Willard does not know when to quit. Hillary will have to kick his a$$ in 2012. ☺

Just goes to show you how "out to Lunch" Ryan is.

Somthigsaid

You are a Complete Troll. If Hillary chooses to run..She would win &.the Rep/Teas will be even More

unimportant than they ARE NOW! Sorry cupcake, but but your dog can't bark.

I wonder how much money and grief could be saved by real Americans just by deporting those 'Merkin Pipple (aka "Takers") that sign up for secession from the union. We can't just allow them to self-deport because they'd all just chicken out at the last second showing the depth of their resolve and we really need rid of them. They can draw straws for their free one-way ticket to the destinations of choice.

We'll hold them in internment camps until they choose from the provided list.

Sounds harsh... But not nearly as harsh as threatening to secede just because you're too stupid not to. Who would take them anyway. I don't see any country out there saying "Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses, and oh yeah, fill the rest of the container ships with backward racist self-agrandizing evangelist filth from the various wretched under-bellies of 'Merka... Nope, don't see that offered up nowadays...

Better put permanent plumbing in the internment camps, this could take a while.

chick binder that is some of the dumbest stuff I've heard. If a state secedes, THEY TAKE THE STATE WITH THEM. This means they don't need to find them "destinations", as their state simply wouldn't be part of the Union. Please don't comment if you are unable to understand how things work.

Pigotry, I'll check with you in 4 years and see if you still think Obama's win was a win-win for all. 93% chance your african-american, 70% latino, 70% unmarried female or 70% 18-25. Hit that nail on the head...

Barracuda: Cry me a river! You guys remind me of little toddlers who throw temper trantrums when they "lose" and then want to leave and take all their toys with them.

Buh bye!

@chick binder: Really? Internment camps? You really suggested that? Even in jest, that is poor form. You obviously never paid attention in any history class you might have been in while in school. I don't care if you're joking or not, you really ought to be ashamed of yourself. Seriously, take some time for self-reflection. Do a little research about the type of place you just suggested people who don't espouse the same opinions as you should be put. Then do a little research about the type of people that put others in places like that. Then do a little more self-reflection, and ask yourself if that's the type of person you want your kids to grow up around.

Wow.

Thank GOD, this should be the last we hear from Mitt! Don't remeber states petitioning to leave the union when Bush got the election called in his favor. They'll be serving more of the same KOOL-AID in another two years and two more after that. If they keep on the same tone they will keep losing ground in the House & Senate. Pretty sad that the right has alienated themselves from so many of the voting population. Get with the 21st century or just stay in the past and be forgotten!

Texans and other Repugnants and Tampon Baggers who want to secede need to take Romenys advice and just self deport, that secede idea not gonna work

I don't know why I even bother to look at the comments anymore. The dumbocrats continue to show their ignorance and conceitedness even though we should be pulling together to survice the future. They read what they want to read and the liberal media continues to feed their ignorance. Just like Michael Moore says to drive the rich over the "Ficsal Cliff" but yet forgets he too is rich. Oh wait, his a dumbocrat and will probably get special treatment and exceptions since he in the entertainment industry and therefore not one of the "elite rich" Good luck idiots!

Amazed and Irritated, you seem to take issue with how you say the "Left" is acting. Have you looked at Conservatives? I agree that all sides should be working together to work through the issues that face us today. However, that means coming to terms with the election results. No matter how big or small of margins the electorate has spoken. For the better part of a decade we've tried the conservative approached, it hasn't worked. There is a model out there that is tried and true from the Clinton era. This model has and will work. The only thing standing in the way are die hard conservatives that will not come to reality and face the facts. Through out all of this financial and fiscal chaos the rich have not flintched nor have they created the jobs with the breaks they've benefited from. The model is there Conservatives just need to put their wounded pride aside and do what's right for the country! Because if they don't it will be worse the next time around!

Mitt who...? Ryan ....who....?

Before the Republicans want to change the age again to get social security again, here are a few suggestions to consider. Lift the cap on Social Security, now it is $ 108.000 per year. It should be you pay on every dollar earned. For every sports event, movie you attend there be a luxury tax of $ 2.00. $ 1.00 goes into each fund. A friend of mine suggested that these two programs, Social Security and Medicare be in a separate account as it was during President Roosevelt not be part of the federal budget. President Roosevelt understood the greed of politicians. There is no need to raise the age to get Social Security to 65 or so and maybe 70 for the max. Lets fix these programs this way. How about it?? Circulate the word, and lets fix these two programs this way.

There is an account aside from the Federal Budget. It is called the Social Security Trust. Clinton raided it to "balance" his budget and make a "surplus."

Changing the minimum age requirement of Social Security only prolongs the inevitable. As the current system exists, it will go insolvent by 2030.

Raise the age to 65 and 67? Where have you been? That already began years ago. It has been 65 for a long time already.

Full retirement age (also called "normal retirement age") had been 65 for many years. However, beginning with people born in 1938 or later, that age gradually increases until it reaches 67 for people born after 1959.

The 1983 Social Security Amendments included a provision for raising the full retirement age beginning with people born in 1938 or later. The Congress cited improvements in the health of older people and increases in average life expectancy as primary reasons for increasing the normal retirement age.

http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/ageincrease.htm

Obama just put raising the Medicare retirement age to between 65-67 as well, according to five sources with knowledge of negotiations. So says information on the liberal news and blog site, Huffington Post:

According to five separate sources with knowledge of negotiations -- including both Republicans and Democrats -- the president offered an increase in the eligibility age for Medicare, from 65 to 67, in exchange for Republican movement on increasing tax revenues.

The proposal, as discussed, would not go into effect immediately, but rather would be implemented down the road (likely in 2013). The age at which people would be eligible for Medicare benefits would be raised incrementally, not in one fell swoop.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/obama-medicare-eligibility-age_n_894833.html

Whether or not that actually happens is still a question. But, he laid that on the table. I would not be so quick to lay blame on just Republicans for raising the minimum retirement age. That sort of thing is bipartisan.

Michael: A few things to consider here. First, the age for SS was set to 67 if you were born after 1959, and has been for the last 30 years. Raising the age of Social Security was done under President Reagan with a Democratic House of Representatives. That is, it was a bi-partisan compromise with Tip O'Neil. President Roosevelt had no opinion on Medicare as all, since it wasn't signed into existance until about 20 years after he died.
As for your idea of lifting the cap, I think it's a wonderful idea if we index the AMT for inflation (so it hits those as the same level it was supposed to in 1969) too. That way the middle class (earners between about $67,000-$329,000) don't get screwed yet again.

Both the middle and poverty class will be getting screwed again in three years if Obama and a Democrat-controlled Congress get their way. The Senate already tried and Obama supported it. If he implements his energy plan, utility rates will skyrocket (Obama's own word) and everything else made in the USA and/or transported from foreign lands will see additional cost increases to compensate for the rises in fuel and utility costs.

Michael Michael Michael or should it be Moron, Idiot, dipsh, ahem dipstick. The Fica maximum earnings amount has NEVER been $108,000. For 09, 10 and 11 it was $106,800. For 12 it is $110,100. For 13 it is scheduled to increase to $113,700 along with a rate increase back to 6.2%.

You probably won't understand this but the reason the wage has a cap is because this is supposed to be a contributory program. Meaning my contributions benefit me and your contributions (assuming you work - somewhat of a stretch doncha think?) benefit you. So if the wage limit is increased - theoretically the benefits accruing to the worker that earns and pays the additional amount would also increase.

Not that difficult a concept to unnerstand - right?

And your "friend" and his surcharge on movies and sporting events sounds kinda like you do - a total and complete moron.

The number of poor people exceeded the 49 million, or 16 percent of the population, who were living below the poverty line in 2010. That came as more people in the slowly improving economy picked up "low-wage jobs" last year but still struggled to pay living expenses. The revised poverty rate of 16.1 percent also is higher than the record 46.2 million, or 15 percent, that the government's official estimate reported in September.

We are getting jobs....low wage jobs!!

Romney accused Obama of showering gifts to win votes. I guess he doesn't consider offering a 20% tax break to all Americans an attempt to buy votes. It worked for Reagan and twice for Bush but we'd need at least a 50% cut to accept Romney.

Something

Spin, spin, spin...tic tick, tic tick.. the Republicans need a soul search (& fast) or they will be gone/done

I was a Republican. Love to see them come back...with-out the Teabags & the far right religious fanatics.

But I'm not very hope full. We the people spoke Clearly with our votes.

If you look at the popular vote, George Bush was never President.

@chick binder: You might want to do some reading, then. W won the popular vote in 2004 by the same margin that Obama beat Romney.

2004:
Bush 62,040,610 (50.7%)
Kerry 59,028,444 (48.3%)

vs.

2012:
Obama: 62,828,346 (50.6%)
Romney 59,279,514 (47.8%)

Mark: Chuck's statement he'd never have been president would mean he was talking about the 2000 election wouldn't it? Had he lost in 2000 he likely wouldn't have been the candidate in 2004.

Al Gore - 50,999,897 or 48.38%

George Bush - 50,456,002 or 47.87%

@Larry: Yeah, it was a good thing for Bush that Gore lost his home state of Tennessee and therefore the Electoral College.

My point though, is that the popular vote has been about 50/50 in every election since 1996, with the exception of 2008 where Obama beat Bush (even though McCain was the candidate).

My favorite part is that while Massachusetts wanted nothing to do with Mutt after he destroyed their state's economy all he loved to say was "When I was governor of Massachusetts we did this and that and life was a bowl of cherries." He really thought the American citizens were that stupid to buy his deceipt. Guess not, huh Mutt? Well he will have plenty of time to play with his car elevator in the garage now, won't he? And learn how to make cheesey grits which my bet is he totally hated anyway.

Given that (except for Ronald Reagan's two landslides) Mass hasn't voted for a Republican presidential candidate except for Ike (twice), it's really not such a shock. Before that you have to reach back to... 1924 with Calvin Coolidge.

Of *course* he hates cheesy grits. There are no grits north of Chantilly, VA! We eat lox up here!

What is that saying: United we stand, divided we fall. And if you are a conservative, is the right to bear arms(own guns) a freedom? And how exactly would you split this nation; perhaps all those blue votes you put in the north, not realistic. Did you study the 2012 electoral map on the politics front page of this website? There you will notice and observe that in every state there was red and blue votes. The point, there are democrats and republicans throughout this great nation.

What are you talking about. He lost the election by somewhere between 2.5 to 3.0 percent. That is NOT a mandate. Percentage of Electoral votes is meaningless. It's an arbitrary number in a winner take all system that comes no where near telling the real story. Just because a candidate wins 62 percent of Electoral votes does not mean that everyone in those states voted for them. I'm sure you realize that, but saying Romney lost the election by 20 percent is simply not true, and you certainly wouldn't determine a mandate on that. Mandates are determined by the margin of the popular vote, and that certainly is not a mandate in this election.

It is a mandate 60-70% Support Obama

Hoodieboy,

by what math? See FedUpInNYS post above if you're particularly confused.

Of course in 2010 when the republicians & teabaggers took the house they said it was a mandate that the people (meaning us little people) agreed with them. Of course they did run on Jobs Jobs Jobs & proceeded not to do anything, least help anyone get a job. I think when republicians win it suppose to mean that everyone agrees, but when democrats win, they cheated, lied & stealed to get it, never a mandate.

Thank you, m54, for posting exactly why the situation is so toxic. Because both the teabaggers and the libtards do exactly the same thing.

Let's expand on that last point: Romney grew up in Michigan-it went blue, he has a vacation home in San Diego California-California went blue; he has a summer home on Lake Winnipesaukee in New Hampshire-it too went blue, and, finally, his home state of Massachusetts went blue. Also, he was second of presidential candidates in losing their home states by the largest margin; I think he lost 66 percent of that vote. And the real interesting informational nugget: his home town of Belmont Massachusetts....he lost.

California has been a blue state long before Romney ever lived there. Michigan wobbles between blue and red dependent upon the circumstances. Massachusetts has long been a blue state. Vermont usually is a blue state. It is rare for it to go red. I've been around a long time so your hypothesis is unsupportable.

We settled that question almost 150 years ago. States cannot leave the Union.

ha, ha, ha! Too funny.

To be fair, secession is more logical than moving to Canada, which we all got tired of hearing about from 2000 through 2005.

...the wheel turns, folks. Right now the DEMs are near the top. Eventually, the GOP will be ascending again. The problem is that both sides over-reach while they're in power, piss off the other side, and then the partisan backlash becomes toxic.

You 'Red-Staters' Lost. Wanna Secede?

People in a number of solid blue states are among those filing petitions for peaceful secession. Check the list. Hawaii is among them. They have pretty much been blue in their voting for a long time.

I think the original group were mostly red states (with a few being the most welfare states). The others were started by unhappy republician or teabagger voters sad that they had lost. Anyone can put in a petition but they have to get the 25,000 signatures, before they can get a response from the goverment. Actually it dosen't mean anything as states can not exceed.

California is one of the biggest welfare states in the country, and it has long been a blue state.

But, you are right that some of them were started for the wrong reasons. Right of secession was lost after the Civil War, anyway, so far as I can recall. Anyone can correct me if I am wrong or I am misremembering the details.

hoodieboy = troll < the dirt on my shoe.

Don't even try to pull in two tragedies that involve courageous people, who have given more to this country on a single day than you probably have your entire life.

Actually, they want America to be more business friendly than other countries so they can keep their funds here without double taxation, and so that they can grow their businesses. That is good for the economy, too, as it will induce businesses to move facilities back to the US and keep the money in the country.

As to the other aspects you mention, it is more to be in keeping with traditional understanding of family and marriage that has been effect in Western and Middle Eastern society for thousands of years, and to preserve the health and well-being of society, as well as protect others from harm that could be caused to others as a result of what you smoke or do with your body. That is a bad thing?

I am not sure what you mean by where a person can immigrate. People can move and pretty much live wherever they want in the US. If you mean limiting illegal immigration is what they want, that actually is a good thing for the economy, too. Most countries have much harsher penalties against those who illegally immigrate than anything applicable to the US, including death in some cases.

Illegal aliens result in billions of dollars of losses to America and higher and rising medical costs to the rest of us as a result of hospitals recouping losses resulting from treating illegal aliens who never pay them for their services. These costs are passed onto the rest of the community and are a drain to resources and the economy.

Goodness! - you ppl are really wanting of intelligence and good intentions. The existing economy is the biproduct of Bush-Conservative policies. .
If those "business friendly" policies worked so well, what happened in 2008? What's stopping them now?

The middle class began to loose footing over 30 years ago with the onset of Reagan's "trickle down" voodoo economics. The public services that were once enviable in the western world, have dwindled to nothing. Republicans are the first to bark about gov't incompetence, when they are the one's who "underfund those agencies". We all want lower taxes, but we want a strong union - not just for business, but for everyone willing to work..

It's important that no business get's a free ride to just make money while weakening the worker and the economy. A business' obligation includes job creation AND, just as s a farmer saves a seed to be planted for the next season, smart businesses know they must return something to the infrastructure they are using to make money. They must also return something to the system that educated the people they wish to hire. Instead, they've destroyed public education and then complain they have to get "cheaper-smarter labor from abroad.

The Republican party was successful because they used language to bait less informed white middle class American's like you, and the religious fanantics to make up their voter base. Unfortunately for the counry, it worked. Otherwise, how would we have ended up with a simpleton like Bush twice?

Check the demographics profiles. Liberals tend to be better educated than their conservative counterparts. But the Repubs successfully enoculated you dummies against facts and science by referring to the educated as "elite intellectuals". They are UNAmerican bordering on treason with their behavior in the House.

Finally, the bold lies from the right, destroyed the honorable reputations of two honorable men, Kerry & Gore. Dwight Eisenhower, would today be a Demonocrat. and your existing party woud have destroyed him as well.

Oh - your immigaration argument - it's been used verbatim since the beginning of the union, against the Irish, germans, chinese, italians, women, proslavery . . . .

Lastly I dare you to read further and if you still hold to your bizarre hateful logic, I'll know it's hate, not love of country that drives you.

It will be Obama's economy when
1. The results of the insane Bush Tax cuts are reversed
2. When the cost of 2 wars over has is no longer a catastropic drag on the economy
3. When the financial crash, resulting from deregulating the financial market is nutralized,
4. when the House Republicans quit blocking economic policies to put money into economic circualtion (that would have significantly improved both the economy and the ability to start tackling the deficit

Until the the long-term residual damage from Bush is erased, this nightmare we live in, belongs to the House Republicans and Bushe. PERIOD.

The existing economy is the biproduct of Bush-Conservative policies.

Actually, it isn't. The current economy is the result of legislation passed under Carter and Clinton, as well as two years of Democrat control of Congress during the last two years of Bush's administration. Congress handles the economy.

Take a look at Bush's last deficit in 2007, before the Congress' budget went into effect the next year. Fiscal Year 2007 ended with a budget deficit of $168.2 billion, and that was with Bush's policies AND raging war on two fronts. It went up to above $1 trillion each and every year since Democrats had control of Congress and Obama got into the White House. This year's deficit will be over $1 trillion, followed by projected deficits of well over $500 billion each and every year thereafter, and will do so even after the tax cuts expire.

Obama left Gitmo open in spite of promises to the contrary. Obama did not have to keep us in Iraq and Afghanistan. He could have gotten Congress to order them all back home. He did not have to commit planes to Libya.

It sits squarely on Obama's shoulders now, even if you want to weasel your way out of seeing it.

And, Kerry and Gore honorable? I suppose that is a matter of opinion. I see Gore as one of the biggest liars and propagandists in American history, not to mention being one of the biggest hypocrites. Kerry simply was unfit for command and wanted to create a military state with mandatory military service for all who were healthy enough to serve right out of high school instead of the current volunteer military, with mandatory national service for two years for those who weren't.

The results of the insane Bush-Obama Tax cuts are reversed.

...there, fixed.

Another bigot - So I will repeat:

It will be Obama's economy when
1. The results of the insane Bush Tax cuts are reversed
2. When the cost of 2 wars is no longer a catastropic drag on the economy
3. When the financial crash, resulting from deregulating the financial market is completgely nuetralized,
4. when the House Republicans quit blocking economic policies to put money into economic circualtion (that would have significantly improved both the economy and the ability to start tackling the deficit

Until the the long-term residual damage from Bush is erased, this nightmare we live in, belongs to the House Republicans and Bushe. PERIOD.

"Another bigot"? Hahah! Obama in his own words stated that his energy policy and plan would cause utility rates to skyrocket. Those were his own words. And, it is a fact that the Democrats tried to raise the price of gasoline by eliminating subsidies in place to keep gasoline prices lower than that. If you don;t believe it, go look up the relevant legislation for yourself and go back and watch Obama himself state that his plan would cause rates to skyrocket. Those were his own words in front of America!

And, I am somehow a bigot for informing the public? That's rich! I haven't a racist bone in my body and hate racism in all its forms. Bringing up what Obama himself said and what Democrats tried to do to America just last year is hardly bigotry. I suggest going back to school or at least consulting a dictionary (before people try redefining more of it). You obviously do not know the meaning of the term "bigot."

The results of the insane Bush-Obama Tax cuts are reversed.

...there, fixed again. Obama has been President for 4 years with zero budgets. If he "got Osama bin Laden", he owns the tax cuts too. (Just like Nixon put a man on the moon.)

Goodness! .- you ppl are really wanting of intelligence and good intentions. The existing economy is the biproduct of Bush-Conservative policies.

If those "business friendly" policies worked so well, what happened in 2008? What's stopping them now?

The middle class began to loose footing over 30 years ago with the onset of Reagan's "trickle down" voodoo economics. The public services that were once enviable in the western world, have dwindled to nothing. Republicans are the first to bark about gov't incompetence, when they are the one's who "underfund those agencies". We all want lower taxes, but we want a strong union - not just for business, but for everyone willing to work..

It's important that no business get's a free ride to just make money while weakening the worker and the economy. A business' obligation includes job creation AND, just as s a farmer saves a seed to be planted for the next season, smart businesses know they must return something to the infrastructure they are using to make money. They must also return something to the system that educated the people they wish to hire. Instead, they've destroyed public education and then complain they have to get "cheaper-smarter labor from abroad.

The Republican party was successful because they used language to bait less informed white middle class American's like you, and the religious fanantics to make up their voter base. Unfortunately for the counry, it worked. Otherwise, how would we have ended up with a simpleton like Bush twice?

Check the demographics profiles. Liberals tend to be better educated than their conservative counterparts. But the Repubs successfully enoculated you dummies against facts and science by referring to the educated as "elite intellectuals". They are UNAmerican bordering on treason with their behavior in the House.

Finally, the bold lies from the right, destroyed the honorable reputations of two honorable men, Kerry & Gore. Dwight Eisenhower, would today be a Demonocrat. but your existing party woud have destroyed him as well.

Lastly I dare you to read further and if you still hold to your bizarre hateful logic, I'll know it's hate, not love of country that drives you.

It will be Obama's economy when
1. The results of the insane Bush Tax cuts are reversed
2. When the cost of 2 wars over has is no longer a catastropic drag on the economy
3. When the financial crash, resulting from deregulating the financial market is nutralized,
4. when the House Republicans quit blocking economic policies to put money into economic circualtion (that would have significantly improved both the economy and the ability to start tackling the deficit

Until the the long-term residual damage from Bush is erased, this nightmare we live in, belongs to the House Republicans and Bushe. PERIOD.

If Florida were to seceed from the US does that mean that maybe they can learn how to work a voting machine and not report their results days later? This has happened now 3 elections in a row - 12 years!! Why is it so hard for them to count their votes on election night. Ok, maybe even the morning after would suffice but DAYS???

Actually we might not be. We could be stuck with mediocrity for two years, and then people will believe the propaganda and vote out all the Republicans and replace them with a Democrat majority.

Then, it will be two years of mediocrity and two years of misery as peoples' utility costs skyrocket, taxes are raised on the middle class as well as the rich, and Americans pay more than $6/gallon for gasoline.

Finally, yet more of the middle class will be moved over to the poverty class because the Democrats were right that most of the public are too stupid to govern themselves and have need of more government bureaucracy to help them lead their daily lives as society further decays under their watchful eye.