Yes, we prevented a GOPRomneyRyan return to policies that created the catastrophic U.S. and global fiscal mess. We put the kaibosh on their 20% tax cut for the very wealthy, and raising taxes on everyone else to pay for it. We stopped them from "killing" the Affordable Care Act and Planned Parenthood, from turning Medicare into a voucher, slashing Medicaid, and overturning Roe v. Wade. We pre-empted their repeal of Wall Street reform, consumer & environmental protections. We axed RomneyRyan's plan to spend $2 trillion more on Defense - plus any number of special favors for their secret corporate backers.

We voted NO across the nation.
Yet we know Rubio and the far right will give it all another go.

GOP corporates made a concerted effort to scapegoat and disenfranchise large numbers of Americans:
1. Open voter suppression aimed at minorities - right up to the eleventh hour. How will Jon Husted and Rick Scott be held accountable?
2. A massive GOP disinformation machine that questions the validity of polls, or whatever doesn't mirror their version of American Exceptionalism.
3. An attack on unions/worker protections/pathways for ordinary people to fight back.
4. An attack on government workers who provide myriad services that we need.
5. Hatemongering against non-white ethnicities, LGBT people, young women, etc.
6. Undermining women's freedoms.
7. Using religion as a wedge.

For now we have beaten back fascism, by voting loudly and clearly for President Barack Obama.

We must march forward with human, immigrant, and environmental protections, fix the voting system, address income inequality, tax fairness, and face up to the climate change crisis.

I hope everyone takes at least a few moments to remember the sacrifices of America’s veterans. They are the ones who make the way we live in America possible. It’s hard to imagine the courage it takes to do the job they do to keep our country safe. My father was a 20 year old kid who flew in a B-17 on bombing missions over Germany in WW II. His plane was eventually shot down and he spent 15 months in German POW camps before being liberated by the American army in 1945. And he was just one of millions of “kids” who have served their country with honor. Please remember all of them today.

As a veteran, I cringe when I hear newscasters or sports announcers (or the most brainless of all, weather announcers) refer to people in the armed services as "heroes". Their sentiments might be honest, but they are playing into the hands of rich old men and defense contractors who are today engaging in an endless war.

When you thank a veteran, are you doing it to make yourself feel good? It's a valid question.

Here are some meaningful ways to thank a veteran.

Think very carefully before supporting the next war. Ask yourself whether your support is based on your emotions or a clear appraisal of the "facts". Are your emotions being exploited by politicians and rabid nationalists? Are you supporting the war because "everyone else is"?

Visit a veteran's hospital. See first-hand what war reaps.

Contact your representatives in Congress when a vote comes up to reduce veterans' benefits.

Vote more Republicans out of office. They are the first to yell "Rah-rah" and pat the troops on the back as they go off to war. And the first to turn their backs on veterans' need when they return.

A remarkable historic period of change, written by Ezra Klein

Five days isn’t a long time to digest a presidential election, all that came before it, and all that’s likely to come after. But it’s long enough to get a bit of perspective. Five days isn’t a long time to digest a presidential election, all that came before it, and all that’s likely to come after. But it’s long enough to get a bit of perspective.

But step back and take an accounting of these last few years: The United States of America, a land where slaves were kept 150 years ago and bathrooms were segregated as recently as 50 years ago, elected and reelected our first black president. We passed and ratified a universal health-care system. We saw the first female Speaker of the House, the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice, and the first openly gay member of the Senate. We stopped a Great Depression, rewrote the nation’s financial regulations, and nearly defaulted on our debt for the first time in our history. Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Maine, Maryland, Washington and the District of Columbia legalized gay marriage, and the president and the vice president both proclaimed their support. Colorado and Washington legalized marijuana. We killed the most dangerous terrorist in the world and managed two wars. We’ve seen inequality and debt skyrocket to some of the highest levels in American history. We passed
a stimulus and investment bill that will transform everything from medical records to education and began a drone campaign that will likely be seen as an epochal shift in the way the United States conducts war.

Americans of good faith disagree over the worth of these initiatives and the nature of these milestones. None of us know the verdict that history will render. But we can say with certainty that the pace of change has been breathlessly fast. We have toppled so many barriers, passed so many reforms, completed so many long quests, begun so many experiments, that even those of us who’ve been paying attention have become inured to how much has happened.

The even more frequent complaint is that the pace and scale of change has been, if anything, insufficient. The stimulus should’ve been bigger, the health reforms more ambitious, the largest banks broken apart, the wars either finished more swiftly or expanded more decisively. All that may be true, but it doesn’t
obviate the remarkable pace and scale of the changes that have come.

More troublesome is that even once change has happened, it takes time for it to be felt. The health-care law, for instance, won’t go into effect until 2014. And in some cases, the extraordinary efforts were meant to keep something from happening. Our success in stopping another Great Depression will be studied by
economists for years to come, but in real people’s lives, that work meant less change, not more, though we should be thankful for that.

Political journalism, meanwhile, is built to obscure change once it’s happened. The demands of reporting the news require us to focus on what’s being done, rather than what’s been done (notice how, less than a week after the presidential election, we have already moved on to the Petraeus affair). The focus on conflict elevates voices that argue that we haven’t done nearly enough, or that what we’ve done
wasn’t worth doing. The internal culture of the media encourages a kind of jaded cynicism — you’re always safer pretending to have seen it all before than admitting to never have seen anything like it.

Whether we intended to or not, whether it was sufficient or not, whether we liked it or not, we have been living through a remarkable period of political change in these last few years. We have bored through so many hard boards that we’re no longer surprised when we reach the other side, and we mainly wonder why we haven’t gotten through more of them, or why we didn’t choose different ones.

But viewed against most other eras in American life, the pace of policy change in these last few years has been incredibly fast. Historians, looking back from more quiescent periods, will marvel at all that we have lived through.

Activists, frustrated at their inability to shake their countrymen out of their tranquility, will wish they’d been born in a moment when things were actually getting done, a moment like this one.

___________________

All this done with very little, if any, support from Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.

Is there any chance McConnell will be passed over as Minority Leader? He really was awful.

As far as the polls go, the republicans thought they were going to win because Peggy Noonan said she saw a lot of Romney signs.

And Mark Halperin said the day before the election that Karl Rove was a genius.

No joke.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/11/11/the-remarkable-pace-of-change-weve-seen/

Never trust a republican. That is the most important lesson. Take old mitch mcconnel for example. Need I say more.

The brilliant billionaires gave their money to the brilliant Rove. How odd that the Party that marshaled their resources better, spent their funds more wisely was the one that won, and yet Republicans are still running around in the same circle claiming Democrats are fiscally irresponsible and incapable of running anything. Republicans, cannot even run a State Election as in Florida and yet had the temerity to suggest that they and only they could successfully run the country.

Are undecided voters over-rated? You bet they are. These undecideds probably are the same people who cannot make a decision on what kind of apples to buy at the grocery store, or what to have for dinner let alone how to vote. I do hope, as Lawrence O'Donnell suggested after the last debate, that in the future ALL voters are welcome to ask questions in debates--questions they consider important related to liberal and conservative principles--not just undecideds. Many difficult issues were never discussed during the debates because undecideds couldn't figure out whether up was up or down was down.

Smitty -- Rumor has it Ashley Judd may go after McConnell's seat in 2014. Let's hope so!

As far as the polls go, the republicans thought they were going to win because Peggy Noonan said she saw a lot of Romney signs.

The only reason more Romney signs were visible is because they STEAL those for Obama/Biden!

If old Noodles theory held water, in my district Joe the Dead-Beat Daddy Walsh should of won by a landslide...

He LOST by 10%

Don't get me wrong, I am perfectly content to have them continue their "predictions" based on lawn signs! lol

Take old mitch mcconnel for example

Please for America's sake take him Kentucky and keep him. You people of Kentucky sure elected a gem with Mitch. He's making your state look foolish.

Think very carefully before supporting the next war. Ask yourself whether your support is based on your emotions or a clear appraisal of the "facts". Are your emotions being exploited by politicians and rabid nationalists? Are you supporting the war because "everyone else is"?

I agree, Jack. Growing up during the Vietnam War era taught me to be suspicious of calls to military action without clear objectives. Having actually served in the military, you, obviously, have an even greater understanding than I do of the costs. I respect your experience.

I couldn't believe it when we went down that road again in Iraq and Afghanistan - lead by men, like Bush and Cheney, who could have served in Vietnam, but choose not to. When Romney blathered on about his patriotism, while rattling those old sabers, I couldn't help but remember he supported the Vietnam War but refused to serve in it. As long as I live, I will support political candidates who demonstrate an understanding of the cost of war, and strive for peace.

This is the first Veteran's Day that we will not be honoring those who fought in WWI.

They are all gone now.

Joe in Albany,

Elections do have consequences, the Democrats did win, like it or not. The President won by 62% to 38% in the electoral vote, which Constitutionally is the only vote that matters. The whole "class warfare" argument is dead. The only class warfare that's been going on in the past 30 years has been waged by the wealthy against the rest of us.

Your side lost, not merely because of the vote count but because Republican ideology itself is outdated and the party itself will not recover until the ideas themselves are updated to the issues of this century. Republicans have lost the popular vote for five of the last six general elections, the 2010 blip notwithstanding, and until Republicans themselves change, it ain't gonna get any better any time soon.

Time to wake up from Right Wing Fantasy Land.

The President simply made it clear that he has principles he intends to stand by while being willing to compromise on the details. In other words, he's handling the looming crisis like an adult. It's about time the Republicans tried that approach for a change.

jody - you should be appointed to tell the independents what to do, buy, and watch on TV. Since you mock them buying apples, why cant you step in, tank control and make their lives better.

Jack, Portsmouth, excellent; thanks for saying it because it needed saying.

Pat, Boston, thanks for sharing Ezra Klein's terrific article; your added thoughts, perfectly said.

As for gay marriage in Iowa, despite the efforts of Tea Party, evangelical Bob Vandar Plaat, IA Supreme Court Justice Wiggins was re-confirmed; Iowans weren't caught off guard in 2012 as they were in 2010. As local news reported the past week, the election results were that voters retained democrats as the majority in the State Senate and the House GOP majority was cut thus ensuring that Gay marriage is likely here to stay in Iowa.

Karl Rove's Screw Up

From the article above:

But down to the final days of the national campaign, few anticipated the severe setbacks that Republicans experienced on Nov. 6. The reason: Across the party's campaigns, committees and super PACs, internal polling gave an overly optimistic read on the electorate.

The Romney campaign entered the last week of the election convinced that Colorado, Florida and Virginia were all but won, that the race in Ohio was neck and neck and that the Republican nominee had a legitimate shot in Pennsylvania."

Courtesy of Mother Jones, by Kevin Drum, Wed. Nov. 7, 2012

Quote of the Day: America's Billionaires are Pissed Off at Karl Rove

"The billionaire donors I hear are livid," one Republican operative told The Huffington Post. "There is some holy hell to pay. Karl Rove has a lot of explaining to do ... I don't know how you tell your donors that we spent $390 million and got nothing."....Rove was forced to defend his group's expenditures live on Fox News on Tuesday night, and will hold a briefing with top donors on Thursday, according to Politico.

If conservative billionaires are looking for something else to be mad about, I'd recommend the Romney campaign's apparent habit of paying about 50 percent more for TV spots than the Obama campaign. That helped line the pockets of the consultants who both recommended the buys and got the commissions for placing the spots, but it didn't do much to win the election.

In the end, it turned out that one side ran its campaign like a business, while the other side ran it's like a local PTA. Ironically, it was the ex-community organizer who did the former and the ex-CEO of Bain Capital who did the latter.

Whether Karl can weasel his way out of this one, we will have to see. My guess is he will convince his donors to double-down on the 2014 Mid-term elections and throw even more money to buy our elected officials. It will be up to us to make sure he fails one last time and finally fades into oblivion.

Salud

I just remember how many folks made fun of the daily Nate Silver figures, I posted. However, he proved to be spot on.

Someone needs to run against Old mitch. Its funny how republican/tea party folks talk of career politicians, 30 years is enough. The same with the speaker of the house. Makes me wonder why the Democrats didn't have anyone to run against him. What's with that?

Defeat Old mitch mcconnel in 14

Bifurcative Dichotomy of Schismatic Political Ideology or Republicans Don't Live In America Anymore

Sun Apr 8, 2012 10:23 PM CDT By ForePlinger

It is now more readily apparent than ever, that Republicans and/or their ostensible right wing allies have decided to travel down a lonely road. They have sought to leave the state of actual, factual reality behind for a bifurcative dichotomy of schismatic political ideology. This ideology accepts no world view other than its own, and, in fact, represents pathological behaviors symptomatic of a mentally aberrative psychological outlook.This outlook is repeatedly manifested by a strongly expressed desire to “take our country back”. Only after the country is “taken back” can it then be restored to a prior time of rigidly defined behavioral norms wherein all outcomes can be predicted.

Our first example of this, is the repeated insistence that the United States was formed on religious (specifically Christian) doctrine, and a return to such will allow normative behaviors to provide both proper economic and social outcomes. What does the historical record show?
The first three words of the Constitution are, “We the People”. This phrasing is used specifically to denote that executive power is derived from a mandate of the citizenry and not from a mythological “divine right” as promulgated by the monarchical hierarchy prevalent during this period of history. Further, Article VI (six) of the Constitution states…”no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Obviously, this passage means what it says, that religiosity or lack thereof is specifically prohibited from disqualifying any otherwise qualified citizen from holding elected office or political appointment. In addition, the very first words of the very first amendment of the Constitution state: ”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”. Once again, in very plain English, Congress may not legislate the supremacy of one religion over another nor may Congress suppress any specific religious belief for any reason. Do these seem like the acts of men devoted to a conservative Christian ideology? No, they do not. To quote Thomas Jefferson in his correspondence with Horatio Spafford, “…in every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot…they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes.”
The bifurcative dichotomy is apparent, as the majority of citizenry adhere to historical precedent, Republicans have decided that this America is not where they came from, are from, or will be going toward. Generating the schism causes Republicans to lose voters to the independent bloc, which in the context of demographic realpolitik, means more votes for their opponents.

Another example of this bifurcative dichotomy is the argument about “reduction of government/ intrusion of government” and how the removal of governmental regulation will return universal economic prosperity and its concomitant “freedom“. Again, let us return to the historical record. The records of the Cleveland Trust Corporation and other historical assets show that from 1797 to 1927 (130 years), an economic recession occurred once every two years and a depression occurred once every twenty years. This period of time included taking the United States off the gold standard, returning to the gold standard, initiating the Federal Reserve system and then establishing the Federal Reserve system . After the “Great Depression” of the 1930’s, the government initiated many reforms and regulations to control the commercial activities of banks and mercantile trading establishments. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the frequency of recessions decreased to one every four years and there has not been a depression for 80 years. (Depression is historically denoted as a decline of 10% or more of Gross Domestic Product within the depressionary time frame.) Clearly, government intervention in the form of regulatory statutes have been successful in decreasing the economic impacts of the vagaries of “free market” capitalism. Further, the establishment of vast national infrastructure projects such as the Interstate Highway System, Rural Electrification, Hydro-Electric power, National Education and capital supports from various governmental agencies in the forms of loans and grants have added value to both industrial output as a whole and the citizen individually. When one adds the programs of unemployment insurance and Social Security, it becomes apparent that cushioning the blows of economic vicissitudes allows our citizens to endure with hope and dignity. In addition, regulations concerning the health and safety of the workplace, water supply, food supply, transportation system, consumer products and medical practitioners and devices have increased the health and longevity of the general public in a manner unforeseen even two generations ago.

Again the dichotomy is readily evident, while having both seen and experienced the benefits of government regulations in Americans lives, the Republicans seek to strike a Faustian bargain with members of the voting public. In essence saying, you may have a job if I have the right to despoil your environment, poison your family, keep your children in ignorance and prepare them for poverty. This creates a schism with the more business savvy members of the party who understand the relationship between quality of life and productivity of the working populace. Once again, pushing those members into the independent category, which typically means the not voting Republican category.
So, what does this represent? When it is quite plain that there is a gross reshaping of external reality to meet internal needs that is motivated by the past rather than by the present or future, when the present situation is severely distorted in a rigid, inflexible and exclusionary manner that leads to significant dysfunction, the pathology is obvious. The schism is palpable and Republicans can see America in their rear view mirror, as they roar down the road to a well deserved obscurity.

Tried to warn them, they didn't listen.

Now, onto 2014 and the battle for the House and control of the Senate.

Its amazing to me, with all the money the republicans had at their disposal, they couldn't find a pollster who could give them an accurate accounting of where the voters were on the issues. Their campaign never understood as well as many who posted here, that the passion the President's supporters had was so durable to ensure a great turnout. It wasn't decided by the lack of lawn signs or bumper stickers. I witnessed signs for the President disappear overnight and had a bumper sticker on my car vandalized, I know others who had magnetic signs stolen from their cars, it all made me very sad. We had the silent majority who made their votes count and have their voices heard.

As for independents, they are overrated. I have always felt that way, to me it is just a cop out way to argue both sides of the same argument or perhaps wanting to have it both ways, either way they are fence sitters. Have the courage of your convictions and fight for them.

Why were the Republican polls so wrong? Simple: Remember no jo, who has fled for the nether regions, who said that the polls were biased in favor of the Dems, due to some + Dem sampling? She did not understand (expert that she claims to be in bean counting) that reflected more people calling themselves Democrats, not that the polls were looking for more Dems to sample.

What the Republicans did what build in their bias according to the outcome they wanted. They started with "Mittens wins Presidency" and found their numbers to support that.

The bias was theirs! Which makes me laugh uncontrollably!

*** Why were the GOP polls wrong?

The GOPTP wrapped themselves in a plastic bubble, and like a free faulty condom, burst when least expected. Perhaps the next race will focus on probing the numbers with accuracy vs. probing vaginae. Lesson Learned GOPTP? Doubtful!! Already, they are adopting the Romney platform and doubling down on stupid, with such nonsense as telling us they lost because their stance on anti-choice wasn't strong enough.

C'est la vie!!

Revengeof, do not twist my words into some other meaning which is what your side does constantly. I have no desire to tell undecideds what kind of apples to buy or what to fix for dinner, what I said is they have great difficulty in making decisions about anything from simple purchases to complex decisions. They are indecisive at best, and locked in indecision at worse. Anyone who could sit through 3 debates and months and months of campaigning and still have no clue how to vote is beyond me and they do not deserve such attention. That is the truth; they should have no greater input in elections, debates than anyone else. It's not my fault that undecideds appear incapable of deciding anything, that's the way I see them. We've probably all known and have friends who hum-haw about everything, it is exasperating to get those people to decide even simple things like what restaurant they'd prefer for dinner.

The Democrats had more total votes in House seat races than Republicans did. State Republican gerimandering is all that kept the House from reflecting the wishes of the people. A concerted effort needs to be made for 2014.

If you want to know why GOP polls were wrong, please listen to what David Frum of Newsweek said on Morning Joe 11/09/12. He bared it all out.

They've lied continuously to these people for their own pocket sake. It sad but that GOP for you.

If Republicans won't compromise then over the fiscal cliff we go....................

With the Bush tax breaks gone, we can then discuss spending cuts, entitlement reform, and what tax breaks who gets.......really pretty simple.

GBM -- You're spot on about the silent majority. Republicans looked to yard signs and everyone else went about their business and VOTED.

Another thing. What happened to the MSM? If you tell a lie often enough people will believe it. The media should be taken to task for not calling out the right on their lies. Instead the MSM just repeated whatever the Romney campaign hand fed them and ran it as legitimate stuff. This should be a wake up call to the MSM. They have egg on their face.

sirie If discrimination is forward, please drop me off.

Please show some proof of your statement. How can you post something like that with no proof?

with all the money the republicans had at their disposal, they couldn't find a pollster who could give them an accurate accounting of where the voters were on the issues.

Faux News and Rasmussen seemed more than happy to promote numbers that made the GOPTP happy. But then again, we already knew Faux is fair and balanced (belch!!) and will tell any dumb-ass what they want to hear vs. the reality of the issue. Poor guys, they found out the hard way that spinning doesn't equate to winning.

The "lessons" that need to be learned, need to be learned by the right.

If they continue as they have been to worry about nothing besides their retention of power then they WILL lose the majority in the House in 2014.

If there is anything solid to take away from last Tuesday's shellacking, it is, Republicon's don't believe in math anymore than they believe in science! lol

Nate Silver ROCKED their little bubble!

Sadly, I am not certain that all the GOP remaining received the memo sent from the American people. For those who did not, here it is:

• LEARN TO COMPROMISE.
• START RESPECTING THE CITIZENS YOU WERE HIRED TO REPRESENT.
• END YOUR ALLEGIANCE TO THE BIG CORPORATE SPONSORS WHO ARE TRYING TO BUY OUR GOVERNMENT.
• TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS ONLY FAVORS THE RICHEST AMERICANS, SO STOP BEATING THAT DRUM.
• WORK WITH OUR PRESIDENT TO GROW THE ECONOMY FROM THE MIDDLE OUT.
• THIS IS A COUNTRY, NOT A COMPANY.
• WE ARE A NATION OF PEOPLE AND IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO DO WHAT IS BEST FOR US.

IN THE WORDS OF JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY: "ASK NOT WHAT YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU. ASK WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY."

People fail to understand that this is not, in reality a "tax hike" for the upper income Americans. It is leveling the playing field to force them to pay the same percentage as those who do not make as much. It is about closing loopholes that allow Americans making millions of dollars a year to pay half the percentage that those making thousands per year. Dividend earnings and capital gains are sheltering high-income earnings at the expense of 98% of the rest of us.

It is NOT about the bottom line number paid ... it is about the percentage of the earnings paid. It needs to be fair. The loopholes need to be closed. The Republicans better listen to the 99% ... or two years from now Karl Marx Rove will be crying in his Scotch trying to explain what the hell happened to all the donor money ... again.

Eric - 913730 - allowing Bush tax cuts to expire be the best but then how about the ripple effect on the economy. Best, we get it solved now than later. I believe the later will be case.

Great post Foreplinger!

Sometimes the difficulty I have discussing any situation with really far right conservatives is establishing reality. You cannot debate someone about real ways to try and fix the economy, or anything else for that matter, when they are screaming out "We live in a socialist America", or the "Days of American Prosperity are over". Most times there is so much back and forth trying to bring them to reality that I never even get to the issues.

Your portrays this idea well.

Post 1.35: Dear Joshua:

So you have trouble understanding and accepting that people do not think as you do? You think by calling Jody a pejorative, that somehow makes your point more valid? Actually, what it demonstrates is that you have no respect for women at all, the hallmark of the right wing, and you have a very short fuse.

Now. Apologize to Jody, and grow up.

@ Smitty

Discrimination against the Small Business, against those who make over $250K per year.

I don't understand that...

Why not raise taxes on everyone? Is that not fair?

You Democrats are pathetic...

What great a sound it is that even a week later you still hear the conservative entertainment bubbles popping every which way. Its time to get to work in congress! It is high time we learn what these "loopholes" they have been proposing for over a year really are. A tax deal to lower rates on the rich should be that those taxes should only be lowered if they can find enough revenue in those loopholes the 1% enjoys to justify the tax break on the 1%.

If old Noodles theory held water

We can only hope we can get this clap-trap shuts her flap, permanently. She and old SourKraut-hammerhead ought to hook up, jettison to a off to the radio-active Bikini Atolls, and engage in some good old baby making to release their toxic buildup.

Speaking of toxic buildup, where was George Will and Ann Coulter this weekend. Their absence from the new circuits spewing poison excelsior was decidedly, refreshing.

To add to D. Appel's post. Here's an excerpt from an article in USA Today. It's from a review of the book titled Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else by Chrystia Freeland. Perhaps some would benefit from reading it.

Since the late 1970s, Freeland explains, tax cuts and other forms of economic liberalization have reversed the tide in favor of the wealthy. This is particularly true in finance, where the creation and marketing of increasingly complex financial instruments -- spurred by deregulation -- allowed America's biggest banks, and their executives, to reap larger and larger windfalls.

"Much of the story of the rise of the 1%, and especially of the 0.1%," Freeland writes, "is the story of the rise of finance."

As Plutocrats explains, the extreme wealth of America's top financiers is a cautionary tale of so-called "rent seeking," an economic term describing enrichment through reallocation rather than the creation of wealth. This phenomenon is by no means unique to the U.S.

Take a look at China's National People's Congress. As the country evolves into an urbanized industrial superpower, China is becoming rife with rent-seeking billionaire legislators who are growing rich through ties to the state apparatus. In China, however, the enrichment of elites has coincided with a dramatic rise in the average citizen's living standards, which has not been the case in 21st-century America.

Freeland argues that this is the most worrisome aspect of the rise of the plutocrats: that America, long a land of economic opportunity, will increasingly veer toward oligarchy, with avenues for advancement shut off by elites who are determined to maintain their hold on power and "tempted to pull up the ladder they climbed to the top."

This shift away from a democratic, politically inclusive society, Freeland warns, would not be unprecedented among a major global power. A similar fate, she explains, befell 14th-century Venice, once the richest city in Europe. After prospering through policies that promoted social mobility, Venice fell into decay once the reigning elite used their wealth to shut out other would-be competitors – an era known as La Serrata, or the closure.

Unlike some critics on the left, Freeland does not vilify her super-rich protagonists – a nonpartisan approach that helps make Plutocrats harder to ignore. But her warning that the U.S. may someday face a Serrata of its own is a message – however uncomfortable – that Americans may want to heed, particularly at a time when the nation's economic future is so uncertain.

(Emphasis mine)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/11/11/rise-of-plutocrats/1692311/

In case you missed it, Rachel Maddow had a great segment last week where she discussed the seeming inability of the Republican party to accept some things as truth:

THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW - November 7, 2012

Ohio really did go to President Obama last night. And he really did win. And he really was born in Hawaii. And he really is legitimately president of the United States, again.

And the Bureau of Labor Statistics did not make up a fake unemployment rate last month. And the Congressional Research Service really can find no evidence that cutting taxes on rich people grows the economy.

And the polls were not skewed to oversample Democrats. And Nate Silver was not making up fake projections about the election to make conservatives feel bad. Nate Silver was doing math.

And climate change is real. And rape really does cause pregnancy sometimes. And evolution is a thing. And Benghazi was an attack on us, it was not a scandal by us. And nobody is taking away anyone`s guns. And taxes have not gone up. And the deficit is dropping, actually.

And Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. And the moon landing was real. And FEMA is not building concentration camps. And U.N. election observers are not taking over Texas. And moderate reforms of the regulations on the insurance industry and the financial services industry in this country are not the same thing as communism.

Ashley Judd probably won't run against Mitch, she is a Tennessee resident, we are hoping she will run against and beat Lamar Alexander!

Union Baby,

Actress Ashley Judd isn't ruling out a run for U.S. Senate in Kentucky.
"I cherish Kentucky, heart and soul, and while I'm very honored by the consideration, we have just finished an election, so let's focus on coming together to keep moving America's families, and especially our kids, forward," she said.

Judd lives in Tennessee and would have to re-establish a residence in Kentucky before she could challenge Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell in his 2014 re-election bid.

http://entertainment.msn.com/news/article.aspx?news=774108&ocid=ansent11

Ahh, Joshua AKA RevengeofPodus, shows his true colors; can't argue the point so he resorts to namecalling because he doesn't approve of my "opinion", which is simply that, my opinion.

Just for you, Albany Joe:

If I were searching for an iconic example of disingenuousness, it would be you. As a veteran, I remind you that the President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief of our military forces. You write about remembering their sacrifice. You know nothing of sacrifice. Nothing.

It is Presidents who make the horrific decisions to send G.I.'s to their deaths to protect empty punks like you. Those G.I.'s gave their lives, their bodies, their freedoms so you could carp endlessly about the horrible sacrifice of dollars you have to make to keep the country running, even as you tell us how well you live.

And in your warped mind, you think I feel envy toward you. You think I am jealous. You couldn't be further from the truth. I feel contempt for you that is beyond description. I can tell you with absolute certainty, there are millions of veterans across this land who look at the likes of you and see scum. Those same veterans do not need your BS posts to remind us that we need to remember the sacrifices of our fellow vets.

D. Appel, in fairness to the Republicans, they simply CAN'T do the things you say.

If they did them, they wouldn't be Republicans anymore, they'd be Democrats.

For every point you make, the opposite can be said to be true also :

1. Open voter suppression aimed at minorities - right up to the eleventh hour.

Against voter ID, a way to prevent voter fraud.

2. A massive GOP disinformation machine that questions the validity of polls, or whatever doesn't mirror their version of American Exceptionalism.

Misrepresenting polls by over sampling democrats.

3. An attack on unions/worker protections/pathways for ordinary people to fight back.

This depends if you're talking public or private. But I'm not going to get into this one with you due to major differences in opinion.

4. An attack on government workers who provide myriad services that we need.

I guess you believe everything the left media tells you.

5. Hatemongering against non-white ethnicities, LGBT people, young women, etc.

Honestly I don't know how you say this with a straight face.

6. Undermining women's freedoms.

Freedom? Or is it responsibility....

7. Using religion as a wedge.

Hmmmm not sure how you're getting that when Obama is shoving Islam down our throats at the cost of Christianity. (I'm neither, so neutral opinion of what I've seen over the past four years)

Seriously, while the right does have their heads in the sand in a lot of ways, you libs are nearly to China (in more ways than one).

@don't_carry_it_all: Excellent article, thanks for sharing.

@sirie

Please try to understand, rather then just repeating what the right wing talking heads are blatting about. As it stands now the ubber rich have ways of sheltering hundreds of thousands of dollars of income and they pay little or no tax on it. Here are some examples. Corporations make purchases that they can write off as tax deductions; cars, entertainment, property / homes, airplanes / jets, travel and much more. CEOs are provided exclusive use of these for no cost. In addition, many CEOs take little salary ($1 per year), but accept stock in lieu of salary and, depending on the value when it is sold, substantially lowers the amount of tax paid. They also take bonuses instead of salary and avoid paying social security and some other normal payroll taxes.

The "perks" (cars, vacation homes, entertainment, etc.) provided these upper wage earners should have values placed on them and be considered income. If the CEO is provided with a car to use, for example, the company writes it off as a business expense, but the CEO should have to claim the value of that car, pro rated for the year, as income. Most of us have to pay for our own vehicles with after-tax-dollars, which is a large chunk of our incomes. Why should they get the free ride?

Capital gains are taxed at only 15%, so large earners can lower the amount the pay in taxes using that loophole or pay an even lower percentage using dividend interest. There are many, many of these loopholes that are used by the very wealthy to lower the amount on which they pay tax. These are not loopholes the average, middle class working person can make use of, they are in place solely to allow the wealthy to hold onto a larger percentage of their income than the percentage the majority of the people get to keep.

Barring the closing those loopholes, which is an onerous task and one that negatively effects ALL political party representatives, the end balance of that remaining taxable income, after they have reduced the top line by hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, needs to be taxed at a higher rate because they've ALREADY sheltered so darned much of it.

This is about fairness. Currently the tax laws are skewed to favor the rich, allowing them to "hide" income legally and not have it subject to taxes. Not surprising because it is the wealthy that either made the laws or paid for the politicians who made the laws. If all the loopholes were closed and the total income of the highest earners was subject to tax, I would agree that the percentages should be the same. Until that time, the wealthiest need to pay their fair share towards the operation of this country and raising the percentage they pay is the only way to do that.

I dare ANYONE on this board to say that they would prefer to make $50,000.00 per year and pay 24% tax rather than make $20 million per year and pay 38% tax.

Ah, the gloating of libs who won an election simply because the Santa Claus in the White House offered even more entitlements to those among us who are too lazy to earn them.

Alex M, how can you say what you said with a straight face? Please, in great detail, explain how the President is shoving Islam down our throats... I might have to start keeping a list tracking all of the alternate realities some of the people who post on this site live in

The only lessons Washington seems to learn is the wrong ones.

On voter fraud, is there any documentation that spells out just how much voter fraud there has been?

Has it decided any election one way or the other?

I'm wondering if we have a really, really serious problem of voter fraud, are we chasing ghosts or were Republicans really trying to suppress the minority vote?

offered even more entitlements to those among us who are too lazy to earn them.

That's right Spidey, all us jerks that believe our vets and active military deserve benefits equal to their service, or those damn benefits we believe our 9/11 first responders merit, those darn entitlements like Social Security or Mediare that we paid into for our entire working lives and believe we are justified in getting in return. Boy, aren't we a crazy bunch of freeloading, lazy, wannabes.

Over 50% in each category of economy, foreign policy, and government spending agreed that republican stances were better, but 81% liked Obama better than Romney.

This is according to the exit polls. Being liked is more important than functioning well. We will see how works out the next couple of years.

Please, in great detail, explain how the President is shoving Islam down our throats

@Akeem - hadn't you heard? Those free Obamaphones are really fold up rugs that at the stroke of noon, unfold and force to your knees to begin your prayer chants. When those phones aren't in use as an actual phone or a prayer rug, they can be used as a burqa.

@Sirie,

In case you do not understand EVERYONE who makes up 250K, taxes would remain the same. ONLY those who make income above will see an increase. Most SMALL businesses make less than 250K a year so they will not be effected. Small businesses are defined by ownership, not profit margins. So, a business that makes billions a year could be considered a small business due to ownership structure. I believe this is the disinformation that most of the less than educated Republicans argue for.

Eric-913730....."If Republicans won't compromise then over the fiscal cliff we go...................."

Erico....still living under a mushroom ?

It was Senator Murray (D-WA), FAILED budget reduction committee chairperson, who stated: "If Republicans do not agree to a tax hike on the rich, then America can go over the Fiscal Cliff."

• Note: Taxing the rich will only keep the government running for about EIGHT DAYS.

Senator "Pocket Veto" Reid recently expressed the same intentions just a couple of days ago. The Progressives continue to say to work across the aisle, when in fact what they are saying is "My way or the highway".

Maybe, just maybe, the Senate will get past this "Fiscal Cliff", but hold your breath. What I see is a typical Progressive agenda: TAX = SPEND = REDISTRIBUTE.

Dear spider:

While I realize that quoting Rush Limbaugh substitutes for thought in the right wing, it is an example of exactly WHY the right lost this election.

If you continue to insult the 50% of voters that elected your President, you will lose MORE elections.

Rush led you all right over the cliff.

Joe HAHAHA

ANYONE who claims Barry has a "mandate" from his re-election to implement whatever policies he wants, must also accept that the re-election of the House Republican's gives them a mandate to oppose his policies.

Democrats running for Congress got several hundred thousand MORE votes than Republicans. That's not much of a mandate. If the Republicans hadn't gerrymandered so shamelessly after 2010, Nancy Pelosi would be Speaker of the House again in January. John Boehner has the same kind of "mandate" that Vladimir Putin and Hugo Chavez have: one based on twisting the rules in their favor to maintain themselves in power permanently.

BTW: On the subject of mandates, Obama got more votes than George Bush got in 2004 and won by a bigger margin over Romney than Bush won over Kerry. I'll bet HAHAHA thought it was just nifty when Bush said "I've earned political capital in this election and I intend to spend it." Now, it's Obama that has the political capital. I'm betting he spends it more wisely than Bush did.

I wouldn't want to be Karl Rove right now. Fleecing investors (yes, investors, not donors since they definitely expected a return) for almost $400 million in most places could cause one to just disappear off the face of the earth and their body may never be found.

The only reason they may be keeping him around is to payback his debt by being the scapegoat for the GOP and the whole conservative news machine. Blame it all on Karl., run him out of town, and get back to business as usual, except to convince more white people and people of Cuban descent to vote Republican.

I'm with you David Walker. I hate the way that the RWNJ's wrap themselves in the flag or the Bible and exploit it for political gain.

The next Republican that does it in my presence I swear I will tear the flag out of his (her) hands and slap them across the face with it. I will tell them to stop using my flag to pervert Democracy.

Feisty, do you EVER have anything constructive to contribute, or is your mission to simply insult those with whom you disagree?

Every credible source I have seen is advocating that we push the republicons over that fiscal cliff. We have a pat hand and they have nothing to offer us. So there is no need to compromise.

Besides, they only have what 20 days left? Those do nothing republicons can not tie their shoes in 20 days much less do any work. Nothing is going to happen until next year, and then in 2014 when those party over country republicons get swept out of Congress.

mike-464493

Blame it all on Karl., run him out of town, and get back to business as usual, except to convince more white people and people of Cuban descent to vote Republican.

The Republicans are running out of Cubans, too. In Florida, more people of Cuban descent born in the United States voted for Obama than Romney.

I really had to LOL when Barry called for House Republican’s to pass the Senate bill that gives him everything he wants on extending the Bush tax cuts for the middle class now, and then he will “negotiate” with them on what they want to do with extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone else.

"Barry", or to be somewhat more classy about it, President Obama, is going to get everything that he wants on 1/1/2013. (But I guess it's too much to expect the average Republican to show some class, huh?)

Anyway, 1/1 next year is when all tax rates go up. Soon after that point, they are going to be reduced for the lower 98%, when Obama signs tax "reductions" back to today's rate for income under $250,000.

That's the only one he's going to sign. Now, the Republicans are trying to create a lot of economic fear and uncertainty by trying to pretend that the rates on the 98% are NOT going to go down. Obama's answer is pretty simple - if you really care about the uncertainty, just send me a bill for the lower 98% right now. We can get rid of all of the doubt about that right now.

But the simple fact is that the Republicans don't care about the lower 98%. If they did...well, they wouldn't be spreading the uncertainty now, would they?

miklkit wrote:

"Those do nothing republicons can not tie their shoes in 20 days much less do any work."

That's because most of them couldn't tie their shoes until they got to high school, and now they can't figure out how to tie velcro tape.

Has anyone seen Jim Spence and the other "Real Americans" around lately? I see DB is still spouting his hate and pseudo intellectual pontifications and crazy sirie is still yaking up nonsense but all of the other prolific haters are pretty scarce.

Well, well, well and my, my, my. Have any "hot off the press" explanations for what happened on election day, DB?

Has anyone seen Jim Spence and the other "Real Americans" around lately?

Nope!

I'm curious as to whether or not TICKED OFF IN OHIO'S, fuse finally blew! lol

He was right here up until 7:00 on election night assuring us Willard was going to win BIG in Ohio!

KimH

Smearing a fellow viner? I think there are rules against that isn't there?

Why is it the definition of hate is saying anything the left doesn't agree with?

And you know what, you have no problem repeating your false accusations You have repeated in multiple posts?

kimH-1330542

Has anyone seen Jim Spence and the other "Real Americans" around lately?

Fairfax Bill hasn't been around lately, either. We shall all miss his insightful explanations of how all the pollsters except for Rasmussen were engaged in a liberal conspiracy to bias their results in Obama's favor by oversampling Democrats.

If we raise taxes on everyone, remove all the loopholes, then THAT would be fair.

Remove the Child exemption, why should one pay less taxes for having children?

Remove all loopholes...

Tax everyone at the SAME rate, regardless of income.

That way everybody gets treated fair.

crazy sirie is still yaking up nonsense but all of the other prolific haters are pretty scarce.

Speaking of crazy sirie, appears he was as honest about leaving this site as he is in his comments...

bwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

omg,...Newday - telling that idiot he had a short 'fuse' was hilarious,... perhaps I am the only one that read it that way - but GREAT line!

and no doubt accurate, too!

Ahh, Feist - go easy on sirie,...we both know the site is pretty addictive,...and just the slightest bit of attention keeps 'em lining up for MORE!

Hugs friend, on the other stuff. love ya'!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Did anyone else notice how conspicuously absent George Will was yesterday? Vacation came early for mister "Electoral Sweep", eh? Perhaps he and Karl Rove are on a booze cruise somewhere trying to figure out what it all means?

lolololololol, couldn't happen to a better pair of @!$%#s, in my view. Too bad they didn't take Peggy nooner with them.

Good catch, Clara!

So, Barry, if you want to take America off the fiscal cliff into the “Barry Obama Recession”, let’s get a running start and jump. I’m ready, willing and prepared:

Joe in Albany, I suspect you will get your wish and that we will in fact go over the fiscal cliff. Despite talk of how the Republicans are re-thinking their strategy after the election and are now more willing to compromise, I'm unconvinced. When you parse their actual statements, what they seem to be saying is that if you agree to our conditions we will no longer continue to oppose you anyway, like we before the election. I detect zero willingness to actually abandon any of their prior positions on taxes, etc. This, I believe, is due to a couple of significant facts. A small number of very rich people contributed a great deal of money to Republican super-pacs and got essentially nothing in return. If the Republicans agree to raising taxes on their wealthiest contributors, they know they will have an essentially impossible time hitting up these contributers next time. The Republicans also seem to have a well-developed ability to delude themselves into thinking that what they dogmatically believe is actually true in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary: Romney will win the Presidency, they will take control of the Senate, global climate change is not real, evolution is just an unproven theory, the Earth is 6000 years old, etc. In the past, President Obama was willing to make significant concessions in the interest of bipartisanship in the face of Republican intransigence, and I suspect the Republicans have concluded that he will always cave if only they stick to their guns. I believe this is an error on their part; he says he will veto any bill that does not raise the tax rate on top incomes, and I see no reason to doubt his word. Just ask Bin Ladin. The Republicans, as typified by Joe in Albany, also seem to believe that when we go over the cliff, they will be able to successfully blame the President for the resulting recession rather than have the electorate hold them responsible. They will see, much to their chagrin, how unsucessful that strategy is in the next congressional elections.

Houston -

Fairfax Bill hasn't been around lately, either. We shall all miss his insightful explanations of how all the pollsters except for Rasmussen were engaged in a liberal conspiracy to bias their results in Obama's favor by oversampling Democrats.

You mean Romney didn't 'win, and win decisively' like Bill predicted every day?

The voters must have had a Democratic bias.....

George WIll actually had a pretty good column yesterday on how Republicans need to accept the fact that things have changes:

Romney was a diligent warrior. Next time, Republicans need a more likable one.

And one who tilts toward the libertarian side of the Republican Party’s fusion of social and laissez-faire conservatism. Most voters already favor less punitive immigration policies than the ones angrily advocated by clenched-fist Republicans unwilling to acknowledge that immigrating — risking uncertainty for personal and family betterment — is an entrepreneurial act. The speed with which civil unions and same-sex marriage have become debatable topics and even mainstream policies is astonishing. As is conservatives’ failure to recognize this: They need not endorse such policies, but neither need they despise those, such as young people, who favor them. And it is strange for conservatives to turn a stony face toward any reconsideration of drug policies, particularly concerning marijuana, which confirm conservatism’s warnings about government persistence in the teeth of evidence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-republicans-must-start-over-again/2012/11/09/d7c81db0-29e8-11e2-bab2-eda299503684_story.html?wprss=rss_george-will

sirie

@ Smitty

Discrimination against the Small Business, against those who make over $250K per year.

I don't understand that...

Why not raise taxes on everyone? Is that not fair?

You Democrats are pathetic...

If it were up to me, the United States would jump off the fiscal cliff (or slope, whichever) faster than you can say "Oh God." Of course, if it were up to me, I'd boost spending by $400 billion over 4-5 years on infrastructure to serve as the bungee cord...

And as for Democrats being pathetic, at least we were the ones who understood math. You cannot balance the budget in the long-term without higher revenues. As for repealing the Bush tax cuts for everyone, I would agree. Only problem is, the GOP took advantage of the lesson they learned during the 50s and 60s; once a government program or initiative lasts for over 10 years, it becomes popular, or harder to end. Most Americans think that the Bush tax cuts went mostly to them, even though most of it went to the top 20%. And so naturally, repealing the whole thing would open up charges of raising taxes on middle class Americans. Plus we have the recession to worry about; even though the Bush tax cuts did nothing to boost the economy (except feed the destructive housing bubble), repealing them would still blow up the economy....

By the way, can somebody explain to me why after cutting the top tax rate from 70% in the 1970s to 35% now (and experiencing a period of slow growth where most gains went to the top 10-20%), we should be afraid of a "massive recession" if we simply raise the tax rate up by 3.6% points??? If I were Obama, I'd be pushing for a 70% top tax rate and demanding a grand deal that was a 1:1 ratio of revenues to spending cuts. And by the way, anybody who thinks that Reagan saved the economy and the middle class ought to read former Republican strategist Kevin Phillips' Boiling Point.

What voters need to demand of their state legislators across the nation is to discontinue the abilities of our elected officials to be able to benefit from the insider tradings they currently enjoy. Want to take away the power of the lobbyists and corporations that fund them? Then close this corrupt ability that allows insider trading within the goverment sects and make the penalties twice what they give to non political violators. Watch how fast the laws that favor the upper class change then.

Sirie: To those who voted Democrat, I must say this. I don't believe in discrimination, however your party does! forward? if discrimination is forward, drop me off now!

Democrats had the majority of the women's vote. Democrats had the majority of the Black vote. Democrats had the majority of the Latino vote. Democrats had the majority of the youth vote.

Republicans had the majority of the white male vote.

Who is discriminating?

My, such gloating. Certainly not unexpected, but I do recall how the gloating of 2008 turned into the soul searching of 2010, and via verse. We would all do well to keep it in mind.

What the election "decided" is that the country is divided. And that's news?

I do hope the Republicans someday put forth a candidate who is a fiscal Conservative, but gets the basic truth that small government also means government out of peoples bedrooms and marriages.

But what I found interesting about this article is the realisation that Bohner can't control them. Many of the R's will go over the cliff rather than compromise.

2014 is the next opportunity to reset, so the "we won" may be moot. You didn't win big enough.

I predict (wishful thinking on my part maybe) that they settle on the 1million a year and up. But its interesting that Obama may not want to stop this train. If he can raise taxes on everyone, and make it stick to the republicans, it will be very tempting to him.

The only reason the republicans held the majority of the white male vote is that they promised them not to include them in the gutting of medicare and social security if they voted for them. The elderly white male population threw the rest of us under 55 under the bus. Had the republicans not thought ahead and excluded those over 55, they would have lost their votes as well. What should be noted is that those over 55 threw the rest of us under the bus and voted to take away the very benefits they now enjoy and the rest of us have worked just as damn hard for.

Foreplinger, outstanding post at 1.22! Thank you!

@Batman85:

Thank you for your timely post (1.59).

Many do not realize that corporations making millions (or more) a year, under our current tax laws, can be considered "small businesses". Hedge fund companies and investment firms, for example, that have few employees, create nothing of value, produce nothing necessary, increase the cost of goods to our citizens and manipulate our economy to make their wealth, can be considered small businesses. Companies like Bain Capital are taxed as "small businesses", even though their bottom line is massive.

I work for a 40-year-old small manufacturing company; an S corporation, which means all income filters down to the owner as personal income. We buy steel, fabricate, weld and manufacture large construction equipment. We have under 30 employees and our annual income, before expenses, deductions and loopholes, amounts to about $5 million. After we deduct our expenses; payroll, raw materials, purchases for resale and the other items that are inherent to the cost of operations, our income is around $1.8 million. Because of the legal loopholes that lower the net amount after expenses, the owner of the company will pay income tax on approximately $480,000.00; over $1.3 million of income goes basically untaxed.

The owner is provided a home and several vehicles. He also goes on vacations that involve a wee bit of work (travel expense), meals & entertainment (with customers and employees, of course), sporting event tickets and more, which are all legally written off by our company as business expenses, so it lowers the amount on which he pays taxes. They are, for the most part, expenses that involve our business, customers or employees in one way or another, but also are pleasurable. The owner gets to enjoy the benefits of all of those things without having to pay taxes on the "income value" of them.

Curiously, the owner of our company strongly supported and voted for President Obama. Although he sees the benefits of the current tax system, he also believes it to be unfair to his employees and to the middle class. His theory is that, if the majority of Americans are allowed to keep more of what they earn they will buy more ... and that will grow our company and the economy.

It seems that there are two types of wealthy Americans ... those who have a lot and want more ... and those who have a lot and realize that it is ample to meet their needs. Again, if the playing field were level and the loopholes not there to help hide income, there would be no problem with the tax rate on the high-end earners being the same as that on the earnings of those in the middle or below. But, so long as the rich are allowed to shelter their incomes, the percentage needs to be raised.

By the way, no one has stepped up to address the dare I put forth in post 1.51

I dare ANYONE on this board to say that they would prefer to make $50,000.00 per year and pay 24% tax rather than make $20 million per year and pay 38% tax.

Those griping about the "poor" rich people getting shafted need to take a closer look at our current tax code. I suspect, however, that they will not. They prefer to continue to just b*tch and moan about how horrible President Obama is and how lazy, useless and entitled those of us who voted for him are. It is still an obstructionist mindset ... but I cannot see any possible rational for it other than being narrow-minded and brainwashed by the right wing diatribe of those who live only to serve the top 1% at the expense of the majority of Americans.

P.S. I wish someone would of told me the President was Born in Kenya and was a Muslim before I voted for him. Well maybe next time : )

Kudos!!! LOL

.

First Read:

Why were the GOP polls wrong?

To be as wrong as they were, the Republicans must hire pollsters who tell them what they want to hear, not what the facts are.

Politico surmises that GOP likely-voter models just didn’t think the electorate would have as many minorities and young people. In other words, they didn’t think 2008 would happen again. Well, it did.

If the Republicans' pollsters were weighting their estimates on the turnouts for ANY past election, then they were either incompetent or dishonest, or both. Professional polls are not based on assumptions that future election turnouts will be like past election turnouts. They are weighted on demographics and screening for likely voters. If, say, census numbers indicate that the overall black population is 14%, they first weight the total raw polling sample according to that number so that the weighted sample will have 14% black folks even if there are more or fewer blacks who respond to the poll. Then they adjust that 14% number according to how many the pollsters consider to be likely voters according to screening questions.

As it turned out, after the likely voter screening, most polls indicated that the proportion of likely voters from the African American population relative to whites would be higher than in it was in past elections. Since African Americans are overwhelmingly Democrats, they boosted the percentage of Democrats in the results of most polls. And that was born out in the actual election. The percentage of black voters went up and the percentage of white voters went down in part due to lower turnout of white voters.

No responsible polling organization weights polls according to past election results. But the words "Republican" and "responsible" don't go together much anymore, and the same seems to be true of Republican pollsters.

So how did the pollsters do?

Let's take a look at the 9 major pollsters that have reported final polls for President over the last three election cycles (2004, 2008 & 2012). The results are as follows (Source is Realclearpolitics.com);

1 – Pew Research – Average error = 0.73%

2 – IBD/TIPP – Average error = 0.90%

3 – ABC News – Average error = 1.13%

4 – CNN – Average error = 1.8%

5 – Rasmussen – Average error = 1.9%

6 – Marist/NBC, Reuters (tie) – Average error = 2.27%

8 – FOX News – Average bias = 2.47%

9 – Gallup – Average error = 3.27%

The average error is the average 'miss' between their final poll spread and the actual result. Pew and IBD/TIPP also have the advantage of having the least average bias (defined as the average final poll average error favoring a political Party). The vast majority of pollsters (especially Marist/NBC, Reuters and FOX) had a distinct Democratic bias.

Ah, the gloating of libs who won an election simply because the Santa Claus in the White House offered even more entitlements to those among us who are too lazy to earn them.

So long as people like you go on thinking this is even remotely appropriate, you're going to continue to lose.

I think Jon Stewart said it best:

“What an incredible story to tell yourselves: We would have won if it weren't for the moral failings of the non-real America.”

In other words: bull@!$%#.

It is really sad to see all the chest thumping of the far left...as if they have some sort of mandate and the House is still not firmly in the hands of the Republicans. Here is the problem in a nut shell. You and President Obama just don't get it and you never will. It takes centrist not far right or far left legislators to do the heavy lifting. Good luck having an intelligent conversation amongst yourselves. Without dissenting opinion and questions you fall into "group think" something so perilous that most companies avoid it like the plague. Now all you have is a continued dismissive and arrogant attitude. Hope that works when you start to reap the rewards of your actions that have caused the "fiscal cliff". Ask Patty Murray how well it worked out for her in last years budget negotiations. By all the continued arrogance all you will win is complete and utter rebellion from 49% of the populace who saw it differently in this election. I have never been more embarrassed by behavior in an election by both parties than this one. Argue over the in-consequential at the expense of the imperative...what a sick joke on America. When you are in deep next year due to the next credit down grade and a reduced revenue due to higher taxes and less revenue you still will not get it. Some of your more moronic claim the Constitution is outdated and irrelevant...yet it is the very principals of the Constitution that even allow us to have the conversation. Both parties have done much to damage the safety net of the Constitution and we will all reap the consequences. So much hatred, deception, name calling, and belittling it it no wonder that some have started petitions for their States to succeed from the United States (19 States so far). If this does not bother you more than a little you are unworthy of the blood spilled by the Veterans of this country on your behalf going clear back to the Revolutionary War. Something you pompous individuals should be at least humbled enough to consider...but you won't. It is because you have purchased the lie that the only opinion that matters is yours. You will reap the reward for that arrogance in the New Year and it will harm us all. We use to stand United but we have allowed self-serving politicians to continue to divide us with little regard for our future.

In the end tell me what has America won?

"Can D.C. learn from the past?"

The real question should be: "Can D.C. EVER learn from the past?"

Seeing the financial and economical condition this country is in today, and has been for some time now, the answer to both of those questions is, no.

@Ido, the right guy won and the redistribution to the wealthy called "trickle down" economics is dead. The middle class gets a break. Please don't change your positions on anything as we would like to win in 2016 as well.

Whatever you do, block the immigration bill coming and see what happens.

TNSEVOL

The voters must have had a Democratic bias.....

Yes, they did have a Democratic bias, and the Fox News ranters are attacking the voters for it. They say Obama voters are all moochers who voted for him because he will give them "free stuff." Mitt Romney himself used the "free stuff" line to attack Obama voters, too at some of his campaign rallies (and not just during his infamous "47%" fiasco). It turns out that insulting people isn't the best way to win an election. The "free stuff" that the voters wanted was a government free of Romney and his crony capitalist friends.

Notsosure10

The republican centrists have or are in the process of abandoning the republican party. A good example being Maine's Olympia Snowe that retired and made it known she was retiring because of the hardcore partisanship within her party. Olympia Snowe was a person that voted conscience regardless of her parties strict partisan demands. Such a loss. She would have been a shoe in for re-election.

To me, the very most important win was that there will be 3-4 Supreme Court Justice replacements within the next four years and this Presidential win insures those slots will not be filled by tea party backed republican Justices.

Every state with petitions to secede are petitions backed by tea party persons that have already petitioned many times before. Sarah Palin and Rick Perry were both tea party candidates that have tried to secede from the Union. Both proclaim themselves to be american patriots. This is what the republicans wish upon the nation.

ROY WILSON-336103

The vast majority of pollsters (especially Marist/NBC, Reuters and FOX) had a distinct Democratic bias.

No they didn't. According to Nate Silver, the polls had a distinct REPUBLICAN bias, including the NBC poll.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/#more-37396

Of course, Nate Silver is biased, too. Biased in favor of math, data, and reality. He's a real lefty libbie.

"Ah, the gloating of libs who won an election simply because the Santa Claus in the White House offered even more entitlements to those among us who are too lazy to earn them."

That's the kind of thinking that is killing the Republican Party. Try to understand this teatards --- President Obama has NOT introduced some massive new entitlement program. He has NOT introduced some massive new welfare program. The last president to introduce a new entitlement was George W. Bush and a Republican Congress passed it.

So Obama thinks he has a 'mandate' because he won, and the Republican in the House think they have a 'mandate' because they won.

It sounds like a prescription for more 'gridlock to me.

So does Obama 'move to the center' to try to compromise, or does he 'double down' on his far-left agenda. We will soon find out with his 'Executive Orders' regarding Obamacare and the restrictive EPA regulations he's been holding off on until the election was over.

We'll know in the next few months. My guess is he will 'drive the car into the ditch' on the left side of the road. Somehow, I don't think he will be able to sell his 'Blame Bush' game for another 4 years.

Notsosure10:

It is really sad to see all the chest thumping of the far left..

This one, opening line belies the accuracy of the rest of your diatribe.

We have no real, viable "far left" in the U.S. at all. It simply doesn't exist. If we did, we would be hearing a serious open discussion of Marxism and Communism as a viable alternative form of government. There is no such discussion, virtually anywhere. There is no "far left" here to speak of. So, let's drop that bull@!$%#, shall we?

Instead, we see a center-right Democratic party and an increasingly far right Republican/Tea Party. If the Democrats were center-left, they'd have no problem talking openly about Democratic socialism as they do in Europe. That ain't happening either. If Republicans were center-right, they wouldn't be taking the John Birch Society seriously. Ever. So, for starters, let's re-calibrate.

The very first thing out of the President's mouth was a statement of principles for resolving the budget issues, a proposal to sit down and negotiate, and an explicit willingness to compromise.

Republicans lost an election. So what. Two years ago when they won big, you would have thought Ronald Reagan himself rose from the grave. That didn't happen either. The bottom line is that we're not going back to the failed policies of the past. So, we have real work to do.

And, as virtually every Republican said two years ago: get over it.

"To be as wrong as they were, the Republicans must hire pollsters who tell them what they want to hear, not what the facts are."

• You're exactly right. What we have is a Republican entertainment industry (Limbaugh the junkie, Fox, Beck, etc.) who make millions telling their sheep what the sheep WANT to hear, not what is actually happening. Then -- after their predictions are proven to be false -- they make up excuses such as "free stuff" or hurricane Sandy and the sheep believe that.

Houston! "ROY WILSON-336103 The vast majority of pollsters (especially Marist/NBC, Reuters and FOX) had a distinct Democratic bias............No they didn't. According to Nate Silver, the polls had a distinct REPUBLICAN bias, including the NBC poll."

Perhaps you have a comprehension problem - I gave the average accuracy for the last 3 Presidential election cycles (2004, 2008 & 2012) based on actual figures from Realclearpolitics. Silver reported just on the most recent election, where there was an acknowledged distinct underestimating of Obama's margin by virtually all pollsters. Gallup, Rasmussen, CNN and FOX missed big-time this year. Pew and ABC were most accurate this year, overestimating Obama's win by only 0.3%.

I remember Romney saying he didn't pay any attention to polls. That was until after the first debate. The lesson learned is that you need to go into the debates with two game plans. 1. Based upon what they have been preaching. 2. A mirrored approach just in case they turn out to be like Romney and change their positions from hour to hour, day to day.

Roy Wilson:

So does Obama 'move to the center' to try to compromise, or does he 'double down' on his far-left agenda. We will soon find out with his 'Executive Orders' regarding Obamacare and the restrictive EPA regulations he's been holding off on until the election was over.

It only looks to you as if Obama has a far-left agenda because you are on the lunatic fringe of the extreme right. John Boehner and the other boneheads in Congress demand that Obama shows leadership by leading in the direction they want him to go. They'd rather see a Great Depression than give one inch on anything. Sane people see a problem with that sort of position.

Roy Wilson

Perhaps you have a comprehension problem - I gave the average accuracy for the last 3 Presidential election cycles (2004, 2008 & 2012) based on actual figures from Realclearpolitics

Perhaps you have an honesty problem. Averaging in stuff from past elections to insinuate a nonexistent bias in favor of Democrats in this election is totally dishonest. The right wing conspiracy theory about polling bias has been proven to be complete bunk. Deal with it.

Exactly, Houston!

They can't sit on the five yard line and demand to be 'met' there. The center of the field is at the 50 yard line. Get up off your lazy, crazy right asses and move your chairs to the middle. Or be left in the dust.

Your call. I don't really care if you come along or not.

If we're talking about secession because Obama is president (because apparently the Tea Party is a bunch of sore losers), let me show my opinion on secession: any state, region, or locality has the right to separate itself from a broader nation. HOWEVER, the nation from which that locality seceded from has the right to fight to preserve their union. So, if the Red States seriously want to secede, they better be prepared for Shock and Awe by the North and the other Blue States. If we're gonna have another civil war, I'm gonna make sure that this union is preserved and that the red states get their asses handed to them.

democrats: the party of "me only"...or get out

democrats: the party of hate for anything other than democrats

democrats: the party of ...were always right...republicans owe us jobs so that we can complain and sue they out of existance or better yet regulate them to china.

democrats: the party of heads so big they cant see past the kool-aid.

democrates: the party that has no legance to America...but only to their social program

democrats: the party that thinks this country was built by one hand, Obama

yeah, what it means to be a Democrat: hate anything and anyone that might possibly have more than you...and with full support from Wastington to take it if you are not handed it when you demand it, including promotion of "force republicans and those who make more than 250k out of this country"..you go with your bad/arrogant (we all know who taught you that one dont we Obama) selves...

If there is one lesson learned from this election: Its how much hate the democrats will conjure up for their leaders legacy

...and how much stone cold "bullying" his following citizens will do with for him and his promoting it for the last 4+1 years, not presidency but campaining...I have yet to see a president in 5 yrs..btw...has he stopped campaigning yet?

want a prime example...read the post above this one....thats your leader speaking thru a democrate citizen..he owns those thoughts...thats the message dems have recieved from their leader.....wow

the only comprimise the current power-hate-get out of "the democrates country" want, and are demanding...its total and ultimate control forever....every other post shows thats was the dems are pushing for...

so in my heart I believe the democrates in this nation just scream from their roof tops that I have to leave....the very country I was born in so that I will not pose them any more problems or possibly make more money...

what a gross nation you all want

Freshieee

So, if the Red States seriously want to secede, they better be prepared for Shock and Awe by the North and the other Blue States. If we're gonna have another civil war, I'm gonna make sure that this union is preserved and that the red states get their asses handed to them.

Hey! Don't send any cruise missiles in my direction! I live in Texas, but I'm in Harris County, which went for Obama in this election as it did in 2008. If there's a new civil war with the Neo-Confederate States of America, Harris County will be on the Union side.

.....it seems like you Obama/tax voters think your going to get a personal check from the 1% because you have successfully voted/threatend anyone attemping to be "better off"

but the reality is you will never be affected by the increase in taxes, (no roads, no facilities, no better infrastructure)....the only result you will feel is if you lose your job...

demanding WAR on the 1% is the most blatent form of DISCRIMINATION this world has seen since my birth...but then again i was born the day jimmy carter was elected

Hillary/Warren2016 roadlesstraveled

Can I buy you a ticket for where you want to go? Our Mental Healthcare is low on funds and there is no sense of wasting valuable dollars, So what greyhound ticket can I get for you?

do you fling poo at everyone....wow so now if Im not stuck up a dems rear...im crazy....the only thing crazy is your deep desire to hurt me because I am not a active dem on hear chanting to destroy anyone who is not like me, a dem...if i was you would call me a hero...

your comment is exaclty what I was referring too....good job making it vaild

Independent voters, ( myself being one of them ) are underrated. It's the local bond issues, property taxes, and sales taxes that are the important things to vote on. Sure, the Democrats made a "national point, two, ( or many )" at the national scale of representation, but if you look at the practical application of electing a Democrat, such as happened with Jesse Jackson Jr, what good did it do? It didn't do anything for local improvements for his constituency in the Chicago area, as he will be under federal investigation if he ever gets cured of his medical excuse incompetence. So will there be a drying up of federal dollars to his district, as well as property tax dollars and sales tax dollars?

The voters were identified as a statistic. 33% Democrat, 33% Republican, and 34% Independent. It's the people who don't understand the significance of a split ticket vote, the one's who are all party politics come hell or high water, who are out of touch. In my area, I could fully absorb the idea of a person who attends a Catholic Church, who votes for the rights of gays to marry, to decriminalize pot smoking, using birth control. Why? Because they are young, and their friends are young with ideas that aren't engineered by a Rove type of PAC with Rove type of goals. They go to a Catholic Church, but to them the Pope and the Bishops are out of touch as well. When the next election rolls around, I'm guessing there will be more voters claiming to be Independents, rather than fewer. Let the super PACs spend the big money on advertising and pizza and parties. The young will make a few bucks in the advertising market, eat the pizza, party... and then go vote not as their elders might wish, nor choose, but for that which is locally best for them, which is usually the lesser of two evils.

Houston! "Roy Wilson Perhaps you have an honesty problem. Averaging in stuff from past elections to insinuate a nonexistent bias in favor of Democrats in this election is totally dishonest"

Since I clearly stated that I was giving the average of results for the last three Presidential elections, there was no 'honesty problem'. As for 'bias', if a pollster consistently has overestimated the poll results in favor of one Party, I call that 'bias', but if you want to use another term, be my guest. Here is an example - Gallup estimated that there would be a tie vote in 2004, but Bush actually won by 2.4%, and in 2008, Gallup estimated that Obama would win by 11%, but the actual spread was 7.3% - I call that an average Democratic bias of 3.1% because it overestimated the Democratic margin by an average of 3.05% when compared with actual results. A similar bias was evident for Marist and Reuters (2.55% favoring the Democrat), and Fox (2.35% favoring the Democrat) for the 2004 & 2008 elections.

To my way of thinking, I would like to know both the "Track Record" of the major pollsters (average error) AND whether they tend to be biased in favor of a political Party. That's what my analysis provided. Based on my analysis, the most reliable and least biased pollsters are Pew Research and IBD/TIPP, and I would put more credence on their polling in the future. In other words, 'It's hard to discount consistent accuracy'.

ROY WILSON-336103

Since I clearly stated that I was giving the average of results for the last three Presidential elections, there was no 'honesty problem'.

Forgive me for not reading through all your irrelevant claims. I only read your last ridiculous assertion that the "vast majority" of polls had a bias in favor of Democrats. The polls in 2008 did err in favor of Kerry by an average of 0.9% favor of Kerry against Bush in 2004 and 0.3% in favor of Obama against McCain in 2008.

http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/nation/do-the-2012-presidential-polls-really-matter

Errors of less than 1% do NOT suggest a vast majority of polls biased in favor of Democrats as you claimed. Nate Silver actually lists the bias of about 113 polls for 2012 presidential contest in the last 21 days of the election, and 79% of them were biased in favor or Romney. That IS a vast majority, and Gallup and Rasmussen were among the worst, with Gallup's pro-Romney bias at 7.2% and Rasmussen at 3.7%.

Of course, it doesn't mean there's a conspiracy to bias the results for Republicans. It just means that polling organizations need to tweak their methodologies quite a bit. Especially the media's favorite poll, Gallup and the right wing's favorite, Rasmussen.

So, how does any of this support whatever point you thought you were making?

Will somebody please explain to me why raising taxes on wealthy Americans by 4% points amounts to socialism??? America was closer to socialism when we were fighting Red Ivan in the 50s and 60s than now; ironically, we claimed ourselves to be the "champions of the free market" while having a 91% top tax rate. Nobody is proposing anything near that (except me for a 70% rate). The Democrats, to be honestly, are around the center of the political spectrum, split between the Clinton centrists and the Elizabeth Warren-type center-leftists; the Republicans, however, are roughly right to far right, split between a hard right "populist+elitist" plurality with the economic and social mindset of the laissez-faire GOP before the Depression and a right-wing "Bush 43" establishment. That is our current political spectrum; the Democrats ideologically are around their 40 or 45 yard-line, while the GOP is anywhere from 30 to 20 yards. That is how polarized we have become. This all technically started in the 1970s, when supply-side economics and a rise in the right-wing Republican faction that had been silenced by Rockefeller Republicans took over the right side of the political spectrum. But it became obvious to the public after the Republican Revolution of 1994 and the Tea Party Revolution of 2010.

Republicans lost an election. So what. Two years ago when they won big, you would have thought Ronald Reagan himself rose from the grave.

Actually, Ronald Reagan would be turning in his grave. I hate that supply-side idiot's guts, but at least that bastard knew how to compromise with the opposition party. He raised taxes 11 times when his supply-side fantasy blew up the deficit instead of cutting it. The current GOP idolizes that guy as if he was Jesus himself. They didn't even accept the traditional "give a little, take a little" concept of compromise.

NOTE:

The polls were sampling +8 to +11 Democrats. The actual turnout was +6. 2008 was +7.

The Polls WERE oversampling. The only reason the results came out close is because other things were fouled up too!

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - George Santayana

We are raising children in America today who are by and large historically illiterate.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57547353/david-mcculloughs-heroes-of-history/?pageNum=3&tag=contentMain;contentBody

Voters
Politicians manipulate voters every day with half-truths -- or outright lies -- about taxes, spending and many other issues that directly affect the nation's prosperity.

Too many voters embrace feel-good propaganda that they want to hear instead of learning the basic facts about issues they care about. They should do a better job of calling out dishonest politicians -- and shunning media outlets that stoke political food fights.

http://money.msn.com/investing/11-things-wrong-with-congress

Facts not Opinions. Performance not Appearance. Results not Excuses. Logic not Emotions. Experience not Academic Idealism. - david-475776

Newsvine "Get Smarter Here".

When do we start hearing the term " Obama Republicans"?

There definitely were a lot of Republicans who just could not justify voting for Romney, and voted for Obama instead.

I know of quite a few personally. I suspect the total number nationally is large. Within the next few weeks we may find out exactly how large it really was. And if the GOP keeps up the positions on social and cultural issues they currently support, it will become even larger in the next election.

Houston!

Freshieee

So, if the Red States seriously want to secede, they better be prepared for Shock and Awe by the North and the other Blue States. If we're gonna have another civil war, I'm gonna make sure that this union is preserved and that the red states get their asses handed to them.

Hey! Don't send any cruise missiles in my direction! I live in Texas, but I'm in Harris County, which went for Obama in this election as it did in 2008. If there's a new civil war with the Neo-Confederate States of America, Harris County will be on the Union side.

Hmmm; sure. If Harris County secedes from Texas in the event of a Second Civil War, I guarantee you that any missiles fired at Texas will not hit you, unless the neo-Confederates occupy your county.

I just want to really quickly call bull@!$%# on the theory that "small" businesses net $250k after expenses for their owners. Anybody who nets that much after expenses (including others salaries btw) must be grossing well over $1m in sales and/or enjoying a 40% profit margin on their sales. That means their either snowballing their customers with those profits or they're nowhere near a "small" business. And additionally any business worth its salt that is that big is not in a structure whereby the owner has S corp status making their profits automatically flow to the personal tax rate system. Anyone who knows accounting knows that salaries paid for new employees only go to LESSEN the taxes paid by an owner. But why let the facts get in the way of a good argument....

DB Akron, Keep saying look at the shiny object. Even if they oversampled Dems by 2 points that still means that Dems outnumber by 7points. Now you're just grasping at straws.

and if you would look carefully at Nate Silver's model, DB - you'd see he FACTORED for that! Plus the polls factored for it, as well! sheesh!

Freshieee - I guarantee you that any missiles fired at Texas will not hit you, unless the neo-Confederates occupy your county.

Ignorance is ignorance; no right to believe anything can be derived from it. - Sigmund Freud

Question: Who were the Confederates.

YOU HAVE 10 MINUTES TO POST THE CORRECT ANSWER BELOW. NO LAME EXCUSES.

If we have learned anything from the 2012 election it should be that Republicans will do anything to manipulate and twist the vote in their favor. This is not the definition of democracy and must end. Re-districting is something the Republicans have become masters of; it deprives voters of their rights and is patently unfair and again goes against the spirit of democracy.

If we intend to continue voting for our leaders then we must set up a system of voting that truly reflects the voting public in each and every congressional district in America. If we do nothing to stop this corrupt political manipulation it will just continue to get worse until our elections become meaningless.

Freshieee,

Times up.

*******************************************YOUR GRADE: F MINUS*******************************************

No government can survive long when it spends more than twice what it collects in tax revenue. Not even when it holds the world's reserve currency and has the worlds most powerful armed forces.

Just ask the Romans!!

DB - Some things are worth repeating. I don't think I really smeared you. I find your endless pontificating humorous. I still would like to know how you have worked this defeat out in your mind. What do you say...indulge me. HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED!!!???

Well, I guess Obama's voter suppression really worked! He managed to suppress the truth about Benghazi long enough to sucker votes in. Mix in some Chicago style tactics, throw in some media bias, run away from your record and trash the other guy every chance you get (truth or not).....result....4 more years.....and a completely divided nation! Well, if you can't beat him at the polls, guess we will just have to seattle for a disgraceful resignation when the "truth" about Benghazi comes out. Either that or the economy completely collapses and there are riots in the streets. Look at how the stock market is reacting already....and businesses talking about big time layoffs (how is this victory good?). Recommendation: Study up on Greece's economic situation......it's heading our way!

Misrepresenting polls by over sampling democrats.

So why are we still hearing this bullcrap? Do Republicans understand how the polls work?

Basically, they make random calls. There may be discussion about how certain polls favor landlines or cellphones or whatever... but they pick random samples of the population to call and ask about the election. They then weight the responses in terms of the demographics in the area the respondent came from as reported by the census - for Instance Gallup weights data to census estimates for gender, race, age, educational attainment, and region. They do NOT weight the data for political affiliation because that is the very damned thing they are trying to measure!

So how can they "oversample" Democrats? If polls show that there are more Democrats than Republicans in their respondents then that is the very information that the poll was looking for in the first place!

There are other ways to skew the polls, mostly by tailoring the questions asked by the pollster to force an outcome that pollsters want. What I find particularly revealing is that the polls accused the most of these kinds of tactics are the very same polls that consistently found a Republican advantage. Not surprisingly, they were funded in large part by Republicans.

Particularly hilarious are the "Unskewed Polls" from Dean Chambers. How did he "unskew" polls? Chambers' method of "unskewing" polls involved re-weighting the sample to match what he believed the electorate would look like, in terms of party identification. This kind of personal bias in polling is exactly what must be avoided if you want accurate results! I don't think many people are going to give Dean Chambers any credence in future elections.

Trying to "load the dice" by listening only to the polls hat show what you want to hear is the very same thing that led to a fruitless search for WMD's in Iraq! But, by God, that is exactly what the Republicans did.

And the stupidity continues:

DBAkron

The Polls WERE oversampling. The only reason the results came out close is because other things were fouled up too!

So it goes...

If Republicans won't compromise then over the fiscal cliff we go....................

With the Bush tax breaks gone, we can then discuss spending cuts, entitlement reform, and what tax breaks who gets.......really pretty simple.

The Fiscal "cliff" is actually more of a fiscal "slope". If we go "over" on Jan 1, the markets will get all nervous and the indexes will drop. BUT, none of the really crippling cuts will take effect immediately. Some will take over a year to phase in. So on Jan 2, things will really still be more or less the same as Jan 1. The Tax Rates will have all gone up, on paper, but almost no one will actually be PAYING those rates on income taxes until their next paycheck, which would be either the middle or end of the month.

So there's an entire two-week window during which nothing much bad will happen, at the least.

Then, on Jan 2, Obama can call an "emergency" session of Congress to fix the problem, and the Democrats can introduce a bill that LOWERS taxes on all brackets except the top one to their Bush rates, and the Republicans will be stuck with the choice of either surrendering completely on this issue, or breaking their Norquist pledges and voting AGAINST a bill that LOWERS taxes.

So it really is in the Republican's best interest to negotiate a deal now. The Democrats and Obama literally hold ALL the cards in this.

And the most hilarious thing is that this is all entirely self-inflicted by the Republicans. The fiscal "cliff" only exists at all because of Republican intransigence. Remember that Obama had wanted a simple straight-up increase of the Debt Ceiling, just like every time before (there was a reason it was always done as a simple straight-up deal before, back when politics was still sensible - it was to avoid dilemmas like this one down the road). But the Republicans refused. This fiscal "cliff" was part of the COMPROMISE deal that the Republicans forced on the President.

There it is in black and white.

Over the cliff!

amphox

And the most hilarious thing is that this is all entirely self-inflicted by the Republicans. The fiscal "cliff" only exists at all because of Republican intransigence.

WRONG! The republicans would be far better described as capitulating.

The Credit agencies wanted the deficit decreased by $200 Billion. Democrats would only agree to $100 Billion, and refused to entertain any serious cut in domestic spending and were insisting on increasing taxes.

This brought about the Automatic cuts agreement that would occur if a bi-partisan committee that would work out a compromise. The democrats insisted on tax increases and only offered cutting the excess of funds that are typically left unspent in the domestic spending. This is money that never goes back, but is either wasted by the end of the fiscal year or tapped for some new giveaway the democrats create to spend the money. Republicans refused tax increases and tried to get limiting or eliminating deductions to gain new revenues.

Because that committed failed to make any progress the republicans turned to negotiations with Obama Himself. During this time Republicans took what Obama wanted to do into consideration and decided to agree to what Obama asked for. They gave on everysingle point. Once they read off the entire list of demands Obama had asked for in the previous meeting, then Obama began to demand even more concessions. At that time Boehner and company walked.

That is why you have the drastic cuts in defense in January. Agreeing is a two way street. When someone gives in to your demands, you should accept their capitulation graciously, not demand more.

I read all news sources, you clearly only read left based stuff, and your understanding about politics are the poorer for it!

Obama and the left keep talking about raising taxes on the so called 1%ers. What I haven't heard from Obama and the Democrats is where are they willing to cut spending. The tax increases Obama wants will not do a damn thing about the deficit. Is the Democratic controlled Senate now willing to pass a budget and work with the House on Appropriations bills or are we just going to keep passing continuing resolutions? My fear is that the President and Congress will continue to spend any and all increases in revenues on new programs or extension of current programs that are no longer needed.

Revise the tax codes, cut all subsidies, loop holes, and most deductions also do away with the "earned income credit."

DB Akron

amphox

And the most hilarious thing is that this is all entirely self-inflicted by the Republicans. The fiscal "cliff" only exists at all because of Republican intransigence.

WRONG! The republicans would be far better described as capitulating.

The Credit agencies wanted the deficit decreased by $200 Billion. Democrats would only agree to $100 Billion, and refused to entertain any serious cut in domestic spending and were insisting on increasing taxes.

Actually, the credit agencies wanted deficit reduction of $400 billion a year, ideally balanced between spending cuts, entitlement reform (a combo of entitlement tax hikes and benefit reductions), and revenue hikes. A plan that would eliminate about 80-90% of the deficit (around $6 trillion) would cause them to restore the AAA credit rating. And technically, the GOP didn't capitulate; Democrats did. Democrats wanted revenue hikes and were willing to exchange cuts to entitlements, while the GOP only wanted entitlement and spending cuts. The $2.2 trillion in cuts was a down payment to ease the markets so that a broader deal could be reached.

This brought about the Automatic cuts agreement that would occur if a bi-partisan committee that would work out a compromise. The democrats insisted on tax increases and only offered cutting the excess of funds that are typically left unspent in the domestic spending. This is money that never goes back, but is either wasted by the end of the fiscal year or tapped for some new giveaway the democrats create to spend the money. Republicans refused tax increases and tried to get limiting or eliminating deductions to gain new revenues.

No; Republicans balked at ANY tax hikes. A few reasonable ones, like Boehner, were willing to give up revenues (probably via loopholes ending and some rate hikes) in return for cuts to entitlements (like Medicare, Social Security) and domestic spending (like social programs).

Because that committed failed to make any progress the republicans turned to negotiations with Obama Himself. During this time Republicans took what Obama wanted to do into consideration and decided to agree to what Obama asked for. They gave on everysingle point. Once they read off the entire list of demands Obama had asked for in the previous meeting, then Obama began to demand even more concessions. At that time Boehner and company walked.

No; Obama and Boehner had worked out a deal of $800 billion in revenues and roughly $3 trillion in spending cuts. Then Obama came to his Democratic allies, who said they needed more revenues to show that they weren't getting pushed around. Obama went back to Boehner with a demand of $1.2 trillion in revenues to about $2.8 trillion in cuts, a ratio of roughly 3:1 in favor of the GOP. Boehner balked at this, but later agreed. Problem was, Eric Cantor (the miserable Tea Party bastard who screwed up the Gang of Six talks) was screaming to Boehner that "We won't take ANY revenues! We were elected to cut the size of government, not compromise!" Boehner realized that the Tea Party caucus wasn't willing to play ball, and that the rest of the party was too scared out of their wits to vote against those Tea Party bastards. Obama could have garnered enough votes even if he went for the $800 billion revenue target; Boehner couldn't. Then the speaker told the prez that the deal was off during the call, and now he says that the president walked away to save his timid ass, even though it was he who ended the deal. Don't give me the right-wing @!$%# that Obama overplayed his hand; the president could have easily asked for a REAL deal; 50% revenues and 50% cuts, which is a REAL compromise. But he was willing to bend over as long as a deal was made; the GOP couldn't even bend their arms.

Revise the tax codes, cut all subsidies, loop holes, and most deductions also do away with the "earned income credit."

Hmm. Very interesting that you want to do away with the earned income tax credit, even though it was the Republicans who created the damn credit in order to "reduce dependency on government handouts" and provide an alternative to raising the minimum wage. If you want to eliminate the tax credit (which we might as well do), you better raise the minimum wage to well over $9 and index it to inflation and economic growth.

What will Obama cut? Let's start with corporate welfare.......................

"What I haven't heard from Obama and the Democrats is where are they willing to cut spending."

Then you haven't been listening. President Obama offered Crying Speaker Tan Man a 10 for 1 deal -- ten dollars in spending cuts for 1 dollar in tax increases. Tan Man turned it down. Now if your only source of information is the right wing entertainment industry (Limbaugh the junkie, Beck, Fox, etc.) the you wouldn't know that.

Charlie - That's a lie and you know it. Quit with the left wing talking points. It was President Obama that walked away from the deal with Speaker of the house because he figured he could get a better deal from the so called "gang of six" Senators. When that failed so did his so called "grand bargain" with the Speaker.

Now answer my questions and tell me where the Democrats and the President are willing to cut? All they talk about is raising taxes on the so called "1%ers".

ok were at the point where we get 8 days of government paid for by the "rich" ..thats what Wastington is demanding...but the message to the citizens is extinguish anyone you think might not be a dem....anyone making more than you....its ok to take, belittle, and destroy in the name of the majority....

whne the rich are no longer the 1%....and leave...are you guys going to at least let me eat once a month? what will my pen look like...will it be like KFC...will you all supply me with clothes or will i have to steal them? is that what will happen if they dont pay the taxes...this country will be destroyed.....it seems like you all think your going to get a personal check from the 1% but the reality is you will never be effected by the increase in taxes....the only result you will feel is if you lose your job...

Backhouse, start checking your facts. The financial collapse was caused by a bunch of politicians trying to create a new world order, with no one having any responsibility for anything, except for taxpayers footing the bill. Started in January, 2007, when Democrats took over the house and Senate, and refused to rein in Fannie and Freddie giving out unsecured loans, to the tune of billions of dollars, (all the while giving millions of dollars bonuses to their CEO's, and campaign support to anyone supporting this boondoggle.)

Now, the ultra conservatives are just as bad as the ultra liberals in not solving the problem, as none of them claim responsibility for their irresponsibility, and we, the taxpyers of this country, still employed, (for how long, nobody knows,) and retirees, while our standard of living is decreasing and the people on Capitol Hill have no worries, except when to start campaigning again.

If everyone had to pay these taxes... If everyone had to share equally in the burden of the government... then none of this spending would have happened. None of these debts would have accrued. And we would have never ended up in this position.

Politics masks these cost for the individual, who believes he won't have to pay. He thinks he can simply vote... and make people like me pay. But what he doesn't understand- and never will- is that politics can't change economics.

Our economy can't afford our government. Our economy can't afford these debts - or even the debt service at any legitimate interest rate.

At some point very soon, this economic reality will overwhelm the political charade.

Freshieee-Hmmm; sure. If Harris County secedes from Texas in the event of a Second Civil War, I guarantee you that any missiles fired at Texas will not hit you, unless the neo-Confederates occupy your county.

I live in what Republicans like to call "the Socialist Republic of Austin". Don't bomb us either. We could join up with Houston and seize Perry to deliver to you,lol.

The tax increases Obama wants will not do a damn thing about the deficit.

That is simply not true. The deficits right now have two causes: revenues are down (people who are out of work do not pay taxes) and costs are up (people out of work are drawing unemployment).

Increasing revenues through tax increases will help the deficit. Now, whether Republicans like it or not, they cannot continue stonewalling this. All Obama has to do is NOTHING! The Bush tax cuts (and, yes, they are the Bush tax cuts) will expire at the end of this year. Go ahead and gridlock, Republicans. Then the tax cuts will expire and Obama will get a $0.25T reduction in the deficit.

The big question is, what will that do to the economy? If all tax cuts are allowed to expire, then the poor and middle classes will have less money to pump into the economy. They tend to spend more of whatever income they have on purchases than the rich do. There is a very real danger that removing this much money from the economy will cause another recession. The rich, on the other hand, spend less of any income they get on purchases. Higher taxes on the rich will have less impact on consumer spending. In this case, with this economy, increasing taxes on the wealthy and not increasing taxes or increasing them less for the middle class makes lots of sense.

And don't hand me any crap about "job creators". The wealthy have benefited disproportionately since the recession and they have yet to really start any new businesses and jobs. One can make the argument that all investments they make right now are going overseas, which helps the US job picture less. It makes sense to increase taxes on them since it won't be pumped into the US economy if they are allowed to keep it anyway.

IR, that was classic--especially the line about Ford, Coke and Paris Hilton!

I couldn't agree more with your "all the Yahoo Pundits, Profiteers, Prophets and general all around Cheerleaders put out was to make a buck and that they were laughing up their sleeve at the Yokels and how easy it was to fool 'em." It's what I was trying to say in #1.3 about rich old men and defense contractors and politicians. But you said it so much better. Thanks.

A Publicist has convinced Paris Hilton that she is brilliant. It wasn’t, they didn’t and she ain’t. The sooner you’ll come to terms with that the more progress we are going to make with the reality of the challenges we all face.

Wonderful thoughtful post, Independent. Progress is definitely in the air. Just worried about what John Kerry is going to do.

Money is tight for another campaign. Warren, Obama and other candidates have bled us dry, plus the holidays are upon us. I know Kerry wants the SOS position; he would be a terrific for it, but boy is it ever wrong timing.

Well said IR. The republicans believed what they wanted because it was what they wanted. Then 24 hrs after an election they expected to win, you have the likes of Sean Hannity calling for reform of the immigration problem. He and others had a sudden epiphany that what they were trying to sell was the wrong product.

Since the election results stunned so many on the right, they now think that they can fix their problems by legislation, forgetting along the way how hard they have worked to show how unwelcoming their party has been to those who are, in their eyes, different. Do they really think they can square that circle? They will try to push Marco Rubio as the savior, not realizing there are many Hispanics in Fl as well as elsewhere who despise him as they know he wouldn't give any of them daylight except to help him further his own ambitions. He is nothing but an empty suit who has been puffed up by his party's bigwigs to show, hey, they are inclusive. This past election showed that most Cuban Americans voted for the President, as they know he will and has made their lives easier, by easing travel restrictions to visit family among other things.

Thanks Jack..Next time I'm up your way we need to take some time to do drinks and dinner and have us a confab one old fart to another............Pat How about Powell or Hagel to hold down the SOS for a couple of years till everybody regroups and then we go from there. Just a thought. Maybe even Huntsman.

I know Kerry wants the SOS position; he would be a terrific for it, but boy is it ever wrong timing.

Floyd,

You beat me to it... I would settle for Hagel, Powell or Huntsman in that order!

I know Kerry wants the job, but I hope it doesn't happen, at least for now...

Thanks GBM and Betty. Speaking Truth to Power is what we do best. Maybe the Yahoo's will start listening.

Bring Colin Powell back. He was treated shabbily the first go around in spite of his service and IMO deserves to have the opportunity to serve without being fed lies to work with.

To all our veterans: this day is for you, men and women who are true patriots. Enjoy your special day.

Dear Newsvine: thank YOU for giving me an easy way to donate to the Red Cross by allowing my earnings to go there.

Many Republicans in office are now "readjusting" their views. This is good news. Some are bending to the fact that taxing the wealthy a bit more will not be the end of the world. We all must make sacrifices in these trying times. There is no way out of this without some suffering, and dealing with change. What is now affecting small businesses with the health care will one day be the norm. The result will be more insured and a healthier America.

There are tax cuts in place already for those small businesses affected by Obamacare. I believe many that are "trimming the fat" wanted to do so regardless of who was in office . They are using Obamacare as a scapegoat. Not all but many.

To all our veterans: this day is for you, men and women who are true patriots. Enjoy your special day.

And we remember the 40-50 million civilians who perished in WW11 alone.

I am a huge fan of Chuck Hagel and believe he would be a perfect choice for SOS, perhaps even better than Kerry. We as Democrats cannot afford to possibly give up a precious Senate seat at this time, even if Deval Patrick were to appt a replacement, they would have to run for the seat in 2014 and Scott Brown would jump on that opening and run again.

Last week, I saw Chuck Hagel on BBC America last week discussing the election and realized how much his reasonable voice is missed on the national stage.

Cheers, IR, perfectly said!

Always liked Chuck Hagel; either he or Powell would be great choices for Sec of State. I'm less inclined toward Huntsman but if chosen, wouldn't object.

IR great post.... hopefully everyone can come to reality now that election is over and we can move forward!

IR - what great antonyms to beautiful, tasty, bombshells - the embodiment of the GOPTP. I'll be howling over those for days. No doubt the Albanian Idiot drives an Edsel, guzzles New Coke, and dreams of Paris lap dances as he invests in invests in offshore accounts while proclaiming he honors American Vets and their service to protecting American ideals.

IR -- You wrote:

Maybe the Yahoo's will start listening.

May it be so. Very nice opening post. Spot on!

IR,

I would love that! Please do get in touch if--or when--you're up this way. Maybe we can get another old fart, David Walker, to join us.

Amy & Jody, Thanks for your support this morning.

David

Those G.I.'s gave their lives, their bodies, their freedoms so you could carp endlessly about the horrible sacrifice of dollars you have to make to keep the country running, even as you tell us how well you live.

Dead on!

The biggest lesson this election for Democrats is that we must continue to be vigilant and expand on our victory for 2014 and beyond.

We can take nothing for granted and must continue to refine our message and make sure the right doesn't dictate the Democrat message for us.

Salud

Kerry taking the SOS position would leave a very important position open which we can't afford to loose right now.

Got a perfect job for Romney if he is so eager to help: Make him the ambassador to Libya in Benghazi. Then HE can live with the cuts to embassy security imposed by his Pubbies. :o)

Forward

Gee, you think Obama might learn how to lead or compromise in 4 years? How about learning how to get a budget passed? Probably not, sigh....

I dont understand why you progressives gloat about the win. Our country is now more polarized than ever along racial and economic lines and the election just highlighted that fact. Romney got more of the white vote, married female vote, more senior citizen vote than previous GOP candidates. He got a huge majority at 65%. Obama won because he got an even bigger percentage of the latino vote--70%--black vote--95%, young vote and single female vote. Now lets see, which of these groups are funding or paying for all the entitlements of the other side. Lets see those groups who have been hurt the most by Obama's economic policies but have received and been promised the most government free stuff on the other side. The demographic that is funding 90% of the federal governments revenue voted for one candidate, and those receiving the benefits of that 90% voted the other side. Wow that sounds like a prescription for prosperity for the future. Maybe Romney was right in that campaign room that he will never win over the vote of the 47%. What a sad sad future. Thank goodness the GOP held on to the house to prevent the economic disaster in store for our future.

Gee, you think Obama might learn how to lead or compromise in 4 years? How about learning how to get a budget passed? Probably not, sigh....

You mean his constant offer to the Republicans to sign a bill immediately for the lower 98%. Are you seriously trying to pretend that Obama doesn't know how to compromise?

How about learning how to get a budget passed?

Obama would be more than happy to see a budget passed. Perhaps Boehner could actually get his useless House to work and LEARN to pass a budget that can make it to the President's desk.

Kirk, explain how these people were hurt the most by Obama's economic policies? If they are funding those who are asking for entitlements, like you said, this means they have jobs in order to do such. If these same people have any investments, since Obama has taken over the markets have done very well, so how are these people suffering? Most likely they are not, but have been mislead to believe they were.

You can answer back with all those statistics about reduced wages, lost home value, etc. but whether you are ready to admit it or not much of that was caused by the recssion itself not "Obama's economic policies".

Akeem, those demographic groups have fared worse over the last 4 years against their counterparts. Unemployment and poverty statistics are far worse over the last 4 years for African Americans and Latinos versus whites. Unemployment and poverty statistics have trended worse for young versus old and women versus men. Finally, the poor and middle class have fared worse than the working upper middle class and rich. So over the last 4 years, Obama's economic policies have benefited those that the media portrays as being helped by the GOP and those that Obama has based his rhetoric and pandering for votes on have actually fared worse. Thats not counting government assistance of course which I assume you wouldnt want to include which just makes the voting conclusions even more polarized. I am not making any conclusions about what caused lost wages and home values but the policies put in place within Obama's tenure intending to help them.

which of these groups are funding or paying for all the entitlements of the other side.

And the winner of the whiner award is our one and only Kirk - he continues to feed the mouths of the GOPTP with horse@!$%# Limbaugh lines that whites NEVER partake of entitlements. Well, riddle me this .. if whites never take entitlements, then why are they the largest receivers of food stamps, unemployment, welfare? Things that make you go mmmmm.....right Kirksie?

Millions of Latinos, Blacks, Asians, unmarried women, and young people pay into the coffers of our social safety nets. Only bigoted asses believe otherwise.

Sorry to hi jack your post IR, but just one more question for Kirk,

What policy that was being offered by Mitt Romney was going to improve the living situation for African Americans, Latinos, or poor people? A blanket statement saying "I am going to bring in 12 million jobs" is not a policy. Decreasing some of the neccessary enviromental regulations is a short term gain with a great long term price. Lowering Capital gains tax does not help a majority of them. You can give me a list of reasons why you think they should not have voted Democrat, but you will come up with very few of why they would want to vote Republican.

Akeem, those demographic groups have fared worse over the last 4 years against their counterparts. Unemployment and poverty statistics are far worse over the last 4 years for African Americans and Latinos versus whites. Unemployment and poverty statistics have trended worse for young versus old and women versus men. Finally, the poor and middle class have fared worse than the working upper middle class and rich. So over the last 4 years, Obama's economic policies have benefited those that the media portrays as being helped by the GOP and those that Obama has based his rhetoric and pandering for votes on have actually fared worse. Thats not counting government assistance of course which I assume you wouldnt want to include which just makes the voting conclusions even more polarized. I am not making any conclusions about what caused lost wages and home values but the policies put in place within Obama's tenure intending to help them.

The real reason why the rich have prospered while everyone else has gone down the tube is not because of Obama's "failed policies." Obama did almost everything right in the economy textbook: spent money on anything that could create a few jobs, cut taxes for consumers and small businesses (even though that didn't work as well as the spending). Problem was, like the Great Depression, Obama's New Deal focused a lot on the long-term investments and not enough on the short-term. It wasn't big enough, quite simply, to handle a 9% drop in GDP. Then Obama went to deficit reduction too quickly thanks to the 2010 GOP elections and the Euro crisis which sparked a huge fury on the growing debt, even though that wasn't what you should have done when unemployment is around 9%. If you and every one of your Republican friends who claims to know everything about the economy really wanted to get out of this slow recovery, you'd be clamoring for a stimulus package of maybe $1-2 trillion over 4-5 years, offset by a long-term deficit reduction package of around $6 trillion over ten years. You'd also be supporting financial regulations so tight that Dodd-Frank would look like a cop with a water gun, investments in green energy and manufacturing that would make Solyndra look like a termite, and infrastructure spending that would make the Works Progress Administration and the Interstate Highway blush in comparison. Unfortunately Kirk, you know nothing about this economy, so my advice is to keep your mouth shut until you do.

Read an interesting article this morning. It is always the people who are afraid they will lose power that complain about the "World Coming to An End". I suppose that reasoning can also be applied to those who might lose their tax breaks - "Financial World Coming to an End". Or to those who lost an election - "Partisanship bringing World to an End".

Nonsense! This is not the end of the world, just the beginning!

A MAJORITY of people voted for our president. A LARGE percentage of those who voted for our president were the HAVE NOTS. They don't see the world as coming to an end - they see the possibility of a new beginning. They see the possibliity of justice for all. They see the possibility that someone will care about them. They see the possibility that they can get health care without it bankrupting their families. They see the possibility that they may be able to earn a living wage. They see the possibility that large corporate interests will be held accountable for grinding the poor and working class under their heel. They see the possibility that they will be valued for more than their income, or the color of their skin.

They understand, that in order for them and their families to have an opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that the America of "white wealthy entitlement" must come to an end. They understand that terms like "lazy, retarded, unmotivated, ignorant" and etc., are actually racial slurs meant to devalue their lives (and their president). And they understand, that they are Americans who have the right to vote, no matter who might tell them they are not.

End of the World? Let it come, and I feel fine!

Crystal-

Gee, you think Obama might learn how to lead or compromise in 4 years? How about learning how to get a budget passed? Probably not, sigh....

You still haven't figured it out yet.

February 26, 2009 – President Obama Issues FY 2010 Budget to Congress

February 2, 2010 – President Obama Issues FY 2011 Budget to Congress

February 14, 2011 – President Obama Issues FY 2012 Budget to Congress

It's up to CONGRESS to PASS the Budgets.

Sigh....

Your curdled and soured talking point expired November 6th, 2012.

Please read all of the great posts above and below to get an understanding of where your mentallity lies in relation to us REALITY based Democrats.

You're talking points are of no value anymore.

Salud

"You can answer back with all those statistics about reduced wages, lost home value, etc. but whether you are ready to admit it or not much of that was caused by the recssion itself not "Obama's economic policies"."

1. I haven't had a raise during obama's first term. When will you libs require HIM to take responsibility for his actions... or will it always be bush's fault?

2. My wife finally got a raise two months ago, AND a health insurance premium hike SOLELY DUE to ACA. Her net check now is less than it was before the raise. That is strictly due to ACA.

3. My health insurance was grandfathered this year so we only took a 3% increase (normal), but we have been warned that ACA will hit us next Oct and to be ready for a major hike.

4. My wife and I are starting to pad our budget in order to get ready for the upcoming power/gas hikes on our utilities thanks to the eco-terrorist dept (EPA).

Honestly as a middle class family of three making under $100k, we are NOT doing better under obama, we are doing worse, and it's not looking any better with his war on domestic energy. Maybe YOU should look up the new EPA mandates coming up?

And to a previous question you had where I stated Islam is being shoved down our throats. Maybe if he stopped making excuses for muslims, I would be ok with it. Maybe if he treated them the same as christians, I would be ok with it. He hasn't said a damn thing about the christians being massacred in the middle east, yet the guy who made some off beat film about islam ends up being blamed for libya and ends up in jail. Why is it even a question about allowing sharia law in our country? If parts of sharia law are allowed in, then why don't we let the christians go back to burning witches? Why is it ok for muslims to burn our flag, piss on the cross, but damn it don't you dare show a picture of mohammed. The list could go on and on, and when you look at it.... there is NOT equality of religion in this country. You libs have made the christians into the scape goats.

And this is NOT an anti-muslim post. I have no problem with the normal, moderate muslim. My parents doctor is muslim, a very intelligent guy, him and I have had some good conversations. I am strictly talking about the difference in how this administration treats different religions.

Crystal-569996

Gee, you think Obama might learn how to lead or compromise in 4 years? How about learning how to get a budget passed? Probably not, sigh....

You need a civics class.

Pres sends budget to house and senate.

House and senate reconcile bill and send back to pres for signature.

Not a single Obama budget has made it back to his desk to sign.

David Walker is out in my neck of the woods, so you two old farts come out west and we'll have a regular Hootanany!

Super Hospitable Like!

Akeem and Freshiee--what makes you think I dont know anything about the economy? Where did I say that Romney was a panacea to cure our economic woes? All I pointed out were statistical facts and the polarization of our voting blocs. We do know that Obama's policies have been in effect for 4 years and longer in states like California, Illinois and NY. What Freshiee makes you think that your economic prescription is going to work wonders and clearly they havent in such great democratic states with high taxes, high regulation and disincentives for small business. I am fan of both Reagan and Clinton and not a Bush supporter at all. You can try to label me all you want because I disagree with the economic policies of Obama but that doesnt change what is happening right now. Freshiee, you seem to claim to understand the economy but you throw out 70% tax rates without acknowledging that the top rates were never paid and the effective rates from that era and percentage of revenue paid to the top income earners is higher today than back then. You also fail to acknowledge that tax policy has had nothing to do with accumulations of wealth at the top quintiles because the CBO report provided the primary reasons like the education gap, legal and illegal immigration, wealth transfers from the middle class like payroll taxes to pay social security to our wealthy seniors and the conversion of income being reported on individual tax returns now instead of within corporations due to flow through entities. You also dont really believe (and if you do then your credibility is shot) that taking tax money from productive workers at the upper middle class and wealthy is greater than spending it via the government. The short term tax cuts enacted by Obama provide short term consumer benefits but no long term business benefits and most of the benefit was eaten up by government expenses of regulation whether it be Obamacare, Sarbanes Oxley or Dodd Frank so no net incentives to invest. The idea of a 2-3 trillion dollar stimulus versus 2-3 trillion dollar private enterprise incentives via reduction in corporate tax rates, incentive tax credits, accelerated depreciation or R&D credits is almost laughable. You seem to think that the country's debt bill doesnt ever have to get paid by our kids or grandkids and be a reduction to their standard of living.

Reddev--good that you can contribute in some meaningful way. I suppose you are the type of person who says that its racist to say that african americans are incarcerated at greater percentages of whites thereby stifling discussion on how to fix the issues that create that problem. Same thing here. Its not based on absolute numbers math genius its based on disproportionality. Of course there are people who pay into the tax system from those demographics but not in proportion. Get off the racist bandwagon and start thinking that systems that are created that disproportionately impact certain demographic groups in a negative way is not a good long term economic strategy. I could care less whether there are a greater number of whites that take assistance because there are a greater nummber of whites in this country. If you are going to try and post, at least use some cognitive ability to do so. You cant tell me that when one candidate is supported by a 2-1 margin by the white vote, married female vote and senior vote and this demographic paid in 90% of the federal income tax revenue in this country that this a good thing when the reverse of this supported Obama. Freshiee, you really think a wealth transfer of even greater magnitude from this group is going to make things even better?

Shucks Akeem your not hi-jacking a thing. Way it is most of the time I run out of time of a morning to go to far and nothing gives me greater pleasure than to come back to it in the afternoon/evening and see that the discusion has continued on without me. I've said many times that I already know what I think I want to know what others think. That's what makes it so much fun and if it promotes the understanding of each other just a little bit so much the better. And you always have some salient points which is just double the pleasure

Clara KCMO,

Would love to meet you, too! Too bad all us Liberals are "on the dole"; otherwise we'd have enough bus fare to get together. LOL

Akeem,

I appreciate your earnestness, but trying to reason with Kirk is like talking to a wall.

Thanks, IR I appreciated the kind words and they are echoed as well!

AlexM, you sit and point fingers at Bush, and at the same time blame the president for the fact you did not receive a raise. Conservatives are all about personal responsibility, is it at all possible you didn't get a raise because of your personal performance, or due to bad leadership of your company to adapt to a new economic climate... no let me stop, why look deeper in to the problem lets just blame the president, its easier that way. I got a raise and a bonus last year, does that make the President an economic genius?

As far as the ACA, my rates have stayed the same, so I have not shared your experience. Also, in regards to what you spoke about Muslims, I just completely disagree no use in arguing that one, we won't get anywhere.

Kirk, I never criticized your understanding of the economy. You and many others blame the fact that minorities vote for the president in very large numbers as a "polarization of race" in America. I disagree with this idea. If you hear the adds and the campaigns run by the Republicans it is quite clear why you see these types of reactions. First like I had asked you before, what is in the Republican agenda to improve these people's lives? Many of the policies they promote would have a direct negative impact on some of these groups. Why would they vote for that? Also, when a candidate says something like "It's time to take back our country". How do you think a minority views those words? Take the country back from who? When it is being said that the president is not patriotic or American... those are strange words for members of any minority group to hear.

My question for you is why should these groups vote Republican? We can make list why they shouldn't vote for one party or another, but in my opinion the list is very short for why these people should vote Republican.

Jack I know, at least Kirk resides in reality even if we disagree. When people have ideas that lean right and are not saying comments that would qualify them as insance, I am always up to discuss.

Jack--thats because you have never tried to reason with me. You prefer personal attacks and posting silliness rather than participating in critical thinking prevent any real dialogue but I am sure your style makes you very popular with your friends and family.

Akeem, first a couple of things. Many of the platform issues of the GOP party make me not only very uncomfortable, they are going to chase many of the various demographic groups run like the wind. It is why I vote both parties. I voted for Kerry and Clinton and here in Illinois lots of democrats. My beef with the democratic party or Obama at the moment is the same most of you have with the GOP. Much of what they stand for has been hijacked by the far left and its the economic issues at the moment that concern me. There are a few issues in which I think the GOP is on the right side of the issue and vice versa. Certainly the democrats are on the right side in terms of gay marriage, pro life, some aspects of gun control and I think the GOP has a better view towards tightening our borders and some aspects of illegal immigration but I would support some aspects of the Dream Act. In terms of Romney's economic plans, I do think right to work states, education reform outside of the teacher's unions to close the education gap and creating incentives for investment while dramatically reducing government spending whether it be defense, government assistance and entitlement reform are necessary. Whether Romney's tax plan added up is irrelevant to the overall issue of needed tax reform and the idea that Obama supporters dont understand that reducing the tax rates and eliminating deductions can only be good is somewhat silly. We have to have a fair and equitable tax system with everyone contributing to our federal revenues not just the working upper middle class. I dont have a problem raising revenue from the wealthy but lets make it fair across the board and eliminate social engineering. With regards to corporate tax, Obama showed in the debates that he doesnt understand by his proposal to tax foreign earnings saying that would shift jobs back on shore when all that does is eliminate jobs as foreign competitors will just steal market share. But just because I have an opinion that certain Romney economic proposals were better than Obamas doesnt mean I agree with the GOP platform and I would hope the same is true of Obama supporters.

then why don't we let the christians go back to burning witches?

Well, let's!! I also recall that fun Roman pastime of throwing Christians to the lions. Perhaps we should go back to that as well. ROAR!!

Kirk-2957282

Akeem and Freshiee--what makes you think I dont know anything about the economy? Where did I say that Romney was a panacea to cure our economic woes? All I pointed out were statistical facts and the polarization of our voting blocs. We do know that Obama's policies have been in effect for 4 years and longer in states like California, Illinois and NY. What Freshiee makes you think that your economic prescription is going to work wonders and clearly they havent in such great democratic states with high taxes, high regulation and disincentives for small business. I am fan of both Reagan and Clinton and not a Bush supporter at all. You can try to label me all you want because I disagree with the economic policies of Obama but that doesnt change what is happening right now.

The problem with comparing economic and tax policy between the states and the federal government is that most big and medium-sized businesses can easily move to another competitive state and still cater to consumers in their original state; it's much harder to do that with a nation as a whole. Secondly, I am not necessarily calling you a Bush supporter; I am calling you a typical supply-sider who adheres to an economic policy that numerous advisers to the Reagan administration have debunked and criticized, including Bruce Bartlett.

Freshiee, you seem to claim to understand the economy but you throw out 70% tax rates without acknowledging that the top rates were never paid and the effective rates from that era and percentage of revenue paid to the top income earners is higher today than back then. You also fail to acknowledge that tax policy has had nothing to do with accumulations of wealth at the top quintiles because the CBO report provided the primary reasons like the education gap, legal and illegal immigration, wealth transfers from the middle class like payroll taxes to pay social security to our wealthy seniors and the conversion of income being reported on individual tax returns now instead of within corporations due to flow through entities.

I know that nobody paid the 70% tax rate; the effective tax was around 50%. However, the reason why I am arguing for a 70% tax rate is to reduce income inequality, which is a major drag on economic growth (according to the OECD). And as for the wealthy paying a larger percentage of overall taxes, that is because their income has gone up SHARPLY, while everybody else has had their income stagnate when adjusted for inflation. Income inequality is heavily influenced via education gaps and globalization, but it is also influenced via regressive economic policies, where massive tax cuts for the wealthy and financial deregulation have led to a debt-fueled boom for the past 30 years.

You also dont really believe (and if you do then your credibility is shot) that taking tax money from productive workers at the upper middle class and wealthy is greater than spending it via the government. The short term tax cuts enacted by Obama provide short term consumer benefits but no long term business benefits and most of the benefit was eaten up by government expenses of regulation whether it be Obamacare, Sarbanes Oxley or Dodd Frank so no net incentives to invest. The idea of a 2-3 trillion dollar stimulus versus 2-3 trillion dollar private enterprise incentives via reduction in corporate tax rates, incentive tax credits, accelerated depreciation or R&D credits is almost laughable. You seem to think that the country's debt bill doesnt ever have to get paid by our kids or grandkids and be a reduction to their standard of living.

What you fail to understand is that I am not in favor of a massive Robin Hood scheme to make the rich poor and poor rich. What I am trying to propose is a plan to reduce economic gaps to a more sustainable position; the 1% controlling 10% of national income would be my goal for the next 10-20 years. Secondly, tax cuts don't spur economic growth as effectively as spending during a recession, as most (if not all) spending will be aimed at job creating programs like infrastructure programs or unemployment benefits. Secondly, I am all for reducing the deficit; hell, I proposed a deficit reduction package that included tax broadening the base and entitlement reform that would save $9 trillion over 10 years. However, I spent about $4 trillion over 10 years to revitalize the economy and fix public functions like transportation and education, while also transitioning to a low-carbon economy. So my plan's net savings would be $5.5 trillion (far more than Simpson-Bowles plan) over a decade. I've offered a deficit-reduction plan; where's yours???

Freshiee, you really think a wealth transfer of even greater magnitude from this group is going to make things even better?

If you are talking about the upper class, then I think a progressive package akin to the New Deal is exactly what this nation needs to get out of the doldrums. We need education reform that does reform tenure and institute merit-based pay, but we also need more federal oversight and control and the feds footing a larger share of education's cost; we need healthcare reform that expands coverage to all Americans (via single-payer) while also transitioning to bundled payments, reducing obesity rates, and reducing fraud, waste, and modeling care based on more efficient healthcare systems, like Canada or France; we also need tax reform, but the tax reform that most people are proposal (lower rates and broader base) has not worked. The 1986 tax reform did little to help the economy; sure, there was a boom under Reagan, but that boom went mostly to the wealthiest Americans, and all of the meager middle class gains were eliminated in the recession that followed the S&L crisis of the late 80s and early 90s. We need to reform our tax code that raises revenue and increases economic productivity: I would propose a tax system with 12 brackets. I don't see how cutting tax rates when we already have the lowest ones in 50 years makes any sense. Besides, eventually we'll be arguing to reduce the top tax rate from 10% to 0% to "unchain the mighty Atlas." We have to face the facts: the wealthy are not the job creators; consumers are. And giving the wealthy a huge tax cut will only encourage them to put it away in the bank or in some offshore account while we lose a chunk of revenues that could have been put to better use, like fixing our roads and bridges. Reaganomics has failed America; it's time we work to make sure Reaganomics does not destroy America.

Freshieee,

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - George Santayana

We are raising children in America today who are by and large historically illiterate.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57547353/david-mcculloughs-heroes-of-history/?pageNum=3&tag=contentMain;contentBody

Voters
Politicians manipulate voters every day with half-truths -- or outright lies -- about taxes, spending and many other issues that directly affect the nation's prosperity.

Too many voters embrace feel-good propaganda that they want to hear instead of learning the basic facts about issues they care about. They should do a better job of calling out dishonest politicians -- and shunning media outlets that stoke political food fights.

http://money.msn.com/investing/11-things-wrong-with-congress

Facts not Opinions. Performance not Appearance. Results not Excuses. Logic not Emotions. Experience not Academic Idealism. - david-475776

Newsvine "Get Smarter Here".

Questions Freshieee:

In President FDR's Presidential Papers, what did President FDR say about his "New Deal to the American People" during the Great Depression, and what did he say afterwards as World War II started.

What US Laws were eliminated that made Illegal the Causes of previous Depressions. Who eliminated those US Laws, and what were the Results.

YOU HAVE 60 MINUTES TO POST THE CORRECT ANSWERS BELOW. NO LAME EXCUSES.

Freshiee--we are on the same page in much of what you provided but most if not all isnt supported by Obama or the democratic party so not sure how we are so far apart. You voted for a candidate that isnt going to do most of what you prescribe and I voted for a candidate that wouldnt do it either. Where I disagree with you is the impact of Reagan's tax policy and what you propose in terms of overall tax policy. Lets start where we agree. I am for some sort of universal catastrophic health care coverage. I support education reform to try and close the education gap and I support taking social engineering out of the tax code to make it fair and equitable. Bowles Simpson is something I would support and probably more reform like you suggest. Obamacare doesnt provide universal coverage and all it will do is reduce benefits as employers will stop providing coverage over time so richer employer provided benefits will be reduced by coverage in government provided or subsidized insurance exchanges and costs will continue to rise. Obamacare might have good intentions but it really does need bipartisan fixing. Education reform is clearly being stymied by the democratic party so not sure how we get out of that mess.

As for your supply side or tax policy and income inequality suggestions. We probably disagree more here because you are lumping all wealthy taxpayers in the same bucket. I agree that at the very high net worth 1% of income tax payers, things have gotten out of whack but for reasons other than tax policy. I dont have a problem raising taxes on the superwealthy but that is a blip in actual revenue. But this concept that you can tax the successful working wealthy whether a doctor, small business owner or insurance salesman and think it doesnt impact behavior or the economy and jobs is just not rationale. These people are the successful risk takers and most likely are successful as a result of the education gap, talent, hard work etc and they are the job creators. I dont understand how you look at Reaganomics as a destroyer as globalization and the destruction of our manufacturing base was due to global competition not tax policy. Reagan did exactly what Clinton did and thats provide tax incentives for investment such as accelerated depreciation, investment tax credit, R&D credits and yes lower capital gains rates to incent investment. I agree just reducing rates on the super wealthy do nothing and on the working upper middle class and below--it provides some short term consumer spending benefits but no long term capital investment benefits. We certainly dont need 12 tax brackets we just need to eliminate social engineering and let capital be more productive. It needs to be fair and equitable for everyone. Choices you make shouldnt be rewarded in the tax code like having children or buying a house. Make it simpler, fair and progressive and yes with overall lower rates. And yes we need to dramatically reduce corporate tax rates and thus raise the dividend and capital gains rates to offset this so to keep the tax on the same income at the ownership level. This allows our global US companies to be more competitive against foreign competition who have a leg up on us in foreign countries.

What I dont understand from your post and reply is that nothing you support is supported by Obama or his fellow democrats like Pelosi and Reid. Obama isnt supporting deficit reduction or entitlement reform or education reform or tax reform to the level that you suggest or even health care reform as you have laid it out. We certainly differ on tax policy for workers paying federal income tax below the super wealthy or high income earners and maybe on government spending but it doesnt seem like we are that far off.

Looks to me as though the GOP is hanging its future on gerrymandering.

Worked this time - maybe not so well down the road.

Freshieee,

********************************YOUR GRADE: F MINUS ************************************************

Kirk-2957282

Freshiee--we are on the same page in much of what you provided but most if not all isnt supported by Obama or the democratic party so not sure how we are so far apart. You voted for a candidate that isnt going to do most of what you prescribe and I voted for a candidate that wouldnt do it either.

As for your supply side or tax policy and income inequality suggestions. We probably disagree more here because you are lumping all wealthy taxpayers in the same bucket. I agree that at the very high net worth 1% of income tax payers, things have gotten out of whack but for reasons other than tax policy. I dont have a problem raising taxes on the superwealthy but that is a blip in actual revenue. But this concept that you can tax the successful working wealthy whether a doctor, small business owner or insurance salesman and think it doesnt impact behavior or the economy and jobs is just not rationale. These people are the successful risk takers and most likely are successful as a result of the education gap, talent, hard work etc and they are the job creators.

It's not that it won't affect economic behavior; it's that they have had most of the economic gains over the past 30 years. And technically, while they do have a large impact on the economy, the people who by far have the largest effect is the consumer base of the U.S. economy, since consumption is 70% of GDP. If consumption accounts for most of our [sustainable] economic growth and wealth creation, logic dictates that the consumer is the engine of the economy, or the "job creator." It's not that the small businessman or insurance salesman or doctor is relatively insignificant; they do contribute a lot via their investments in their education and business. But I think that job creation requires demand, and incentives only work if there is demand with a profitable return. After all, a businessman wouldn't hire another blue-collar employee at his factory for $50,000 if he was given a tax credit for it, because then he'd be on the hook for additional costs like benefits, pension or 401k, and workman's compensation without needing to employ that man; essentially, it would be inefficient. But that businessman would most likely hire another employee for $50,000 a year if demand for his products or services increased by perhaps $150,000 (assuming the rule of thumb that a worker costs twice his salary), and so he would have a net of $50,000 (minus overhead) to work with. Tax incentives only work in the long-term when you account for cyclical adjustments; in the short-term, it's all about demand, demand, demand, and that usually requires demand-side tax cuts or spending increases.

I don't understand how you look at Reaganomics as a destroyer as globalization and the destruction of our manufacturing base was due to global competition not tax policy. Reagan did exactly what Clinton did and thats provide tax incentives for investment such as accelerated depreciation, investment tax credit, R&D credits and yes lower capital gains rates to incentivize investment.

Reaganomics, in my opinion, lead to a shift in economic focus from a manufacturing base (which was already in decline thanks to foreign competition) to a financial base, which eventually led the financial industry to serve like a cancer when it was deregulated via the repeal of Glass-Steagall and other repeals. In addition, Reaganomics led to a massive redistribution of wealth upwards, as the wealthiest Americans began to take control over more and more of the nation's collective income. The share of national income for the top 1% hit a trough at around 8% in the mid 1970s (when wage growth for everyone froze due to stagflation); recently, it hit a peak of around 25% even after the financial crisis. I'm not against things like accelerated depreciation or tax credits; what I'm against is the general concept of focusing too much on the supply-side part of the equation as a solution for every economic problem. After the Reagan economic reforms, the small income gains for middle income Americans were erased during the recession under Bush 41, while those of the top earners continued to expand exponentially. Reagan may have had a point on focusing on the supply side of the economic equation, which requires economic incentives for businesses via competitive tax rates and investment opportunities; but I think he took it too far by reducing tax rates by up to 60% and deregulating the financial industry, which quickly grew out of control during the costly savings and loans crisis. As for lower capital gains rates, after Clinton cut the rates from 28% to 20%, the stock bubble emerged (no doubt helped by the tax cut), and after Bush 43 cut it from 20% to 15%, we had the housing bubble (which was already developed but helped by over-speculative investors).

I agree just reducing rates on the super wealthy do nothing and on the working upper middle class and below--it provides some short term consumer spending benefits but no long term capital investment benefits. We certainly dont need 12 tax brackets we just need to eliminate social engineering and let capital be more productive. It needs to be fair and equitable for everyone. Choices you make shouldnt be rewarded in the tax code like having children or buying a house.

The 12 brackets for me is mostly for a tax code that isn't broad; the rates would target the numerous income groups in the nation to prevent having an over-general tax structure. Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction is something I have agreed for, but the tax code will always be a social engineering complex. If we switched to a flat tax or consumption tax, we'd be redistributing wealth upwards or to savers.

Make it simpler, fair and progressive and yes with overall lower rates. And yes we need to dramatically reduce corporate tax rates and thus raise the dividend and capital gains rates to offset this so to keep the tax on the same income at the ownership level. This allows our global US companies to be more competitive against foreign competition who have a leg up on us in foreign countries.

The problem with lower rates is that rates are already low, the lowest in 50 years. The fact that we need to lower rates ever two decades seems ridiculous; it seems that the Laffer Curve is moving so far to the left that eventually a 0% rate will raise more revenue than a 5% rate. Corporate tax rates, I say yes, we gotta lower 'em. It's not a major deterrent, but it's redundant to have a high rate if nobody pays anywhere near it (food for thought; the high income tax rate is mainly for income inequality, which is a negligible factor when considering corporate rates).

What I dont understand from your post and reply is that nothing you support is supported by Obama or his fellow democrats like Pelosi and Reid. Obama isnt supporting deficit reduction or entitlement reform or education reform or tax reform to the level that you suggest or even health care reform as you have laid it out. We certainly differ on tax policy for workers paying federal income tax below the super wealthy or high income earners and maybe on government spending but it doesnt seem like we are that far off.

I propose this stuff as a long-term goal; an inevitability, as some would say. I doubt we're gonna get single-payer in the next 5 years, but Obamacare (however imperfect it may seem) is a first step forward and a worthwhile price to pay for an improved healthcare system. The fact is that nobody is pursuing a deficit package or economic plan on my scale; education reform is agreed on but fought over charter schools and teacher's unions (who deserve a seat at the table if they can be reasonable); infrastructure is possible with an infrastructure bank, and tax reform may be an eventuality if we can move the political spectrum back to the center (or the center that it was during the 1950s). However, we may not even need a 70% tax rate (as few countries currently possess. I probably will not even demand a 70% rate; if we can secure universal healthcare, reform education with national standards, a stronger manufacturing base with public-private partnerships similar to those in Germany, and enforce firm but fair regulations to prevent another financial crisis, I could easily settle for a 45-50% top tax rate, which may not be close enough to Simpson Bowles's lower rates proposal but is like the tax codes of other industrialized countries. If we can get a good deal on immigration, healthcare, education, labor, etc, the tax rates are debatable to the needs of the national government and our nation's economic welfare. That may not seem like a compromise, but at least all of it is negotiable.

Freshiee--I agree with most of what you have stated and its not significantly different than much of what I have stated and proposed in the past. I dont understand how your economic views synch with Obama and the democratic party. Besides Obamacare which I understand you think it is heading in the right direction, none of the other issues you propose are economic priniciples of social proposals supported by Obama or his party. I assume you voted for him because you think he will change or evolve towards your views? Maybe you think Obama's leadership will bring us closer to more fiscal discipline? After 4 years and history as a guide, not sure why you feel that way.

As for your comments, thanks I appreciate the respectful manner in which you laid them out. There are a few areas that I have some comments or a difference of opinion. First Obamacare, I support some type of universal catastrophic coverage and if Obamacare is measured by the standard that at least we have a law on the books that we can start with, I agree with you. However, I am more cynical and dont believe that the law will be revised to accomplish the goals you indicate. To me this is an easy math exercise (sort of like how the democrats challenged Romney on his tax rate reduction proposal). 85% of the country had employer provided health care with a wide range of health care benefits. Many of these plans were very rich such as union plans and large corporate plans and some were very limited. What Obamacare did was to just layer on top of these costs the inclusion of the other 15% with incentives for corporations to eliminate over time their corporate provided benefits and pay the fine. As you know what will happen over time is that there wont be any difference for the vast majority of americans in terms of the quality of their health care benefits. So in order to pay for the other 15% who had medical care just not high quality care like the other 85%. So the quality of health care benefits will be reduced for the 85% to include the 15% (which could be the right thing to do--but its a fact of math and money). In addition, the very wealthy will still have access to better health care and pay for it on their own. And nothing in the bill slows down the cost increases.

As for supply side and demand, you have to know that the consumer driven economy that you speak is driven by those with the most money to spend. So its the working middle, upper middle and professional wealthy who drive consumer spending. You are correct in that demand drives sales and revenue which drives jobs growth. But to ignore that demand isnt also driven by available cash flow which is reduced by taxes is missing the a big part of what drives demand. Forget about the Laffer curve, there is plenty of research that shows that once an effective tax rate rises above one third, it changes behavior whether it be investment, spending or savings. You cant have a high tax rate when you also the states and local sales, excise, property etc taking bigger and bigger percentages. If you want demand, you cant take all the disposable income of the person earning the cash.

I agree with your views on the diminishing manufacturing base but much of the switch to financial was as a result of these lossses. Glass-STegall was repealed by Clinton not Reagan so this was a slow evolution that fell over several administrations. I dont think Reagan can be blamed for any of that anymore than you can blame Clinton for the housing or internet bubble as most of the incentives for those bubbles were enacted during his administration. I think they both did a good job of inflating the economy after recessions particularly Reagan after a crushing recession of 20% interest rates, unemployment much higher than today and double digit inflation while losing middle class union manufacturing jobs to global competition. The US lost its monopoly on manufacturing which had nothing to do with Reagan's tax policy.

As for income inequality, you have forgotten what I think is the largest factor and that is the education gap, gender equality and the increase of financial rewards for talent. Just like Beyonce and Albert Pujols now get paid enormous sums for their talent. Our elite universities now select and find and educate our smartest and brightest and they can easily be found by employers whether they are doctors, lawyers, banks, investment banks, small businesses, corporations and they now pay and bid up compensation for this talent which in the past was only done for a few professions. These high cognitive ability talented people now marry within the same income level and create little high IQ kids and it has become a 1% problem that this country is now facing. I am not talking about the Warren Buffets of the world, but the vast majority of the working professional upper to upper middle class. This problem or issue cant be solved by tax policy and it becomes somewhat unfair to all parties.

Again, I respect everything you posted whether I completely agree or not. After reading your posts and without knowing who you supported in the election, I would have concluded that you were writing this in support of Romney.

Jody -- Well said. It is the echo chamber they live in. They should get out in the real world occasionally.

Jody, I think there is a tremendous amount of hypocrisy going on right now within the GOP. They are all pointing fingers at Rush Limbaugh, Peggy Noonan, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc.

Funny isn't it. Hannity I'm sure could really cause a lot of problems since he was used by the GOP establishment to sell the Iraq War.

They are all to blame. Particularly those pointing fingers. They were more than willing to let Rush run the party. It was Rush they were afraid to tick off. They needed him to win elections.

They are all to blame. Particularly those pointing fingers

So true Pat!

They refuse to accept the fact that their Party Platform/Ryans Budget and their voting records clearly were rejected!

Thanks for adding to my thoughts. The GOP should not have been surprised but they were because they believed their own hype. I don't recall which GOPer said they need to change their tone to embrace immigrants, miniorities, women--probably several said something similar. It isn't their tone, it isn't their harsh words, it is THEIR POLICIES, the same policies they put in their party platform--anti-minority, anti-women, anti-freedom from religions. It isn't their words, it is their actions.

When the GOP quite believing their own hype that he country is center right they will maybe start to heel.

Ever since Obama won in 2008, the GOP has been building up a fantasy world of lies and spin. They sealed themselves in an echo chamber where they get to hear only what they wanted to hear, where Obamacare was socialism, and Obama was born in Kenya. Where Global Warming was a hoax. Where evolution was not true. Where they had the support of the silent majority of Americans. Where compromise was a dirty word. Where US oil production was falling, and Romney was responsible for saving the auto industry. Where the falling unemployment numbers were cooked. Where the Navy Seals acting completely alone and without orders, got Bin Laden and Obama had nothing to do with it.

It was inevitable that their little bubble would burst the moment it pushed up against the sharp rocks of reality.

Jody, Iowa-

Well said.

My appologies for not remembering, but someone posted a link to this article last week. ( I think it might have been Pat Boston, MA.)

This says it all for me.

Mother Jones

The Republican Party Needs to Ditch Fox News If It Wants to Win

—By Erik Kain Wed Nov. 7, 2012 2:43 PM PST

Salud

So Jody, 65% of the white population, 65% of married women and 65% of senior citizens listen to Fox News and are just stupid unintelligent rubes and voted for Romney because of the brainwashing of a cable news channel? So the vote for both candidates didnt come down to racial and economic lines? The fact that those who fund 90% of the governments revenue voted by a 2-1 margin for Romney and basically against the economic policies of Obama and those who pay very little to nothing in federal income tax revenue while also receiving a huge disproportionate share of government assistance in all of its forms who voted for Obama had nothing to do with it? As Obama promises even more free stuff to various constituents you dont think this polarization is not going to get worse? Explain how Fox News had anything to do with those voting statistics? Seems to me that voting had nothing to do with cable news channels, lies etc and everything to do with voting based on perceptions of what the government can do for you.

Kirk, all of the numbers you quote are just reinforcing the Republicans as the party of the 1%.

America is bigger than that. Obama won due to the votes of the rest of America, the women, the blacks, the Latinos, the youth. These people don't want free stuff. They want equality. They want a level playing field. They want a government for everyone. They want the freedom to make their own choices for their own lives.

Kirk-

Seems to me that voting had nothing to do with cable news channels, lies etc and everything to do with voting based on perceptions of what the government can do for you.

And that is the spin from those very same cable news channels YOU watch to make people like YOU blame Government and think American's are just free loaders.

Pretty sick.

When are YOU going to learn.

Salud

When indeed TomasGrande, my compadre?

It seems the deniers are curling up into a fetal position and suckling on the nipple of delusion. Their last, final escape and refuge is,......pure delusion and denial. The only security blanket left to them.

It is like the Lakota Indians of the Great Plains who mourned the loss of the buffalo by wearing cotton shirts that they believed rendered them invisible. They engaged in that Ghost Dancing ritual to wipe their own ongoing genocide out of their minds. They ignored the reality that was too painful for them to face.

Such is with the republican party now.

They are being exterminated one vote at a time by the unpopularity of their tenets,...not by "demographic" shifts. A Hispanic man, or a white woman do not vote you out of office simply because they are Democrats. They vote you out because your political tenets have no commonality with theirs.

There have always been republicans, and Hispanics and women, but Tuesday was the climax of the objection of the common man to being yoked by the 1%. Our turn to speak. Being a "brown" man or a white woman has nothing to do with it. Color or gender by themselves does not motivate vote.

Oppression does.

Forward !!

Kirk-2957282So Jody, 65% of the white population, 65% of married women and 65% of senior citizens listen to Fox News and are just stupid unintelligent rubes and voted for Romney because of the brainwashing of a cable news channel?

Cable ratings dont equate to philosophical validity.

So the vote for both candidates didnt come down to racial and economic lines? The fact that those who fund 90% of the governments revenue voted by a 2-1 margin for Romney and basically against the economic policies of Obama and those who pay very little to nothing in federal income tax revenue while also receiving a huge disproportionate share of government assistance in all of its forms who voted for Obama had nothing to do with it?

Given that you used such precise numbers - can you site a source?

Didnt think so.

Dandy--About every newspaper including the USA Today and WSJ. I dont think the statistics are in dispute so not sure what your point is. Fielden and Tom--you can make whatever value judgements you want but my views and opinions are based on being the child of a small business owner and professional for 30 years not on some news shows which I never watch. I am more a Homeland, Dexter and Modern Family kind of TV watcher and primarily college basketball and pro football and baseball. Sorry to disappoint you.

Fielden--I dont disagree that the GOP is becoming the party of not the 1% because I would bet that Obama gets just as many votes from this group as the GOP but the working middle, upper middle and wealthy WORKERS. The demograhics of those who are paying the bills is certainly the GOP. I dont completely disagree with your view that much of Obama's supporters want a level playing field but you will need to explain to me how they dont. Free college tuition, free contraceptives, 1 trillion of government assistance, bail outs of bad or unfortunate economic choices are not leveling the playing field, as all that does is have no consequences of the choices one makes in life. Why is it that an immigrant can come over and start their own successful business but a teacher claims they dont have a level playing field? Why is it that an Art History major claims they cant find that $80k a year job but doesnt want to take the risk of moving or starting their own business? This concept that GOPextinct says that color or gender doesnt influence vote is one of the most inaccurate statements ever and flys in the face of reality but GOPextinct if its not color what is it? Could it be for economic reasons? If so, what possible reason based on the last 4 years would an African American, young person, single woman vote for Obama? Explain to me how Obama's policies have made their group better except for government assistance in all of its forms (doesnt mean welfare).

Explain to me how Obama's policies have made their group better

Perhaps not so much a pro-Obama vote as it is an anti-Romney vote.

Tuesday night's Democratic victories are a canary in a Republican coal mine.

They are a harbinger of election trends to come as an increasingly diverse electorate expressed its will. Populism won the day over the creeping fascism that had been steadily advancing since Reagan's time. People are tired of their wages and benefits being subordinated by avaricious CEO's. People tired of watching from the sidelines as income redistribution enriched the already wealthy and cannibalized their prosperity, their child's college funds, and our collective futures.

A self-made, fatherless, black community organizer from Chicago was picked in favor of a privileged, silver spooned, coddled, child of inherited wealth, power and entitlement whose only talent was devouring the pensions, jobs, livelihoods and aspirations of the less well-born.

Republicans, now on suicide watch are dissecting their electoral rejection and attributing it to any number of causes but the obvious: America doesn't like you, and republican Socialism does not benefit the 99%.

This increasingly irrelevant party watched in astonishment as its voter suppression tactics and anti-populism focus proved a flaccid response to the human tidal wave of Democratic voters swarming the polls. They are extracting the wrong lesson from the drubbing as they seek to carry themselves further right to staunch the voter loss.

Take pride America. Forward.

My advise to those reading this column:

1. Take Kirk's advise

2. Do exactly the opposite.

Kirk's standard MO over the last year or two is to tell you you don't really know about your subject,....but he invariable does. How fortunate for us! Then he puts himself in the role of the kindly, gentlemanly grandfather type who will graciously condescend to walk you through the complexities of the subject at hand. Kirk alone has been to Olympus and has quaffed the ambrosia needed to give him the prescience to dispense wisdom from on high. Behold: Kirk the Divine. Kirk the All-Knowing. Kirk the Benevolent.

Then Kirk will affirm for you why you need to surrender your life and your income to your republican masters. They and Kirk alone are the arbiters best qualified to guide your life, you see. The party of the common man.

Kirk likes to play Aesop, Kirk likes to play the wise old sage. Kirk is a bellicose, puffed up, full-of-himself pompous peacock that pretends to be a benign centrist like all right wing ding dongs do.

After you have had your fill of him,.....move on. There is no there,...there.

Kirk will always ask you to "explain" what you mean, draw you into some peripheral subject that you never stated, and lead you away on some tack as he gently and seamlessly wrests control of the topic from you. It is Karl Rove tactic #4, I think.

GOP--wow--do you bother reading or comprehending posts? So if you dont like what I post, you prefer to try and call me out anonymously as if you have some pulpit of readers that care? Again, you are just like every poster that doesnt like my view, you prefer to personally attack and explain all the bad personal characteristics of me rather than providing a substantive reply. Somehow, when David Walker explains to us from his Mt Olympus his infinite wisdom of all things progressive, that is wonderful intellectual discourse but if it comes from someone you dont like because I dare to challenge Obama's economic policies, I am a ding dong. Wow, I am sure you have been very successful in your profession as unless you are a dictator or CEO, not sure how you could work well with others.

After you have had your fill of him,.....move on. There is no there,...there.

GOPX,

Wish I could vote for your comment 10 x's!

Precisely the reason, I have little Kirky on ignore!

Too many brain cells die in the attempt to make an ounce of sense out of his blatherings!

You dont have me on ignore or you wouldnt be responding. Plus, there are no blatherings since everything I posted is right out of the newspapers. Dont get too worked up Jen as your candidate won and I am sure 4 years from now we will be living in Utopia. How are the Obama policies working out so far for us here in Illinois? How did raising tax rates do for Illinois revenue Jen? Go for it and explain to me with your brilliance, how Illinois is in great economic shape under the Obama economic principles?

Thanks Feisty.

I've been voting up as many of yours as I can find. Kirky is a Spanky wanna be. Did you notice he didn't address a single bit of anything I posted? That exhibition of cowardice alone speaks volumes.

Lotsa regulars licking their wounds under the porch today. NoJo, Spanky, a bunch of others have packed up camp and have indicated they moved on. Their mission: UNaccomplished. Must have broken the spirit of a lot of them, like What Collar. How would it be to work toward a goal for years only to be denied and watch as your enemy parade your champion's head around the arena? Romney the vanquished. All the King's horses......heh, heh.

BTW: I hope this day finds you well and that your heart will mend. Blessings to you. :O|

I've been voting up as many of yours as I can find.

Same here love!

Kirky is a Spanky wanna be.

At times SpankMe was at least humerous... Kirky is a dull blade! lol

Lotsa regulars licking their wounds under the porch today

Unlike us lefty loons, who take our defeats in stride rather than run & hide! lol

I hope this day finds you well and that your heart will mend. Blessings to you. :O|

Doing okay, thanks! Tomorrow & Wednesday are going to be the toughies!

GOP--you didnt provide anything for me to respond to or I would have. Again, explain to me where I am mistaken and I am happy to debate. If I was a coward why would I be here challenging your assumptions and embellishments and opinions based on incorrect facts? I am ready and willing to debate you and be proven wrong anytime you want. Feisty or Jen doesnt even bother. But you are correct, I am a dull blade as I dont get involved in the personal attacks like you and just ready to discuss. Does it look like I am ready to run and hide? So far all you have done is run and hide from the questions regarding Illinois? Come on Feisty, prove me wrong. GOP, same thing all you did is attack. Show us some cognitive ability and tell me why I am wrong. Try to eliminate the chip on your shoulder and obvious campaign prejudice and try to do whats best for your country not whats best for you.

They must be allergic to crow.

Jody, Iowa - I do not watch FOX News (a fine example of an oxymoron) or listen to Limbaugh and the other right-wing talking heads providing misinformation to listeners and viewers. When one lives in a Bubble of Lies, one should not be surprised to find ones-self on the wrong side of truth. MSNBC's evening line up leans left but they stick to facts, stick to the truth even when it doesn't favor the left.

Define Hypocrite for us.

Questions: What Broadcast Network Hosts Fox News.

Why did Microsoft (MS) distance themselves from NBC.

Why are you even on a NBC Internet Website.

POST THE CORRECT ANSWERS BELOW. YOU HAVE 30 MINUTES. NO LAME EXCUSES.

Pat Boston MA. - Funny isn't it. Hannity I'm sure could really cause a lot of problems since he was used by the GOP establishment to sell the Iraq War.

Questions:

What US Law created the US Policy to Overthrow President Hussein, and what were the Justifications. Who demanded this US Law with US Congressional Appropriations. After this US Law was Amended, what US Military Operations resulted.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - George Santayana

We are raising children in America today who are by and large historically illiterate.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57547353/david-mcculloughs-heroes-of-history/?pageNum=3&tag=contentMain;contentBody

Facts not Opinions. Performance not Appearance. Results not Excuses. Logic not Emotions. Experience not Academic Idealism. - david-475776

Newsvine "Get Smarter Here".

YOU HAVE 60 MINUTES TO POST THE CORRECT ANSWERS BELOW. NO LAME EXCUSES.

POST THE CORRECT ANSWERS BELOW. YOU HAVE 30 MINUTES. NO LAME EXCUSES.

Where did YOU get the impression we are required to answer to YOU?

Take your demands someplace where people give a @!$%# about what you have to say!

Take some anger management classes, you clearly need it!

Loser...

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL,

YOUR GRADE: F MINUS PEGGY BUNDY OF ILL (state of being sick).

3:49 minutes of 4:30 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdQE3F4RgAQ

Your posts PROVE YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THESE MATTERS, and only dump manure on Newsvine's "Get Smarter Here".

What next, Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL, your name calling, you going to call me an "uppy N*****" since I know the answers.

@ kirk;

O.K sir lest start with this one

Obamacare doesnt provide universal coverage and all it will do is reduce benefits as employers will stop providing coverage over time so richer employer provided benefits will be reduced by coverage in government provided or subsidized insurance exchanges and costs will continue to rise.

The solution is simple get insured. We RE NOT TALKING UNIVERSAL ,COVERAGE WE ARE TALI

The bill in fact contains substantial benefits (some might even say giveaways) for small businesses. That starts with a program already under way to offer special subsidies to firms with fewer than 25 employees that want to offer health benefits. As long as your employees earn less than $50,000 on average (law firms, medical practices, and other elite professional partnership are thus ineligible), you can get a tax credit to defray 35 percent of the cost of the insurance if you’re a for-profit firm, and 25 percent if you’re a nonprofit. When the law really gets rolling in 2014, those subsidies rise to 50 percent for for-profits and 35 percent for nonprofits.

Firms with fewer than 50 employees are also exempt from the “employer responsibility” provision of the law that otherwise constitutes the biggest business burden in the legislation.The Affordable Care Act (in)famously requires that all individuals who don’t receive insurance from their employer or from a government program such as Medicare or Medicaid must buy their own insurance on a regulated exchange. Subsidies will be provided to those for whom such insurance wouldn’t be affordable. That could be seen as, in effect, penalizing firms that already offer insurance to their workers. To offset this, the law stipulates that companies whose employees receive subsidies to buy exchange plans must pay a financial penalty. That is supposed to deter firms from responding to the law by simply dropping existing insurance coverage. But the ACA doesn’t make small businesses pay that penalty.

Put the special subsidies and the exemption together, and the result is a law that’s pretty clearly a good deal for small businesses.

hit the save button to late for edited version.lol. Did not know caps was on, the last paragraphs should be quote blocked.

Should read We are not talking about universal health care we are talking about taking responsibilty for oneself .

@ David 475776;

Should I show where you cut and ran on me quite a few times when I proved you wrong inexplicably sir? Give it a rest if someone wants to answer to you they will,if not leave them alone. This is mainly entertainment and debate mixed together give it a rest you rant more than most.

Jody, Iowa,

***********************************YOUR GRADE: F MINUS***********************************************

Coral Taxi,

I am still winning our argument about TOO LAZY, to do the research.

Coral Taxi - Should I show where you cut and ran on me quite a few times when I proved you wrong inexplicably sir?

Yes, please.

Pat Boston MA.,

*************************************YOUR GRADE: F MINUS***********************************************

Voters
Politicians manipulate voters every day with half-truths -- or outright lies -- about taxes, spending and many other issues that directly affect the nation's prosperity.

Too many voters embrace feel-good propaganda that they want to hear instead of learning the basic facts about issues they care about. They should do a better job of calling out dishonest politicians -- and shunning media outlets that stoke political food fights.

http://money.msn.com/investing/11-things-wrong-with-congress

Facts not Opinions. Performance not Appearance. Results not Excuses. Logic not Emotions. Experience not Academic Idealism. - david-475776

Newsvine "Get Smarter Here".

@ david;

This bill will take no rights from you sir. Your constitutional rights are safe and sound, unless you are suspected of terrorism, and I doubt you are David. You are suspected of ignoring facts in your face though.

• 11

• !

#1.143 - Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:21 PM EDT

This is where you could not name one right that the patriot act had taken from you,nor how it has personally affected you. I called you out because you were making it sound as if Obama created and passed this law, when it was the Republicans that created this law. You never answered directly,just digressed oof of it. Just went on to rant some more. This is just one example.

Your graded response=F.

I am still winning our argument about TOO LAZY, to do the research

The argument was who was more informed on Afghanistan, and who recieved info faster us or them. I also pointed out that Americans are more informed than ever with social media, you do not have to work to hard to be informed today. Can you argue with that. But we digress, my goal is to stop your beratement of others.

david475;

This is a better one that you cut and ran on, you could not answer here either because you were wrong sir.

What the hell are you talking about sir?

We lost resources to China? Where do you think we get our rare earth elements from, for our magnets in our missile guidance systems?

Umm China.lol

What strategic positions have we lost to China and Russia? We are where ever we need to be sir, they do not dictate to us. Please just stick to this one thing what strategic positions have we lost sir?

Just answer this for now.

!

#1.74 - Wed Oct 31, 2012 6:40 PM EDT

You cut and ran never answered just went on to attack others.lol But I left you alone sir.Your graded response here grade F---------.

Coral Taxi, first providing incentives to provide health care coverage is different than the quality of the coverage. I can tell you from first hand experience, that employers with less than 50 employees are not going to provide any coverage just because their are incentives to pay for 35%. Why would they do that because they are exempt from the fine. It still means they have to cover 65% and they are better off just letting the employee get coverage from an exchange. Same thing with larger corporations as the fine will be cheaper than providing coverage in most situations. So what will eventually happen is that we will move to a form of universal coverage. But my point is that the quality of your benefits will go down as employer provided coverage and benefits (especially union plans) currently provide far greater coverage and benefits than the insurance exchanges will offer for an equivalent price. I dont think anyone disputes any of this, its just that Obama and the administration needed to trump the benefits first like adding kids until 26 or preexisting coverage benefits before the electorate understood that in order to increase the quality of health care benefits for the 15% that didnt have employer provided health care, it will be necessary to increase the cost to the other 85% and reduce the overall benefits. Its just math and simple supply/demand logic.

The President should hold his ground on the so called "Fiscal Cliff." Let the republican/tea party stand their ground by not working with the President. Let them cut off their noses in spite of their faces. The American people are watching. We can see a sham when we see one. The election proved that.

Republicans need to stop using God to cover-up their racism.

Amen. My Nephew who is 11 told me 2 months ago that his church pastor told his Church group that President Obama was not a real christian.

From the mouths of babes.

A lady I work with went to a huge Baptist prayer service on Nov 5th to pray for President Obama's defeat. She told me on November 7th that God has other plans for the Christian Army. Geeze.

The Pubbies were counting on appointing the next couple of SCOTUS justices. Now? Now their plans are deferred.

A major setback of generational duration, and magnitude for the Pubbies.

Now is the time for Harry Reid to stand up take a load off his brain and work the house to do something that has not been done in three years. Yes, President Obama has sent a budget to Congress and the Senate which sees it first has rejected them all and yet, isn't the Senate controlled by Democrats? What is this you say, a Democratic President sends a budget to a Democratic controlled Senate and it is rejected out right? Yes, and the liberals and those who support President Obama call this Republican Obstructionism. It is time for all Americans to come together and demand that our Government do what is right for the country and not what is right for the political parties. America needs JOBS not welfare. American needs affordable health care not an insurance mandate.

America needs a true leader not a devisive one.

Romney is no longer in the equation, President Obama is now the sole reason for the economic failure of the United States.

Liberals need to understand that 49.8% of Americans do not agree with the liberal progressive adgenda.

Churches are subject to the loss of their tax exempt status if they preach politics from the pulpit. Too bad all the people who experienced this over the course of the election are not willing to testify in court.

It's not about being anti-religion. I respect the right of every person to worship and hold the faith (or lack thereof) of their choosing. I fully believe in freedom of religion. I do not, however, believe that a religious organization should be able to threaten parishioners with hell, fire and brimstone if they do not vote for the candidate of their clergy's choosing. That crosses the line and they can't have it both ways.

Remember 2008 when the Catholic priest in Florida (if memory serves) told his flock that anyone who voted for Obama would not be able to receive communion. That church should have started paying property and income taxes on the spot.

I hope America is ready to move forward now that the election is over. The GOP should have learned its lesson - that the American people expect compromise, not combativeness.

And, yeah, I'm gloating just a little. = )

Oh, my that would interfere with all of the companies Romney and other republicans have in China currently......short memory have you?...............Bush hocked America to China to buy the oil in Iraq......................President Obama has the task of getting America out of hock............he is doing an excellent job..................America needs support............not self-serving whiners who have no sense of the fact that their "reality" is distorted, twisted and destructive.

Yeah, President Obama is still paying W. Bush's bar tab that he ran up.

revengeofpodus the election is over. Your post sounds like its a election comment. Thanks for the laugh!

perhaps he should campaign in china, they own him and us already anyway

Really Revenge-podunk, try getting off your stoop and take a look at who really owns us. It isn't the Chinese.

Revenge - I don't care where he campaigns as long as he raises the tax rate on the upper 1% and anyone else who makes over $250,000 per year (nope, that is not middle class, if you make that much money you are wealthy regardless of where you live in this great nation). the weatlhy want tax breaks, I'm all for giving them to them as long as they use every penny of every tax break to create a good paying, long term, with good benefits job. if you don't use your tax break for that purpose, then you don't get a tax break. Pretty simple to me.

Revenge -- Read:

Much of that debt is held by private sector, but about 40 percent is held by public entities, including parts of the government. Here's who owns the most. Foreign countries listed include private and public investors, according to monthly U.S. Treasury data.

1. Federal Reserve and Intragovernmental Holdings

U.S. debt holdings: $6.328 trillion

That’s right, the biggest single holder of U.S. government debt is inside the United States and includes the Federal Reserve system and other intragovernmental holdings. Of this number, The Fed's system of banks owns approximately $1.65 trillion in U.S. Treasury securities (as of January 2012), while other U.S. intragovernmental holdings - which include large funds such as the Medicare Trust Fund and the Social Security Trust Fund - hold the rest.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/biggest-holders-of-us-gov-t-debt.html

China owns $1.15 trillion of U.S. government debt -- more than any other country -- but U.S. taxpayers actually owe less money to China compared to recent years. China holds 10% of U.S. Treasuries, down from 12% two years ago.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/owns-america-debt-191108431.html

My Nephew who is 11 told me 2 months ago that his church pastor told his Church group that President Obama was not a real christian.

Anybody that hears this in his or her church should find another church immediately. There is no place in any church for this kind of hate.

You need to apply the Republican Thesaurus to statements like these.

"Real" simply means "White" to them. Apply it everywhere they use it and that becomes obvious.

"Christian" just means "American" to them, as they define America as a Christian nation.

White people who vote Republican are also usually referred to as "Patriots" or "Great Americans" by them, while those that don't are called "Socialists" or "Takers".

Your Nephew needs a new church.

49% of Americans voted Obama out of office. He is not loved by all, just half. Remember, half the Americans ....like it or not....think Obama is a knucklehead.

When he taxes 'the rich' and lots of liberals in NYC find out they are 'rich', he will be even less beloved by the liberals.

Don't be fooled, any household income over $150,000 just became rich!

The false polls probably had the opposite effect... With all the projections of a win, many GOP voters stayed home. Many didn't like their party's choice (too moderate) and many didn't care for his religion (the Evangelicals)...

The GOP has gone downhill since the religious right has taken over the helm... It is no longer a political party but more of a revivalist group.

While I agree with much of your comment, I don't put MSNBC, especially Martin Bashir, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell in the same category as FOX, no way; they inform not misinform. The reason is liberals recognize that the evening line-up is entertainment but MSNBC also provides facts and some interesting reporting; when MSNBC hosts make a mistake, they report the error. Not all political talk shows are equal. The difference is in knowing those that are worthy of time spent watching and those that are not.

I like Martin Bashir, he's funny speaks his mind and digs at the republicans every chance he gets. But it's entertainment. I used to like Rachel Maddow when she worked hard to get and report the facts, but in the last year she's been taking a lot of things out of context, giving her personal opinion without facts to back them up. To me that's entertainment. I like Lawrence O'Donnell he's funny and he says what's on his mind regardless of who it may offend. He doesn't seen to worry about his job he tells it like it is, but most of the time it's his opinion but he tells you it's his opinion he doesn't pretend it's fact. that is entertainment.

I do agree most Liberals do recognize entertainment from news. I'm just saying these three so called cable news organizations should be called what they are entertainment not news.

I used to like Rachel Maddow when she worked hard to get and report the facts, but in the last year she's been taking a lot of things out of context, giving her personal opinion without facts to back them up.

Are you referring to her constant reporting of the polls, and giving her "personal opinion" as to which polls had it right and which ones didn't? And it later turned out that her "personal opinion" was right.

Or when she lectures Republicans about how destructive it is to live in their echo chamber? Yes, that part is personal opinion. The job of a reporter is to report both sides of any issue, but when Romney and the GOP stopped having a side that wasn't fantasy, she reported that, too.

All of that stopped being "her personal opinion" on 11/6, when it turned out that she was absolutely right.

I understand that Rachel Maddow has a BS in Government from Stanford and a PhD in PolySci from Oxford University: - Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck are all College drop-outs.

It's a question of where you want to get your facts before you make your own informed opinion.

dahood You sound like my grandchildren. " If I have to do it so should my brother!" You folks crack me up.

DaHooD,

We cannot end up like Greece {period}

It is a scare tactic. We are a sovereign Nation, Greece is not.

We could look like Japan whose debt to GDP is twice what
ours is at over 200% of GDP while ours is at 100% of GDP.

DaHood, obviously you choose to ignore that the reason Greece has problems is it's wealthy have been evading taxes for decades, starving the Greek government of revenue, placing the burden on the middle and lower income earners. Sound familiar? It should, since our wealthy have been allowed to do the same. The rich have been given unfair tax breaks and advantages since Reagan started it, we've been fed the line that tax cuts for the rich creates jobs. Really, why then did Reagan, Bush and Bush create on 21.5 million in their 20 years while Carter and Clinton created 35.5 million in 12 years; add that despite President Obama inheriting a total economic meltdown, he has created (without any help from republicans) over 5 million jobs in less than 4 years compared to Bush 43 creating only 3 million in 8 years.

DaHood-

Our economy is far too strong and our nation's wealth too great to end up like Greece.

As Dennis says, it's just another 'boogy man under the bed' tactic, and looks like you fell for it.

Salud

I think the country has decidef that the 1% needs to paymore. However it might be some unintended ourcomes. The top 1% are greedy so most likely they will raise their prices and pass the tax onto the poor and middle class. Are even worse they will move their businesses overseas where they can pay less tax. They might just layoff people and get it done with less. I got a feeling that us poor and middle class will see higher prices and less money to save but time will tell.

edwardo - trickle down does not work for the middle class, never has, never will, I've lived through trickle down since reagun tried it - all that ever trickled down on my working class family was smelly and brown! If you want your rich friends to have tax breaks, then perhaps they should earn our respect by using those tax breaks to actually,,,, gasp,,, CREATE JOBS! instead of flying to the Cayman to make a bank deposit.

What has been the actual effect of tinkle upon economics? The top 20% has been doing better and the lower 80% of us has been doing worse. Up to 30% worse! That is what has been happening for 30 years. Voodoo economics is a proven failure by its own history.

Over the cliff with them!

inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png (PNG Image, 631x346 pixels)

If Democrats are the Santa Party, that would make Republicans the Ebenezer Scrooge Party.

One of those guys finally decided to see ills of his ways.

Oh, I see. "NO YOU!" isn't a valid argument after you leave middle school, sorry.

Cut them some slack. It is hard to get over a beating that bad. Like Ann Romney said "Stop it Stop it It is hard"

edwardo I know this sucks for you guys but She's is right! To quote you "Get a job."

Why should the Republican party give up on principles to become more like the Democrats with no principles?

"Why should the Republican party give up on principle"

• What principles do Republicans have? Don't even try to tell us they believe in cutting spending, balanced budgets or smaller government --- not after Bush and his Republican Congress. What "principles" did Romney have? He was for and against everything at the same time.

Benramz2... First of all, I would have chosen a larger number to end that screen name with, but I digress... Please name a "Republican principle that insn't either passe or that the Republican candidate didn't publicly compromise on one day or another this election cycle.

Charlie is right, they have no actual principles by definition. They simply try to "appeal" to evangelical voters on the surface while desperately trying to lie their way into other voting blocks. An act that is in and of itself reprehensible (or should be) to the first and blatantly obvious to the second.

I won't be among those offering a "recipe" for "fixing" the Republican party. You can't un-burn the cake by covering it with frosting.

McConnell's goal surely has been updated to now make Barack Obama a two term president. I think he can actually pull that one off.

I said it one year ago, I said before both 2008 -2012 elections, and I'll say it again. Grover Norquist was/is the biggest factor in making today's GOP obsolete with help from the TEA Party. I predicted it before the 2008 and 2012 elections because of one big reality. Unless the GOP dumps their ideology of a Coporate welfare exchange for greater National deficits......their Party is history. Because National deficits ultimately destroy a Nation/World economy..........And the average "Joe" voter knows this.....

It is amazing to me that the Republicans don't know why Romney lost. They will be extinct if they don't change their plaform and ideolgy. Another thing, if they change their views too swiftly, they face the problem of voters not believing them, like we don't believe them now. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place, and they did it to themselves. I would like to see them change their ways, but fat chance of that happening! Romney did the Republicans in with his blatant lies and flip flopping, and the sad part is that the Republicans contributed to it as well. They let their hate for Obama make them lose their minds and what little empathy they had for anyone. They'll just try cover it up with fluff and smiles.