had the pleasure of scanning through them while looking for viable and pertinent information ...

This ...

So if Speaker Boehner got word that Obama was pulling a Sandusky for the last 10 years

Has to be one of the lowest things I've seen. How disgusting. I guess if you have NOTHING to contribute to a conversation, you stoop to making up the most grotesque analogy possible that only makes sense in your mind.

JoAnne just clarify there are plenty of employees at whatever company you work who know what your tax bill looks like. Especially in one salary households.

David, do you really believe that nonsense about private versus government investment or are you just spewing campaign rhetoric meant to sound intelligent? So you try to equate government investing in our future with private enterprise and it sounds so merry and wonderful. Where do you think the money comes from for government investment? It is wealth redistribution in its most aggressive form because it takes money from those who are in the private world via employment or ownership and redistributes via the government budget into those areas the government deems worthy. So you are taking money from those who are successful in the private capitalistic world and for the most part redistributing it to those who are not and paying for those government services that are deemed essential to our infrastructure such as education at the local level and defense at the national level. So when you pay for these essential government services do you really believe that such expenses are "creating wealth" and activities such as the post office or name any government service is being done as productively and as efficiently as the private market? So if not arent you really destroying wealth and just redistributing income?

As for Bain, that is the worst characterization of private equity I have ever read. Do you believe that government investing in GM created wealth? It was a bastardized version of Bain private equity investing. Of course they are creating wealth. They buy distressed companies in which the risk of the original investor capital along with thousands of jobs being destroyed and put new capital into the company along with repairing the business operating model with the idea of growing or saving the company. Bain made enormous wealth for its investors-the union pension plans-- allowing unions to not have to contribute additional funds into these plans saving union members from contributions making middle class workers more wealthy. By saving jobs they create wealth, by growing companies they create wealth and yes by making the owners of Bain wealthy from their success they created wealth. This idea that is was wealth redistribution is so wrong unless you are one of those socialists who think all private enterprise is not wealth creation.

The heat is coming down on Romney from both Democrats and Republicans. The longer he refuses to release tax returns, the worse it looks. If this "man" has nothing to hide, why is he refusing to cooperate? Oh, that's right, his accountants are making "corrections" as we speak.

And, this is the BEST the GOP has?

Obama/Biden 2012

Yes Strom Thurmond was the only Dixiecrat to jump to the GOP.

On the other hand Harry F. Byrd, Willis Robertson, Robert C. Byrd, John C. Stennis, James O. Eastland, Allen J. Ellender, Russell B. Long, Sam Ervin, Everett Jordan, Thomas Pryor Gore, J. Lister Hill, John J. Sparkman, Spessard Holland, George Smathers, Olin D. Johnston, John McClellan, Richard B. Russell, Jr., Herman E. Talmadge, Orval Faubus and Herbert S. Walters stayed on as loyal Democrats.

Let's see, why are moderates dropping like flies... they go along with Liberal tax/borrow/squander schemes to buy votes... they go along with Liberal wealth redistribution scams.... they go along with ridiculous regulation that's choking the economic engine of the country... they go along with Liberal "freedom to be stupid" but no "responsibility for actions" laws. They go along with "kill babies by the thousands but keep death row inmates alive for decades". The go along with Liberal demonize the successful and promote the entitlement cancer. And the 51% paying the bill have gotten pretty tired of it all....

About the whole Harry Reid thing...

This is politics people, and politics isn't pretty. Reid knows his comment is totally ridiculous, that's the whole point. Whats going on is...

Reid makes a statement completely absurd about Romney's taxes...

Romney will respond with "that's just not true"

Then the world can respond to that with "Prove it!!"

Mitt's taxes are only concerning to the far left partisans and the media who have nothing else to criticize Romney on. Romney has produced the normal number of tax records for public display. To assume that he is a criminal (as Reid implies) who pays no taxes is as stupid as the birthers still claiming Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. Difference is that Reid is the Senate Majority leader - not some fringe private citizen.

Umm, Alan, as you know - it is a TAX (penalty, actually) so you can't cry foul on Commerce complaints now, right?

I am in support of Common Sense regulations,...for every department of the government.

PS. Why would any Republican support Romney and continue to bitch about ACA? Makes no sense.

PPS. (cuz' it drives Snookie NUTTIER!) Point about Claire McCAskill,...she BARELY beat (no)Talent in the first place,...then our state went for McCain, breaking a century old standing of "As Missouri Goes, so Goes the Country" and now the Teapublican wing of the party is given more press, less scrutiny statewide, so you are right. Claire will lose. But hey,...that's what you get when you curry favor with the NUTS. Why she isn't doing more in Joplin to contrast her idea of Government's role versus say, Eric Cantor's idea - is beyond me - and piss poor campaiging as far as I am concerned.

Holy crap I can't wait till Obama wins this election so I can watch all you Libs who know nothing of the world put your foot in your mouth and choke on it for four years! Then the country will realize what a horrible mistake it made by electing a muslim socialist foreigner to Presidency and we will never have to deal with such lunacy again...that is IF Obama can manage to hold the country together till then...doubtful, I feel a revolution coming on.

Kirk you make it sound like PE like Bain has a red cape on when they take over these companies. By the conservative logic letting a company go under and reform under new leadership is preferred anyway right? PE normally make back their initial investment through their targets taking on the debt that the PE used to purchase the company. That return usually happens within a year or 2 of the purchase meaning that PE is off the hook within that period of time and everything else is pure profit. Which btw gets taxed at lower rates than normal wages. Corporate raiders at their best.

Layton -- Good Afternoon. JAS1 appears to have downed a triple shot of vinegar to fortify her this morning. When you got nothing that's what desperation does, drives one to drink vinegar. Garbage in garbage out.

Clara -- You make too much sense. They (Republicans) won't understand a word of it. LOL

Q22 are you one of the republicans supporting Bachman's witchhunt from her position of power?

This blog is living proof that civility, moderation, and intelligence have been barred from political discourse. It is only the extremes on both sides that drive the discussion.

Correction Layton -- That's piss and vinegar. Ha!

2012 GOP--- Here's What We've Done For You; Why Don't You Like Us?

The Tone Deaf Edition:
1.) Waged a war on the rights of 50+% of the electorate---Women
2.) Done everything in their power to pass discriminatory laws against a large segment of the population---Gays
3.) Continued their attempt to nullify the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to disenfranchise a particular ethnicity---African-Americans
4.) Portrayed another ethnicity as a bunch of illegals stealing all our jobs and "freeloading" our social services---Latinos
5.) Vilified another group's right to worship as they please and insinuated they're "all" terrorists looking to destroy us---Muslims
6.) Waged an all-out war against a group that gave us the 40-hour work week and safe working conditions with benefits---Unions
7.) Railed against efforts to protect our planet for future generations-Environmentalists
8.) Belittled scientific thought to the point that they want to ban the teaching of critical thinking---Anyone with an IQ of 90 or above
9.) Jettisoned anyone of their own that had the audacity to work with the other side of the aisle---GOP Moderates
10.) Campaigned on "jobs, jobs, jobs" in 2010 then did everything in their power to sabotage job creation---The Unemployed
11.) Maintained a laser focus on tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest 1% while doing everything they could to stop tax breaks for everyone else---The Bottom 99%
12.) Ran a dozen buffoons for President then selected a chameleon as their mascot---Romney

So for the 2012 GOP their constituency looks like this:
1.) Rich old white guys
2.) Bitter middle-aged white guys who take out the resentment they feel for the failures in their lives by blaming their shortcomings on everyone on the list above.

By your math it should be Obama with 98% and Romney with 2%. Yet the race is a dead heat at this point. Must point to the fact that your figuring is complete BS

Basedrum,

Your response is "Don't look at the smear from the Senate Majority Leader - Look at some congresswoman!" Not falling for it. Reid is the issue here.

I have to laugh at what is NOW called "moderate". Being a wee bit older than most on this board, I am assuming, I have watched the so-called Moderates slip to left year by year. A perfect point in case. Let's take a look at a president in the mid 20th century.

1. Avid Anti-communist - anti-sociallism

2. One of the largest Tax cuts since it's institution in 1913, for all levels of wage earners, including those that are called the 1%. He beleived in trickle down economics, which brought us out of a recession of that time.

3. Wanted to disband the Federal Reserve and give back power of controlling our money to Congress as provided for in the Constitution.

Any guess who this President might be???

I did this on anotoher board where you could post a poll and NOT one person got it right. The vast majority said Ronald Reagan, but the President that fit this was not even a Republican but a Democrat and would be today considered an extremist right winger according to those Dems on this board - Any more guesses?

The president in question was John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

My point? What was once considered moderate or even slightly to the left we now consider right wing extremism. You have to ask yourself how did this happen. Simply put years of leftist propaganda via our news media and many schools of higher learning that have slowly indoctrinated the thinking of many people, especialy those that do not study history did this.

It's like the story of the frog in the pot. The frog was dropped in a pot of cool water enjoying it ever so, then slowly the heat was increased so that he didn't notice it until it was too late. We are the frog in the left wing pot that is almost at the point where we will be cooked.

JoAnnaSmith1

This is too funny Houston. You see Houston, not paying your taxes is a crime,

Are you as ignorant as I you seem to be, or are you just pretending? There are LEGAL ways to get out of paying income taxes. Some corporations pay none at all in some years and do so legally. So do some people, either because they're very poor or because they're very rich and have good accountants. Mittens has an army of accountants to ensure he can get out of as much tax as legally possible. The fact that Mittens is refusing to release all but two years of his tax returns is a strong indication that he's hiding something very damaging.

One thing that IS a crime is being a secret agent of a foreign organization. That's treason, and that's what fearless Muslim hunter Michele Bachmann has accused Hillary Clinton's aide to be. Bachmann's only "evidence" is that the victim of her witch hunt is a Muslim. I haven't heard JAS1 get into high moral dudgeon over that injustice.

Are you as ignorant as I you seem to be, or are you just pretending? There are LEGAL ways to get out of paying income taxes. Some corporations pay none at all in some years. The fact that Mittens is refusing to release all but two years of his tax returns is a strong indication that he's hiding something very damaging.

Two years is all anyone has ever had to reveal. The only Corporation I know of that pays no taxes is GE but that's because they buddied up to the Obama administration and got lots of tax credits for "green initiatives (i.e. making all those CFL bulbs we are forced to use)

One thing that IS a crime is being a secret agent of a foreign organization. That's treason, and that's what fearless Muslim hunter Michele Bachmann has accused Hillary Clinton's aide to be. Bachmann's only "evidence" is that the victim of her witch hunt is a Muslim. I haven't heard JAS1 get into high moral dudgeon over that injustice.

Clinton's aide's father, mother and brother belong to the Mulsim Brotherhood. While I disagree with her public outing (though I agree that it is reasonable concern - just one that has most likely already been vetted) I will not let you get away with hiding the facts

Fool's Gold.... Mitt Romney's campaign and uncoordinated (tongue in cheek) SuperPACS are the posterchild for deception in campaigning. The use of the OUT of context "you didn't build that", attributing a quote made by McCain to obama (aka "doesn't want to talk about the economy") and MANY others are PERFECT Examples of the GOP strategy of duping their under-educated and uninformed constituency into voting against their own best interests.

Willard Mitt Romney is GWB 2.0. Vote for mitt if you thought GWB did GREAT things for this country and want more BS policies from the GRAND OLE PLUTOCRAT PARTY.

Q22 -you're a liar. There is no proof whatsoever that Secretary of State Clinton's aides family belong to the Muslim brotherhood except in Michelle Bachmann - and apparently your - minds (and we use that term loosely when referring Bachmann as she has proved to be less than mentally astute in the past).

Obama/Biden 2012

These poll results are just going to make Democrats more lackadaisical going into November. Problem is, they're based on Registered Voters, not Likely Voters. There's a reason Rasmussen Tracking has been closest to the actual results in each election since 2004, and they've been showing tighter races in these states. These other polling services need to do a better job of screening out those who won't bother to vote. Interestingly, Rasmussen shows Romney trending ahead nationally, so we could potentially see a reversal of the 2000 election - Obama wins the Electoral College, but Romney wins the popular vote...

One thing that was studiously ignored in the story of Mitt's Mystery Taxes is this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/harry-reid-romney-taxes_n_1724027.html

Romney recently told ABC News that he couldn't recall if there were years when he paid below the 13.9 percent tax rate that he paid in 2010. Although he said he was "happy to go back and look," his campaign declined to do just that.

So Mitt made a promise during an interview because it would look bad if he didn't. And then he immediately reneged. The only conceivable reason, other than him having a fondness for behaving dishonorably, is that there were in fact years when he paid little or no taxes.

Right you are Q22, and don't forget G.E.s CEO is Obama's Finance Czar and those great green CFL's are made - are you ready - CHINA - But of course the lefties on this sight only see the Koch brothers and Bain Capital. They are blind to the Wall Street buddies that Obama has and the wealthy behind the scenes people like George Sorros that finance his propaganda machine.

Come on people put the puzzle together. While they busy you fighting among yourselves, Republican vs Democrat BOTH parties are taking us for a ride.

This REPORT just in. ROMNEY'S "TAX POLICY" plans for the WEALTHY amongst us. If your middle class or poor you'll likely get poorer.

A non-partisan report. I'm sure because it's NOT partisan the right will ignore. Who would support this guy?

THE WEALTHY OF COURSE.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican U.S. presidential challengerMitt Romney's proposal to slash individual income taxes by 20 percent across-the-board would primarily boost the income of the wealthiest taxpayers, according to a nonpartisan analysis released on Wednesday.

The report by the centrist Tax Policy Center found that Romney'stax cuts would boost after-tax income by an average of 4.1 percent for those earning more than $1 million a year, while reducing by an average of 1.2 percent the after-tax income of individuals earning less than $200,000.

Tax policy and how to tame the U.S. government's budget deficit, topping $1 trillion in recent years, is a major point of contrast in the presidential race, in which Romney will face President Barack Obamaon November 6.

Romney, a multi-millionaire who made his fortune at private equity firm Bain Capital, has not spelled out how he would lower marginal tax rates. But he has said broadly he would cut some tax benefits for the wealthy.

Because the value of the 20 percent tax cut for richer Americans would exceed the gains they get from popular tax breaks that Romney would chop, they would see the greatest income gain from Romney's possible changes, the study said.

"We add up how much people get from the tax cuts and then add up how much can be potentially be raised," from ending tax breaks, said Adam Looney, an economist and one of the study's authors.

About two-thirds of the $1.1 trillion in revenues that the government foregoes annually because of tax breaks would have to be curbed to fund Romney's tax cut, the analysts said.

These tax breaks include popular ones such as the mortgage interest deduction, the break for employer-provided health insurance, and credits for low- and middle-income families.

The analysis assumed elimination of tax breaks would start with the wealthy as Romney has suggested, and it assumed some revenue growth from lower tax rates, a hallmark of Republican tax policy.

Obama has blasted Romney's tax plan for disproportionately benefiting the wealthy.

The tax policy debate is expected to intensify at the end of 2012, with the expiration of lower tax rates for all Americans enacted under Republican President George W. Bush.

The Democratic-led Senate last week passed legislation extending most of those tax rates - but not for households earning more than $250,000 a year.

The Republican-led House of Representatives will likely pass their plan to extend the current rates sometime this week.

The dispute is not likely to be resolved until after the elections.

Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg said she could not respond to the center's report without reading it first.

Romney's tax proposal also includes cutting some taxes on investment income and eliminating taxes on estates passed on to heirs.

(Reporting by Kim Dixon; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Lisa Shumaker)

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-tax-plan-helps-rich-most-tax-group-130529619.html

SeekingSanity

Q22 -you're a liar. There is no proof whatsoever that Secretary of State Clinton's aides family belong to the Muslim brotherhood except in Michelle Bachmann - and apparently your - minds (and we use that term loosely when referring Bachmann as she has proved to be less than mentally astute in the past).

Geez, I'm sorry I brought it up. My attempt to expose JAS1's rank hypocrisy over Reid by pointing out her lack of outrage over Bachmann's persecution of a public servant only reminded these loonies about their paranoid fantasy that Islamic terrorists are secretly infiltrating the government.

"My point? What was once considered moderate or even slightly to the left we now consider right wing extremism. You have to ask yourself how did this happen. Simply put years of leftist propaganda via our news media and many schools of higher learning that have slowly indoctrinated the thinking of many people, especialy those that do not study history did this."

I have to agree with you. What were once considered far left elements in the Democratic Party are now mainstream. The old Democratic Party still believed in personal responsibility. The party today seems to think that government should relieve us of all our worries and stresses, as if that's a noble goal. They seem to have forgotten that it's those worries and stresses that motivate people to be responsible.

I come from a family of carpenters and fishermen, going back generations. We never expected handouts in any form, and we always saved for a rainy day. Long time Democrats, we've trended Republican in recent years. But we didn't leave the Democratic Party. The Party left us.

hs321 about #1.42 How right you are. I can't beleive the hate on here.

Kirk I have a strong distaste for your wealth distribution rhetoric, and the idea that no good can come from it. When that wealth is "distributed" to these areas without means or support programs and a person becomes successful through them, who would not have other wise, even if it is not wealth that was createdsome gain to society was.

What your argument is, is not whether something "good" was created it is whether such an investment was worth it. You would probably go look at the numbers and say the return of such a story is low compared to the dollars spent, especially if it is YOUR dollars spent. I personally would rather money go to help others get a boost than further perpetuate someone living in excess. Those who are greatest affected by taxes (marginal ones at that) are usually far from being punished by them. You would call this punishing success, I consider it spreading.

You knew very well what David's point was. The government does not make its investments on wealth creation, there are other factors as well. The private sector looks only for economic gain and due to that they are very short sighted. Often they look at the largest payout in the shortest amount of time. That is why business people are not the best suited to run politics, often its why they are not even interested. They usually only raise eyebrows once you mention taxes... wonder why that is.

psssssst

Fellow Libbies,

me thinks Q22 is a re-reg of BANNED user James in Seattle (et al)

Fresh 'born on' date and all!

Geez, I'm sorry I brought it up. My attempt to expose JAS1's rank hypocrisy over Reid by pointing out her lack of outrage over Bachmann's persecution of a public servant only reminded these loonies about their paranoid fantasy that Islamic terrorists are secretly infiltrating the government.

I believe I said I agree that Bachmann shouldn't have brought it up. If there was any issue it would have come up in the vetting process.

It is hard being a moderate in the New Nazi Republican Party! I voted for Goldwater, then a conservative, in the party. Today he would be called a liberal by the radical right that has taken over my former party!

Oh mittens.... You are losing ground in Florida and Ohio... and you can't win the Presidency unless you CARRY BOTH of them..

Surrender Dorothy....

Obama/Biden 2012.

psssssst

Fellow Libbies,

me thinks Q22 is a re-reg of BANNED user James in Seattle (et al)

Fresh 'born on' date and all!

WTF??? What's a "fresh 'born on' date"? Been around here since 2008. and you want to take some moral high road about witch hunts??? LOL!!

clwyd, Goldwater was indeed a TRUE conservative, what would be termed today a Libertarian. He believed in small government, States Rights, a strong military but VERY limited involvement in foreign wars.

Here was the issue, much as it is today, the liberal media ganged up on him and he was labelled exactly the opposite of what he believed. He was called trigger happy, war monger, for the rich, and a racist. Sound familiar? He warned back then, nearly 50 years ago, about the deficit trap we were headed for with uncontrolled social "safety nets". He warned about the loss of life and escalation that the democrats would follow through with in Vietnam. Further warning the people about the Industrial Military Complex, much as Eisenhower had.

I will agree with you that today's Republicans are not our fathers Republican's but in the same token that goes for the Democrats as well. What was once a noble party that fought for the "working man" has turned into the poncey scheme party. They think ( and appearantly so ) that if they label a bill something "noble", using words like "affordable", or "civil right", that the people will buy it with out actually seeing what the bill will do. They have promised the sun, moon, and sky all paid for by daddy gov. and figure this is a way to BUY votes - and you know they are right it is working.

Look at all the people on the board that think Obama is next to God. Why? He and the Democrat machine (not the people) have created this false class warfare, pitting us against those nasty rich people. You know, those people that have worked hard all their lives and made something of themselves and by the way pay 75% of all the revenue received by the government right NOW. But of course Obama and the Democrat proganda machine has these people all thinking that they need to pay MORE. Guess what people, 49% of the American population pays NOTHING and they aren't the rich.

The Republican's have not been much different of late. Bush GREW the government 20% over that of Clinton. He got us involved in two wars that were not unlike Vietnam in there execution. He allowed the Democrats to push through housing acts that FORCED banks to lend to people who couldn't afford them, all under the guise that not to do so would be "racist" - and bang the housing crisis.

You all are waiting for it - so here it is - BOTH PARTIES ARE TAKING US FOR A RIDE AND IT AIN'T TO AN AMUSEMENT PARK.

Vote Libertarian - Gary Johnson 2012

Sorry Clara, but Missouri has been screwed up as far back as the Civil War when they were an Anti-Slavery Slave State. They have Kansas City and St. Louis which are mostly modern and progressive, but most of the rest of the state still seems to prefer to think of themselves as part of the old south. The only reason they did not secede with the south is because they were surrounded on three sides by free states and Jefferson Barracks being the largest Federal military facility west of the Mississippi meant they would have had their ass kicked promptly and soundly.

Kirk-2957282

David, do you really believe that nonsense about private versus government investment or are you just spewing campaign rhetoric meant to sound intelligent? So you try to equate government investing in our future with private enterprise and it sounds so merry and wonderful.

Kirk, I think you need to understand that the private sector is not perfect. I think you already know that, but your posts show otherwise. In some areas, government beats the crap out of the private sector. Let's take healthcare; Medicare's administrative costs are about 4% of every dollar spent; typical private healthcare providers spend around 15%. Let's go overseas for a second; in France, the world's No. 1 country concerning healthcare, healthcare spending is roughly 12% and spend roughly $3,600 per capita, compared to 16% and $7,400 in America (in 2008). The French have universal healthcare, mostly a mix of government and private healthcare systems. Yet the government pays for roughly 78% of all healthcare expenditures; seems like government is doing better than private sector in healthcare...

Where do you think the money comes from for government investment? It is wealth redistribution in its most aggressive form because it takes money from those who are in the private world via employment or ownership and redistributes via the government budget into those areas the government deems worthy. So you are taking money from those who are successful in the private capitalistic world and for the most part redistributing it to those who are not and paying for those government services that are deemed essential to our infrastructure such as education at the local level and defense at the national level.

That is the beauty of the progressive tax system and the social welfare state. Income redistribution is not in itself bad; quite the opposite, it helps establish an economy where wealth and income are distributed in a more-or-less equal way. You may argue that doing so is immoral, but do you really think that those receiving government "handouts," as you would say, are moochers??? Are you really that cynical?? What about the successful corporations and individuals that leech off of loopholes in the tax code and corporate welfare in the form of subsidies and grants??? Does that make them unsuccessful??? Keep the anti-welfare @!$%# to yourself; not all of us are as cynical and prejudiced as you.

So when you pay for these essential government services do you really believe that such expenses are "creating wealth" and activities such as the post office or name any government service is being done as productively and as efficiently as the private market? So if not arent you really destroying wealth and just redistributing income?

Not necessarily. Investing, for example, in a good education system produces wealth because education will help students be successful in life; not everyone is a Bill Gates or a Steve Jobs. Having a well-built and maintained infrastructure network of roads, bridges, and electrical power plants creates wealth because it makes it easier and more efficient to transport goods across the country. Putting money into delivering mail and packages across the country does the same thing. It may not be as efficient as the private sector in some cases, but there is ample evidence that government investments can create wealth.

As for Bain, that is the worst characterization of private equity I have ever read. Do you believe that government investing in GM created wealth? It was a bastardized version of Bain private equity investing. Of course they are creating wealth. They buy distressed companies in which the risk of the original investor capital along with thousands of jobs being destroyed and put new capital into the company along with repairing the business operating model with the idea of growing or saving the company.

Well, I have to admit that Bain's record tends to be over-exaggerated, but there is proof that Bain did not create wealth. In some cases, they leverage purchased companies with debt via fees and payments, and then leave the company, which later goes bankrupt. They fire employees with good-paying jobs and then renege on pension payments (picked up by the government). In effect, Bain has considerable experience in expropriating wealth from the employees and the company to itself, taking wealth from one place to another. You may argue about successful ventures like Staples and Dominoes, but those businesses, while producing wealth, hire low-paid workers with few benefits. The replacement of good-paying jobs with low-paying ones is essentially the net destruction of wealth.

Bain made enormous wealth for its investors-the union pension plans-- allowing unions to not have to contribute additional funds into these plans saving union members from contributions making middle class workers more wealthy. By saving jobs they create wealth, by growing companies they create wealth and yes by making the owners of Bain wealthy from their success they created wealth. This idea that is was wealth redistribution is so wrong unless you are one of those socialists who think all private enterprise is not wealth creation.

Funny, because I recall at least one instance when Bain forked over the burdens of pension to the government. And technically, considering the fact that Bain took wealth from some companies via leveraging debt (not the whole story, but a large part of it nonetheless), Bain did engage in wealth redistribution. And no, I am not a socialist who believes that all private enterprise is not wealth creation. But neither am I right-wing extremist who thinks everything that the government does is either inefficient or destroying wealth, and everything the private sector does is both efficient and producing wealth.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

JoAnnaSmith1

WCA: Guess Foul Mouthed and ignorant is no way to go through life.

That's too bad. He represented the Left's message very well.

Personally, I am GLAD to see him GO!

What amazes me is that there haven't been more (just like him) to receive the same fate. Lord knows there are plenty here who deserve it.

@Ron Indiana #1.71: I second your logic on this one. Regards to both You and David. Respectfully, Mac

Freshiee, very well put.

David Walker, thank you for your thoughtful posts expressing concerns of the political flim-flam from both sides of the partisan divide.

Your take on bureaucratic perfection reminded me of my re-up talk when I was preparing to be discharged from the service. When the re-up officer mentioned that private industry could be just as inefficient as the service, my response to him was "I understand that business is just as bureaucratic as the military, but if I screw up in private industry, the worst I get if fired. You guys, however can put me in the stockade for screwing up."

You are right. Government has no monopoly on building Edsel's or rewritting Coca-Cola recipes. While I have no desire to promote socialism, the finest example of efficient socialism in the world today is the Tennessee Valley Authority, which has been providing electricity to the Tennessee Valley at a profit, since the 1930's, and gave those areas a leg up on modernization - thru the public investment in the future of which you spoke in post # 1.2.

Its About Time...#1.136

Don't worry for Mittens... The GRAND OLE PLUTOCRATS in FLA and OHIO are busy disenfranchising anyone who votes democrat from the voter roles. It is another voter purge effort like 2000 that will ensure that only repugnicans can vote. Wait a second... it is meant to prevent voter fraud that DOES NOT EXIST and has been proven so by multiple studies. For you teapublicans... is disenfranchising US voters an attack on the foundation of this great nation? Me thinks yes.

http://www.alternet.org/story/153435/republican_lawyers_group%27s_own_study_undercuts_vote_fraud_claims

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/opinion/the-myth-of-voter-fraud.html

http://www.policymic.com/articles/6319/voter-id-laws-study-voter-fraud-even-rarer-than-the-odds-of-winning-mega-millions

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/12/02/381172/reince-priebus-voter-fraud/

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2007/05/16/12920/voter-fraud-study/

http://justice-integrity.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=453:cutting-through-vote-fraud-claims-hypocrisy

Green Timer the TVA was just part of Roosevelt's "Rural Electrification Program" which was part of the WPA program, it actually only ended in the early 70's and without it huge areas of the US would still be without electricity because it was simply not profitable for the private sector to run miles and miles of poles, wires, and other distribution equipment just to provide power to a few scattered customers. The TVA is a wonderful example of the need for government to do what the private sector will not because it is not immediately profitable. If you depend solely on the private sector you will only have things that are profitable for them and only for as long as they are profitable.

JOE in ALBANY

( I have heard from an old college classmate that has a high level position in the Penn State administration that Membership Committee Chairman Harry Reid was Jerry Sandusky's membership sponsor when he wanted to join NAMBLA.)

fwiw,

your assertions, IP address, name & your deposit here have been forwarded to the US Justice department as well as the Pennsylvania Atty General & the PENN STATE Prosecutors office....

when the KNOCK ON THE DOOR happens, YOU Dam well better be ready to prove the words you used HERE TODAY...... enjoy the dance & the time & money YOUR MOUTH IS GOING TO COST YOU AND YOUR FAMILY !

Oh & I'll bet your HIGH PLACED BUDDY is about to be polishing sidewalks for a living.... he'll appreciate a GOOD friend like YOU when THEY are finished with YOU & HIM .

Q22,

Hey, no one called you a witch,...you self identified.

But yes, I made a mistake on calling you out. My bad. Sorry IF you were offended and all that.

The US Chamber of Commerce is also running attack ads against Sen. Bill Nelson. Specifically mocking him for supporting ACA and claiming all kinds of scurrilous nonesense.

Who are these people and does their membership know they are spending millions to propogate extreme right wing views?

Just wondering do witches still fly brooms, or do they fly those swiffers now.

I wonder if Mitt doesn't want to release those ten years of returns because he stiffed his cult/church their 10% of the tithing settlement. That could cost him his Celestial Glory and the right to be a God of his very own planet. But in his defense, a couple of million bucks a year adds up...even for the mitten man.

Freshie well said, my aggravation with Kirk is that what you said is something he more than comprehends, he just does not believe it as much as you or I do. Instead of letting that lie to debate, he insists his ideology is truth.

Clearly there is truth in both sides. There are leechers on welfare like policies, just as there are those who truly use them to lift themselves. To declare Government bad, private sector good and using terms, like "wealth redistribution" "class warfare" "punishment of success" is taking the argument at a tangent without looking at the whole picture.

First of all folks, consider the source. One can say what ever about Harry Reid, but he is NOT known for drama and hyperbole. Also, any issue about 10% to the Mormon church would not be something a fellow Mormon (Reid) would make issue of.

The bottom lime is where there's smoke there's fire. The most condemning things have been statements made by Romney himself. That he would not provide a yes or no answer to a very clear and direct question whether Romney had ever paid less than a 13.9% tax rate means Romney has indeed paid less and possibly none at all -- how many years is all that needs to be determined.

Once again this is not conjecture (or Birther conspiracy), because tax experts can forecast Romney's portfolio with accuracy, and other questions like how Romney moved so much money into his IRA arise just from looking at what little he has released.

Back to the article: Republican --> Tea Party --> Whigs (b-bye)...

• Romney is sinking faster than the Titanic and he hasn't even hit the iceberg yet. Come debate time he won't know what hit him.

Will he have time to debate Obama, he has been debating himself for years.

True Patriot -- You're correct. We pretty much know he used every legal loophole bought, the questions that remain is did he pay ZERO TAX (unAmerican) and how the heck was he able to move that much into an IRA.

The president in question was John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Didn't Kennedy also negotiate for lower steel prices and bolster the labor movement??? Kennedy is not as moderate as you might think. He's more of center-liberal. Plus he only cut the top rate from 94% to 71% (a huge cut, but still a pretty high tax rate).

My point? What was once considered moderate or even slightly to the left we now consider right wing extremism. You have to ask yourself how did this happen. Simply put years of leftist propaganda via our news media and many schools of higher learning that have slowly indoctrinated the thinking of many people, especialy those that do not study history did this.

Don't give me that indoctrinated bull@!$%#; this country's politics has moved more the right than the public's opinion has moved to the left. Back in the 1940s Truman floated the idea of a single-payer healthcare plan, and even Nixon played with that. Nowadays, we can't even get a stupid individual mandate created by the Republicans in the 1990s that is supposed to "encourage individual responsibility." There is no such thing as "the liberal media;" quite the opposite, in fact. The media today is as biased as it every was; no longer to journalists and reporters seek to question the government's motives, or criticize members of Congress irregardless of party membership. Now, thanks to the emergence of a conservative intellectual colossus, which has extended into the realm of the press, anybody who criticizes the Republicans for the gridlock in Washington must automatically blame Democrats as well, despite evidence that most of it has been caused by the GOP. Why??? Because reporters and news broadcasters (save a few noteworthy newscasters) in general are afraid of being derided as partisan hacks and of being referred to as part of the evil "liberal media," which is merely a conservative hoax. But it may as well be the media's kiss of death. If you want to blame the extremism in Washington, blame it on conservatives.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

@Freshieee#1.157: Absolutely agree with you. There's much discussion here about how "we the people" and the democrats have perverted the Republic from what It once was to what It is today, and who is to blame. FDR rightly, and rather quickly, installed the heretofore missing principles of a "welfare state" of and for the people, into the governance of the nation. Prior to FDR, and despite the efforts of both "Wilson and "Theodore Roosevelt" the nation had, especially since the end of the "Civil war, existed just inside the outer rim of "Plutocracy". After FDR the only republican who really accepted and adhered to those principles was "Dwight D. Eisenhower". With the coming of "Nixon" the tampering of those principles began, but not to any real significant degree due mostly to "Watergate". The undertaking of the undoing of these welfare principles began in earnest with the election of "Ronald Reagan and His adoption of "Nixons" intended "Movement Conservatism". Simply stated, this governance style uses whatever it deems necessary to destroy the principles of a welfare nation. Conservatism is a natural enemy to Government principled welfare, not because It doesn't work, not because It costs so much, and not because it has no benefit. Conversely, that basis of "whatever is necessary" central to the legitimacy of "Movement Conservatism" becomes illegitimate in the face of "Government principled welfare" because IT WORKS. Government principled wefare does not bear the cost of privatization, yields much broader and stable benefits to a greater number of recipients, and provides opportunities to those, who would otherwise be at risk and mercy of exploitation, by those who wish such upon them, namely CONSERVATISM. I like your posts. Best regards

Thanks Mac.

Since I'm as usual late to the party.

basedrum777

What I can't get a clear answer on from the conservatives on this board: if every presidential candidate who made it this far in the part 20 years could release their returns why can't Mitt? Until he does he'll have to hear about the implications that he hasn't paid any taxes. As a tax accountant CPA I can tell you it would be pretty easy for him to do so in a capital gains world.

Simple answer, he doesn't have to. He's released all he's legally obligated to. Like someone above said (I believe it was Redhead Ranting?) it's a non-issue being used to circumvent what's really going on, (kind of like the birth certificate non-issue) Please see below for the rest of what I think in my response to David Walker.

David Walker

There is another possibility that would really bode ill. Suppose he has not donated his 10% salvation bribe to his Mormon cult. That won't exactly please Mormons, but they will make an exception. (It's not as though President Obama has a base in Romney's cult.) However, there are members of other cults who have had to twist themselves into knots to support him because he IS a Mormon. Finding that he is stiffing the Almighty may be too much to take.

I personally think THIS is exactly right, he's not giving enough "tithing" and it's going to piss a lot of people off. I won't call them a "cult" like y'all do, it's just wrong just because we don't believe as they do doesn't make them a cult (if that were true I would call Catholics a cult, sorry phinephancy, as I was raised Catholic and they scare the @!$%# out of me)

Actually, there is only one true Tea Party member - if you disagree with him on any point or even question him about anything, you are automatically relegated to the group of "Progressives". Nobody can agree on every point - not even my right wing lunatic father-in-law.

Thank GERRYMANDERING for the complete polarization of the political process. The ^above^ army of partisan drones fuels the process and is in turn refueled by the left vs. right blame game.

We need to find common ground to America's underlying issues... left vs. right is a distraction and a cop out. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

Mac: "Conversely, that basis of "whatever is necessary" central to the legitimacy of "Movement Conservatism" becomes illegitimate in the face of "Government principled welfare" because IT WORKS. Government principled wefare does not bear the cost of privatization, yields much broader and stable benefits to a greater number of recipients, and provides opportunities to those, who would otherwise be at risk and mercy of exploitation"

Actually, Mac, it's fairly simple draw a distinction between the fiscal conservative view vs the progressive view. The conservative simply takes exception to your statement above - doesn't believe that Government delivers long-term benefit, or that that it does anything particularly efficiently (because the business pressures of accountability are absent in Government). There's plenty of empirical evidence to support the latter belief, however the question of whether or not Government delivers real benefit is more philosophical in nature. To illustrate, an analogy based on parenting principles is useful...

Maternal parenting is oriented toward satisfying immediate children needs, nurturing and coddling. Paternal parenting is oriented toward preparing children for the harsh realities of the real world. Maternal parenting tends toward the granting of privileges to children unconditionally. Paternal parenting tends toward creating motivation via the earning of privileges. (Now don't read too much into this analogy from a social standpoint - both moms and dads wear the maternal/paternal hats at times, depending on circumstance.)

Conservatives would say that Progressives are like the maternal parents - the message being "don't worry, no matter what happens, you'll be looked after, taken care of." Conservatives think that Progessives tend to believe it's a noble thing to relieve people of stress and worry. The liberal safety nets that have been created over the past 80 or so years have been created under this pretext....You don't need to worry about starving because Welfare will be there for you. You don't need to worry about being out of work, because Unemployment Benefits will be there for you. You don't need to worry about medical care because Medicare and Medicaid will be there for you. You don't need to worry about retirement because Social Security will be there for you.

Conservatives would say that the relief of such worries and stress isn't really noble at all, in fact, it ultimately demotivates personal responsibility. Why save for a rainy day when I've got all these safety nets? Why should I look after my parents in their old age, when they've got all these safety nets? Why should I care about educating my children (or even looking after them during the day)when I've got publicly funded schoolteachers, who also play daycare provider? Such demotivations are ultimately unhealthy for society and the social fabric. It eventually creates a population comprised of people who think they're entitled to things and services, regardless of whether they've earned them or not. If parents would be criticized as bad parents for having turned children with such attitudes, ill-equipped, expecting to be taken care of, out into the world, why would we hold government to a different standard?

@Rob-523523 #1.163: Poor analogy there "Rob". I would argue a better one is "parents versus "step parents" in the vein of your presentation. Responsible parents are much more motivated to protect, nurture, educate, and provide safe and equal opportunity for their charges, even within a realistic atmosphere of harsh competitiveness, and out and out cheating. This is a synopsis of the soul of a progressive. "Step parents" on the other hand, are much more prone to the perversion of those values applied by the true parents, for many reasons, prime ones being greed and jealously, along with a diminished sense of connection to these charges. Basis of a Conservative view, as you illustrate, is very piss poor, yet, accurate. Historically too, Conservatism works well for very few for any length of time. Finally, "Rob" you can't make a legitimate argument based on popular perversions as you have attempted in your last paragraph. Some of your implications have merit, but not merit derived from the original progressive principles, but, merit derived from the Conservative perversion of those applying original progressive principles. Regards

Mac, your step parent analogy is odd, and possibly sad. If I could relate to it, maybe I could understand it. Perhaps you've had a very poor experience with a step parent in your life - if so, I feel sorry for you. If analogies are only useful when the audience can relate, then we've both failed.

As an aside, if it was enough to describe the elements of responsible parenting as an end in and of itself, then there'd be no disagreement - you would've simultaneously provided a synopsis of the soul of a conservative. However, it's how those elements are applied that ultimately determines if you have stronger, confident, more responsible children who can think for themselves, as a result. In a sense, confidence may be the most important of these, as it is only those who are confident and comfortable within themselves who can be truly and most effectively considerate to others - quick to offer and provide help, not so readily willing to expect it (particularly under any pretext of "fairness").

Don't get me wrong - I think a lot of Progressives are themselves very responsible people. Perhaps that responsibility comes so naturally to them, they can't possibly imagine that others might be inclined to abdicate responsibility for immediate comfort, intentionally or unintentionally allowing their life behaviors to change in unhealthy ways because they no longer need to worry about some of the more negative consequencies of those behaviors. Perhaps that's an unfathomable concept to a true Progressive. Some Conservatives might say that's too generous depiction of a Progressive - one whose intentions are very good, but simply naive (who doesn't understand the Law of Unintended Consequences). They might suggest an alternative depiction of a Progressive that is much darker, suggesting they recognize and leverage weaknesses in human nature, believing humanity needs a strong hand on the tiller - an elite, holier-than-thou force who not only knows what's good for humanity, but will use government authority to implement that knowledge with force (or at least coercion). They point to the seemingly endless regulations of human behavior crafted and implemented by the more liberal elements in our government(s), as evidence of this darker, controlling, side to Progressivism.

Either of these depictions may result in (or be the result of) misperceptions, and misperceptions may explain why only ~12% of the population label themselves as Progressives/Liberals. Perhaps Progressivism is grossly misunderstood. At least for my edification, what would you say are the "original progressive principles?"

@Rob no's #1.165: My analogy was in fact, odd, as was yours. Therefore I applied odd to odd. Your caw of possible sadness is deflection. You seem to almost totally equate parenting to the differences of political labels, seemingly, in a round about fashion, of advancing the quality of Conservatism as a model of producing proper offspring, while illustrating the shoddy model of Progressivism as the model of improper production, absent considerations of quality, resulting in improper offspring. No surprise here. This is a basic segment of performing belief of Conservatism. Such, mimics the manifest reality of various religious tenets over those of other, like, but obverse religious tenets. No surprise here. Another manifest performing belief of Conservatism. Synopsis of the soul of Conservatism is control of order, as order serves tenets of Conservatism. Tenets are, and historically have been; employment of that which is necessary to the maintenance and higher being of Conservatism. Basic Progressive Principles are found in the words of "Jefferson's Preamble", "Adam Smiths" cautions of Economic strength, "George Washington's" words declining American kingship, etc., etc. All interpretive to manifest principle of course. It is said "Washington's" victory did not birth a nation that allowed "Freedom for all men", but a nation with the fundamentals that could allow all men to become free. Upon this rightful notion rests the fundamental manifestation of Progressivism. Government as a whole, or as individual segments shall not require, nor allow, tribute, oppression, degradation, or diminishment of the individual rights of those whose governance It holds and administers. Either label can rightfully claim kinship to these tenets with probable cause. The differences are found in those misperceptions, results of misperceptions, and unintended consequences you rightfully alluded to in your last reply. Additionally, I would add, the often presence of intended perversion, which allows the appearance of misperception and unintended consequences. I would like to hear your notion of "original principles of Conservatism".

Perhaps we're not so far apart, in terms of values. I'm a conservative who considers himself a classic liberal, i.e. one who advocates individual liberties, limited government, rule of law and due process, free markets, and the freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights and the 13th Amendment of the Constitution. I suspect where we differ is primarily in the role of government - where I see big, centralized government power as an enemy of liberty, you likely see it as a necessary counter to the concentration and expansion of corporate power.

I try to avoid absolutes, however. I think government works better at the regional and local levels, because I think that at those levels, politicians have a closer connection to their public, the public makes a more direct association between the taxes they pay, and the money their public officials spend (thereby increasing accountability). To many Progessives make the strawman argument that if you're against big, Federal government, you must be against all government and all public endeavors. I draw a distinction because I think there can be, and usual is, more accountability at the local levels, whereas I think accountability went out the window a long time ago at the Federal level. Because the Feds enacted Federal Withholding from our paychecks decades ago, we no longer get to "feel" the tax money we earned. It's taken from us before we ever touch it. Accordingly, it's easier for us to think that Federal tax money is just this sort of slush fund, free for Federal politicians to spend at their whim. Unfortunately, too many of our Federal politicians seem to feel that way as well, completely forgetting that every dollar they spend was someone's hard fought earnings. (If I was a Federal politician, I'd think Federal Withholding was the greatest thing since sliced bread.)

I also think there are substantial abuses of corporate power - however, I think much of this is due to crony capitalism; government enabling such abuses via the enacting of policy (regulatory or tax policy) with many unintended consequences.

I'm cynical enough to question whether or not there can ever be truly free markets, due to humanity's apparently natural inclinations to interject with controlling measures - humanity's need to control (usually to the benefit of one at the cost to another). But I also think humanity has a broader inclination that pushes toward something closer to free markets (sort of like calculus, where you approach zero, but never quite reach it). I think it's evidenced in recent history, in places like East Asia (e.g. China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam), Eastern Europe, even Russia (though they yet have many lessons to learn about the ills of crony capitalism). Other places, such as Britain and Australia, have learned the hard way the inefficiencies of nationalization, and have had to privatize all or portions of many industries in recent decades, even health care. Places that hang on to socialization and nationalization, have to be able to afford it - take Norway or Venezuela as examples, both societies subsidizing their socialism with proceeds from sales of one of the world's most capitalistic commodities, oil. I predict socialism with survive in those societies as long as the oil holds out. Possibly longer, if the majority in that society want to live that way. Norway has a population of less than 5 million. Easier to administer socialism in smaller societies. Harder to control as you expand over broader populations - cultural and other differences start to interfere with relative definitions of fairness and equality, as well as the willingness to comply with the required controls.

I'm interested to hear your further thoughts...

@Rob-523523#1.167: Good evening Rob. Very busy day for me. I did acknowledge you this afternoon, however it seems to have gone missing. I will begin by saying; you are right. We are not that far apart. Additionally, you are a very interesting and intelligent person, and I do enjoy our back and forth. Having said all this though, you have a pile of presentments above. I think I can best discuss these with you by addressing 2 or 3 per post. I shall begin with the way I see the primary role of a strong centralized Federal Government. Basically, I am in favor of such a government for the sake of the Union. The survival of a union of States with differences as broad as those of the United States, likely, either would not, or could not be able to sustain union absent a strong, overarching centralized government. History bears me out here.

Now, Corporate power. Corporate power, or great Wealth of individuals, including Religious entities, should never be a consideration, certainly not a factor, of any societal policy instituted by the elected representatives of that society. The flexing of corporate power, wealth, and religious dogma are appropriate only within the accepted and defined areas of "Capitalistic" and Religious endeavors. Note: I did not say these do not weigh upon deliberations of the formation of such policy, however, such weight must be cast aside if it causes burden to a minority to the favor of the majority, or a perversion of the intent of the policy. In 1788, yielding an interview to a young journalism student who inquired of Jefferson; how can the country contain the growth of government as the "industrial revolution" continues with so many new things that more and more people will want and need, and will bring more and more people here? Jeffersons reply; "the natural progress of things is for Liberty to yield and government to gain ground". "This though, will be to the comfort and fulfillment of the people who will yet hold the same expressions of liberty, though toward different things as the new arrives and the old falls away". The young student, (Name of Carrington) likely a totalitarian, went away and used only Jeffersons 1st line, and additionally claimed it as proof that Jefferson was in fact, anti government and anti democracy. Jeffersons 1st line was actually a confirmation of the growth of government, appropriate to the size and needs of the people in future time. That same 1st line quote yet floats today with Carringtons wrong meaning attached.

Free trade: To me this is an absurd term. I am a long time, but not expert student of "Adam Smith", the Scottish economist of the mid to late 1700's. Among many things Smith argued the real wealth of a nation is its laborer's and the commodities and products it produces rather than silver and gold. I think He was right. He coined the terms; "free trade and comparative advantage". Later, as He addresses these two things in detail, one will conclude He really meant "free to trade". This becomes quite evident when He states; when 2 nations form a trade pact based upon hidden agendas that give unfair advantage of one over the other, both loose. The one left holding one hand full as the other walks away with both hands full will either attach scoops to the bottom of His feet and continue, or cut one of the others hands off while retaining both of His. Additionally, concerning "Comparative advantage". Most today, think and practice, this term to mean; one has the advantage over the other. That certainly was not what He meant. Here again, His example was; 2 nations form a trade pact based upon equal and growing mutual advantages that enhance the wealth and quality of each. He also goes into examples of much ancillary good for the enrichment of each culture, societal structures and brotherhood bonds between such trading nations. He also stated regarding wages, that if a country was manufacturing a product of consumption for another, and the product was suitable and valuable for use in the host country but the wages paid to the laborers in the host country were not sufficient to the installment purchase of the product, then such had the smell, more of exploitation of the laborers, rather than any enriching benefit to the laborers, and most likely to the favor of a corrupt government of the host nation. I believe Mr. Smith was right on the money here. Fact, looks a lot like He was speaking directly about our "Wall Street" and Corporate outsourcing of labor to such poor countries as China, India, etc. Even more emphatically, this kind of financial and corporate behavior brings an equal degree of deprivation upon the nation and the people who are left with insufficient sustenance in one hand, and nothing in the other.

I have a busy weekend planned. I do look forward to your reply, and I wish to address more of your presentments soon. My best to you Rob. Regards Mac