Economy shrunk though.

Morning Jolt – January 30, 2013

By Jim Geraghty

Here's your Wednesday Morning Jolt.

Enjoy!

Jim

Obama Tips His Hand: He Would Rather Have the Immigration Issue to Run on in 2014

Here's the immigration debate in a nutshell: Obama and most of the Democrats want 11 million new Democratic voters, and they want them now. This is why the "non-immigrant visa" and temporary working papers, with a potential path to citizenship that could take 15 years, aren't sufficient for them.

The most infuriating http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/01/29/transcript-of-obamas-immigration-remarks/">bits of Obama's campaign rally to demand the passage of immigration-reform legislation that he hasn't introduced yet:

I'm here today because the time has come for common-sense, comprehensive immigration reform. Applause.) The time is now. Now is the time. Now is the time. Now is the time.

AUDIENCE: Sí se puede! Sí se puede!

THE PRESIDENT: Now is the time.

Gee, you think he had a slogan he wanted to make sure got in the coverage? Later:

We can't allow immigration reform to get bogged down in an endless debate. We've been debating this a very long time. So it's not as if we don't know technically what needs to get done.

Oh, really? Because the whole reason this is controversial is because there is genuine, passionate disagreement about "what needs to get done."

And if Congress is unable to move forward in a timely fashion, I will send up a bill based on my proposal and insist that they vote on it right away.

Oh, really? And what will that do? Hey, Mr. President, if Congress is unable to move forward in a timely fashion in their own compromise put together by both parties, what are the odds that a GOP House will pass your bill? See, this is the indicator that you don't really want a bill passed; you want the issue to run on in 2014, telling Latino voters about how those mean, nasty Republicans blocked citizenship for cousin Luis.

Senator Rubio is underwhelmed:

"I am concerned by the president's unwillingness to accept significant enforcement triggers before current undocumented immigrants can apply for a green card. Without such triggers in place, enforcement systems will never be implemented and we will be back in just a few years dealing with millions of new undocumented people in our country. Furthermore, the president ignored the need for a modernized guest worker program that will ensure those who want to immigrate legally to meet our economy's needs can do so in the future. Finally, the President's speech left the impression that he believes reforming immigration quickly is more important than reforming immigration right. A reform of our immigration laws is a consequential undertaking that deserves to be subjected to scrutiny and input from all involved. I was encouraged by the president's explicit statement that people with temporary legal status won't be eligible for Obamacare. If in fact they were, the potential cost of reform would blow open another big, gaping hole in our federal budget and make the bill untenable."

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/01/29/obamas-immigration-plan-faster-path-to-citizenship-no-border-security/">Bryan Preston: "Obama is not proposing legislation, but the gruel he is offering is designed to pull the debate to the left and weaken the already weak push for real security on the border. The president is putting his cards on the table to undermine American sovereignty. In due time, he'll pull the rug out from under Sen. Marco Rubio and the Republicans involved in the Gang of Eight, and they can be expected to play the fool."

At Reason, Ed Krayewski http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/29/president-obama-jumps-on-bipartisan-sena">notices, "While President Obama now assumes the role of advocate for immigration reform, the last time Washington attempted the endeavor, in 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama did his part to ensure its failure, the kind of partisan play Obama now laments in Congress and says he condemns."

The Weekend WSJ has a truly scary editorial about Rahmbo considering dumping Chicago’s pre-Medicare aged retirees into Barry’s ClunkerCare ACA. I think most people are aware that the lucrative govt union benefits allow many, if not most, employees to retire at age 55 and collect lifetime health insurance coverage from their former employers, AKA THE TAXPAYERS. The ever-increasing cost of this coverage is running up huge deficits in virtually every state and local govt’s budget.

Due to the federal govt subsidies in ClunkerCare, Chicago might have a win-win situation for itself and its pre-Medicare aged retirees. The only ones getting a screwing would be the 53% of people that actually pay federal income taxes. According to a report from a Mayor’s commission released earlier this month, Chicago would be able to offload its share of the premium costs onto the federal taxpayers AND, due to the ClunkerCare subsidies; the early retiree’s would end up paying less than they do now.

The WSJ editorial emends with:

Mr. Emanuel says the city's decision on retiree health benefits will "strike the right balance between meeting the needs of the retirees and providing them health-care choices with protecting the interests of the city's taxpayers." So, let's see. On the one hand, Chicago pays, on the other everyone else does. Which do you think he'll choose?

The Chicago report illustrates once again how ObamaCare provides a convenient mechanism and incentive for employers to transfer health-care liabilities to national taxpayers—and how the costs will explode beyond Washington's phony projections.

Now multiply that by the thousands, if not tens of thousands, of govt entities in the same situation, taking the same dump the problem on the federal taxpayer’s solution.

Gee, I’m SHOCKED that the lefty liberal genius’s that cooked up ClunkerCare didn’t foresee this one.

Or, maybe they did see it all along and were just so happy no one else saw it until now.

Morons.

Rightwing heads will be exploding all across the country …

On or about April 15^th, as reported by Politico, we will see the House make a Motion to Dismiss the Contempt of Congress charges against Eric Holder related to his refusal to comply with Congressional request for additional documentation related to Fast and Furious hearings.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/01/house-holder-may-near-deal-on-fast-and-furious-contempt-155525.html?hp=l1

Seems the righty fascist here are under the influence of something, oh yeah the righty fascist media. The facts are even if Obama and congress grant full immunity, and give these people instant right to vote. (this, by law, can't happen righty fascist) all of them won't vote democratic. Some of you righty fascist seem to be a bit sick in the mind, you offer bitching but no solution to the problem and it is not just going to go away.

"The economy shrank from October through December for the first time since the recession ended, hurt by the biggest cut in defense spending in 40 years, fewer exports and sluggish growth in company stockpiles."-AP

192K doesn't drop the unemploment rate, it's a start, but nothing to brag about. Oh the rest of the ADP:

"Would be" are two key words in that sentence, by the way. ADP also said today that it has revised downward by 30,000 its estimate of job growth in December. It initially said employers added 215,000 jobs. So treat its January figure as a preliminary estimate.-ADP

Gee, Dennis, You are a fountain of happy-happy good news today!!!!!

I guess that's why you chose to ignore the dismal GDP news.

Now that Barry is safely re-elected maybe the American people will start getting the uncooked version of govt economic statistics:

GDP Shows Surprise Drop for U.S. in Fourth Quarter

BUSINESS NEWS

The Associated Press | Wednesday, 30 Jan 2013 | 8:11 AM ET

The U.S. economy posted a stunning drop of 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter, defying expectations for slow growth and possibly providing incentive for more Federal Reserve stimulus.

The economy shrank from October through December for the first time since the recession ended, hurt by the biggest cut in defense spending in 40 years, fewer exports and sluggish growth in company stockpiles.

The Commerce Department said Wednesday that the economy contracted at an annual rate of 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter. That's a sharp slowdown from the 3.1 percent growth rate in the July-September quarter.

The surprise contraction could raise fears about the economy's ability to handle tax increases that took effect in January and looming spending cuts.

Here's the immigration debate in a nutshell: Obama and most of the Democrats want 11 million new Democratic voters, and they want them now.

If this isn't simply emblamatic of a RWNJ's mindset, I don't know what is. Ben LotsaNumbers assumes that because he and all his RWNJ friends are cynical, so too are those on the left. Nothing could be further from the truth. We believe in treating working people in this country who are paying taxes fairly, regardless of their status, because it is the moral thing to do.

Cmon lefty liberals. Have some guts and support who you think the nation's lowest approval rating governor will appoint before he does.

@Dennis --No explosion here. I just know he is guilty and he has to live with the blood on his hands.

But whose heads are exploding are the lefts whose pathetic "Bush lied" theories were smashed when Colin Powell said on Bill O'Reilly that the information that was taken to Congress was the best available intelligence from around the world's best intelligence sources. Bloop there goes that ridiculous talking point made by conspiracy theorists and idiots.

@Jack -- Okay then if you really believe it is all about the economy in this pathway to citizenship, then contemplate a proposal I heard yesterday from a conservative -- Grant immediate amnesty if the penalty for violating our laws is the illegals can not vote for 25 years. If you have your convictions, then that idea shouldn't be a problem for you.

Well, now the gun battle begins. Not literally, but in Congress and it's going to be a battle. LaPierre wants to put armed guards in every school in America. He's an idiot. Can you imaging the cost? Oh, and he wants "THE GOVERNMENT" to pay their salaries and costs. Sounds like a windfall profit for LaPierre's MASTERS, THE GUN AND AMMO MANUFACTURERS. Congress please don't waste your time and our money listening to this Looney Tune.

Immigration! Nice try! Hey look over here. This president and his willing ally the press will do ANYHING not to talk about the economy retracting .1%! When will Obama get his laser back on the economy? Middle Class just got sodomized by Obama for about $2,000 a year Soc Security tax and he still wants to raise taxes, and wait for the Obama-Care to hit. Smokers on average will be hit with an additional $5,000 per person when Obama-Care kicks in! Bend over Obama fans here it comes.

Seems the righty fascist here are under the influence of something,

Johntho,

Any POSITIVE economic news has the tendency to cause them extreme distress! lol

They sound like Goldilocks with PMS - "this" isn't happening fast enough, "this" is taking to long, we can't allow "this" to happen!

See above for examples!

From the article above:

“If Congress is unable to move forward in a timely fashion, I will send up a bill based on my proposal and insist that they vote on it right away,” the president said in Las Vegas yesterday.

How about a two-for one deal.

For every immigrant we let in, we ship out two Teapartypoopers!!!

We now interrupt this program to bring you the following message:

"This problem with illegal immigration is nothing new. In fact, the Indians had a special name for it. They called it 'white people.'"

Jay Leno

Salud

hey Fiesty moron and Ohio state banned from bowl games..

read the front page kids.. US ECONOMEY in DEPRESSION ..

recession = slow down

depression = shrinks..

Looks like the immedeate reaction to Obamas election was a "halt" in economic activity. And the Ever reliable RIGGED labor figures show a show a lowering unemployment rate.. While the FED yesterday said its planning spending 1 trillion .. 1 trillion.. holy spit 1 trillion in the economey until 2017. There obviously in "the sky is falling" mode..

no you dont look foolish right now..

Some of you righty fascist seem to be a bit sick in the mind, you offer bitching but no solution to the problem and it is not just going to go away.

I'm not a righty fascist, but I also don't see any solutions in your post. Pot, kettle, etc.

There can be no immigration reform without fixing the border. Currently, even with all the deportations during his administration, the GAO estimates that only 60% of the crossers are caught. That means that tens of thousands are still crossing into our country. These isn't just latin americans, these are people from all over the world, including the middle east. That makes it a national security issue also.

Over the past few years, obama and his adminstration (dhs, morton at ice, etc) have become more lenient with the border. Moving border patrol stations miles north of the border, not allowing ice to incarcerate known illegals even if they're standing right in front of them, allowing hundreds of acres of OUR land to be closed to the public due to drug trafficers and human smugglers.

This will never happen, but pull our men and women out of the middle east, and put them on the border with live ammo so they can actually protect our nation instead of needlessly losing their lives in a war that will not solve or change anything. The middle east has been killing and blowing each other up for centuries, it's extremely arrogant of our politicians to think we can change that.

Crack down on employers HARD. If they get caught employing illegals, threaten their business license, threaten their lively hood.

The only immigration policy that needs to be reformed is the agriculture. Reform it so that seasonal workers can come up here for the season, without their families for part of the year, then send them home when the season ends. They say they want to come here for work, let them work while it's available, then they leave until the next season.

Amend the 14th amendment to disallow anchor babies, the 14th amendment was NEVER meant for that, it's a loophole.

e believe in treating working people in this country who are paying taxes fairly, regardless of their status, because it is the moral thing to do.

That's fine, so then we can send the majority that are being paid under the table home? Deal.

Your crazy stat of the day: Four of Illinois’ last seven governors have ended up going to prison.

_________________________

"crazy"??

Naaahh, it's just the Chicago way.

@ revengeofPodus -- As you can see by her avatar, she grasping for any "dead cat" bounces in this administration's failed economic policies.

@Jack -- Okay then if you really believe it is all about the economy in this pathway to citizenship

I never insinuated that. Learn to read.

ThomasGrande, sounds like a good swap to me. With immigrants we at least have a chance to get some intelligence, with the tea bag, righty fascist there is none.

LMAO

Remember last summer when gas prices went up so the Teapartyturdblossoms all whimpered how it was the end of the world for President Obama?

Now, today's RW nuttybuddy talking point has the same chicken-little's crying "the sky is falling, the sky is falling"!!!!

I bet not one of them will point out all the good things that have happened for our economy over the last two years.

Same BS, different day for the 72 ounce kook-aid Faux sNewzzzzz talking point repeaters.

YAWN.

You would think by now they would get tired of being Rush's chump.

Salud

@ thomas

the Breaking news the "sky is falling" is the headline on Lean forward MSNBC..

you make stupid look smart kid

LaPierre wants to put armed guards in every school in America.

For five years, we have heard that government doesn't create jobs. Yet here we have LaPierre demanding the government create jobs. For five years, we have been told that government workers are the lowest, laziest life forms on the planet. Yet here we have LaPierre suggesting we hire hundreds of thousands of the lazy dumb asses, arm them, and place them in our schools. For five years, we have been told that government workers are the biggest drain on our national economy (followed by illegal immigrants), and yet again, we have the right wing wanting to increase the size of the government workforce, which we must conclude, will through us into a national depression.

So what up conservies? Why this push to increase the government workforce when they are one of the top evils of our society?

In 1986 President Reagan signed a Comprehensive Immigration Reform package to deal with the Illegal Immigration problem "Once and for all". At that time, the numbers actually seemed manageable by today's standards.

Then for the next 25 years the United States failed to enforce their own Immigration laws and brought us to the point we are at today.

Any action that fails to close our borders and enforce existing laws is useless.

The other interesting note is that Republicans thought that Reagan's plan would help them with the Hispanic vote. Seemed to be a reasonable expectation. But in 1988 George H.W. Bush actually received a lower percentage of the Hispanic vote than Reagan did in 1984.

So, as I have heard here before....

"What Difference Does It Make?"

@Jack -- I understand that but that is how most of the left is trying to sell the advantages of giving illegals citizenship.

@Red -- I know you are smarter than that. The government's job is to "protect" its citizenry. Hopefully you have a better argument than that. Don't forget that Boxer proposed legislation that does basically that. Why would you question bipartisanship or do you really want it for the "good" of our country??? Or is it just lip service?

Alex, are you the pot or are you the kettle? Righto fascist like you are both. You don't even know what you are. At least you think you are. There are solutions and I think the president's plan is a good start. It is not amnesty, it is a path. Not and easy path but a path. These people are workers and they do buy to address their needs. Every other group of people including who ever brought the righty fascist to our shores was accepted. They went to work and built our nation and the current group of immigrants are no exception. One thing that won't work is deporting 11 million people, it is just not possible.

Smokers on average will be hit with an additional $5,000 per person when Obama-Care kicks in! Bend over Obama fans here it comes.

Go ahead and bend over, geo. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy . . . .

There is a solution to the problem Johntho. The problem is that for America to stand up and let people know that we are a nation of laws and that they can't violate our border with virtually no consequences would require us to have a spine. Which clearly we do not. Instead, we are given in to what "feels good". Helping out the "world's poor", etc. And of course the fact that we simply cannot deal with what the long term consequences of giving these illegals amnesty will mean. Because there are immigration laws that allow immigrants to get their relatives through the system faster to keep families united, another "feel good" law, the approximate 12 million will in a few years turn out to be 25-30 million. They will predominately be under/uneducated low wage earners. They will saturate the labor pool suppressing wages for decades, ensuring the class divide is bigger and stronger than ever.

But hey, let's give that alcoholic living on the street another beer. Go ahead, you'll "feel good" seeing the guy satisfied.

15 million new US citizens, Obama-care kicking in without adding ANY docters, no jobs, economy shrinking, Social Security taxes a lot higher, less discretionary income, and a President without a clue, sounds like a plan for success. Ahh, but more dependents, the Obama way!

Alex, are you the pot or are you the kettle? Righto fascist like you are both. You don't even know what you are. At least you think you are.

I am so glad that you are here to point me in the right direction. I feel so blessed to have an obviously extremely literate individual such as you to help me on this path through life.

It is not amnesty, it is a path. Not and easy path but a path.

Any path that does not go through our current immigration laws is amnesty. These back taxes, these fines, etc are just going to make illegals not come forward. Even with Reagan's amnesty, there was a decent percent that never came forward.

These people are workers and they do buy to address their needs.

I guess in my rural town big screen tv's, $300 sneakers and new vehicles are what they 'need'.

Every other group of people including who ever brought the righty fascist to our shores was accepted. They went to work and built our nation and the current group of immigrants are no exception.

ummmm the current group is the exception.

One thing that won't work is deporting 11 million people, it is just not possible.

It'll never happen because it'd be political suicide, but something the right thing to do is the hardest thing to do.

.1% retraction due in part to Hurricane Sandy, the unnecessary Fiscal Cliff scare tactis that fed uncertainty. Certain to see the GOP revel in the news and or falsely pitch the reason for the drop is because their guy lost. Other GOPers might also falsely state that the economy retracted in the 4th quarter of 2012, because the rich will begin to pay a fairer share in 2013 after the 4th quarter ended.

from - NBCNews economy watch

The weakness may be because of one-time factors, though. Government spending cuts and slower inventory growth subtracted a total of 2.6 percentage points from growth. Both are volatile. And they offset faster growth in consumer spending, business investment and housing.

For the whole of 2012 the economy grew 2.2 percent.

The economy was slammed by a monster storm in late October, which caused extensive damage along the East Coast, which was expected to have cut around 0.5 percentage point off fourth-quarter growth.

Businesses, caught with too much inventory in their warehouses in the third quarter, slowed their stock building in the final three months of the year.

That slowdown sliced 1.27 percentage points from fourth-quarter GDP growth. That was the biggest drag in two years. Excluding inventories, the economy grew at a 1.1 percent rate, slowing from the third quarter's 2.4 percent.

__________

Okay, after looking at this data could it be possible that we must be careful about how we go forward with the budget battles and sequester? I have been one to always say that the sequester must go forward with no attempt to lessen its cuts. I have said that all defense cuts and cuts to government spending must go forward to help reduce the deficit. This could just be a minor set back, however, I could be wrong. Perhaps our economy can't survive the sequester? If government cuts put in place in 2012 affected our growth, maybe we should lessen the brunt of the cuts to non-defense discretionary spending?

Any opinons?

Dennis, good news. I see the right-wing deniers are out in force; these are no doubt, the same ones who denied the polls and insisted Mitt Romney would win and win big.

2007 immigration reform? Really? That's the attack on then Senator Obama. That 2007 legislation died in the Senate before it ever went to the floor for debate or amendment. Objecting to something in it or not in it does not mean a darn thing. As for the article, excuse me, Mr. Jim G opinion writer, but that's just the latest right-wing conspiracy theory yet. Mr. G ignores the little matter of an economic near depression and an obstructionist GOP while trying to create some theory that President Obama doesn't want immigration reform. That's just Bull Puckey thrown out by a right-winger op ed writer who wouldn't credit President Obama for anything!!

Then along comes the "failed" economic policies talking points which totally ignore than unemployment is down considerably and the stock market is nearing their all-time pre-great recession level; and fails to acknowledge that the economy would be in even better shape if the GOP had been willing to help.

Jack in Portsmouth - Don't smoke, never have! Don't you think that is discriminating against smokers? What's next obesity? And then what? Hopefully for you it won't hit the senile.

RevengeofPodus

@ thomas

the Breaking news the "sky is falling" is the headline on Lean forward MSNBC..

you make stupid look smart kid

Still haven't gotten the memo.

msnbc = Truth, Justice, the Real America

Faux sNewzzzzz = Rascism, Hate, Lies, Ignorance.

Salud

The economy contracted because of cut backs in Defense? What would Ayn Rand say? Time to look for new markets for your technology, defense contractors!

Breaking News from today's gun debate on Capital Hill;

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, National Rifle Association C.E.O. Wayne LaPierre warned that the N.R.A. would vigorously oppose any legislation that “limits the sale, purchase, or ownership of politicians.”

“Politicians pose no danger to the public if used correctly,” said Mr. LaPierre, who claims to have over two hundred politicians in his personal collection. “Everyone hears about the bad guys in Congress. Well, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a vote is a good guy with a vote. I’m proud to be the owner of many of those guys.”

Mr. LaPierre’s comments drew a sharp rebuke from Carol Foyler, a politician-control advocate who has spent the past twelve years lobbying for stricter limits on the sale of politicians.

“Right now, a man like Wayne LaPierre can walk right into Congress and buy any politician he wants,” she said. “There’s no background check, no waiting period. And so hundreds of politicians are falling into the hands of people who are unstable and, quite frankly, dangerous.”

In addition to limiting the sale of politicians, Ms. Foyler said, it is time for society to take a look at the “sheer number” of politicians in the U.S.: “There’s no doubt that we would be safer if there were fewer of them.”

For his part, the N.R.A. leader ended his testimony by serving notice that he would “resist any attempt” to take away the hundreds of elected officials he says are legally his.

As if to illustrate that point, he clutched Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) close to his chest and bellowed, “From my cold, dead hands.”

msnbc = Truth, Justice, the Real America

LMFAO

The upcoming TV show 'The Americans' featuring Tomas Grande

RevengeofPodus..

read the front page kids.. US ECONOMEY in DEPRESSION ..

recession = slow down

depression = shrinks..

A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth. There is no technical definition of a depression, but it's certainly not one quarter of -0.1% growth. The Bush Recession that ended in 2009 came very close to being a depression, though. The fourth quarter of 2008, the GDP growth rate was -8.9%, or 89 times faster than the rate that the Obama haters are desperately wishing was terrible.

Yellowdog Mark, my view is and always has been that our deficit and debt are long-term problems not short-term ones. I was opposed to the unfunded spending by Bush 43 and the GOP just as I was to those by Reagan and Bush 41 yet I recognized that when recessions hit, deficit spending by government is crucial to recovery. Cutting too much government spending during economic recession and recovery, "austerity", had a negative impact on state budgets in 2011; those states were just beginning to emerge from the depths of the near depression and so was our economy. Our economy slowed nationally because Congress would not pass additional stimulus bills. By not passing more, thanks to the GOP Senators, additional state stimulus funding and federal spending in 2011, the states were forced to cut more spending which cost more jobs which further slowed the economy.

The sequester, in my opinion is a disaster waiting to happen. The sequester was intended as a threat to get Congress, mostly republicans, off their collective obstructionist rearends and sensibly look at spending and long-term reduction. While we need to cut spending on defense and focus on building more than just our military and weapons of war plus there are probably other general spending that could be reduced, we should not use a hatchet and it should not be all at once. If the sequester cuts happen or if the draconian cuts proposed by Paul Ryan and his group of phony fiscal hawks take affect, this country will end up in a double-dip recession. We need only look at Great Britain, Greece and other European country's stuggles to see the impact of too much austerity, too soon. Britain is in a triple-dip recession. It is much harder to recover from austerity than it is to recover from spending too much.

myname123,

How come all the posts from name-calling children on here are also from the left?

Are you blind or just mentally challenge. You mean to tell me you have not seen any right wing conservatives like yourself call someone else silly names. Wow!!

From the NBC article:

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economywatch/us-economy-contracts-first-time-3-1-2-years-1B8174851

Government spending tumbled at a 6.6 percent rate, as defense outlays plunged at a 22.2 percent pace, wiping out the previous quarter's gains. Government subtracted 1.33 percentage points form growth. The decline in defense spending was the largest since 1972.

That darn Obama with his "out of control" spending spree. If the Republicans get their way, government spending will be slashed even more, and we WILL have the double-dip recession the wingnuts are all praying for, just like the one that the conservative government created in Great Britain.

This headline is specially on the Latino website of NBC... http://nbclatino.com/2013/01/29/obama-no-more-debate-pass-immigration-reform-now/ ...... No More Debate... Pass It Now

Why is there double standard talking? Appeasing one group while continuing to divide the Country. Illegal Immigration is not going to vanish or go away, yet it must be handled appropriately. If there are already laws addressing this kind of situation, why are more needed? It is simply a matter of following the existing guidelines. Blow the whistle and start having them form their lines in order to begin the process. Not only will it start to get the process underway, but considering the mass volume, it will also create more jobs.

I have two stories to share. The first has to do with my son's friend. He is a high school kid that attends school for at least half of the year. When it is time he and his family pack up home and head up to the northern states in order to harvest/pick crops. If Americans truly wanted to work, the need for that family to travel would not happen as those places would be filled.

Another comes from an acquaintance. She was talking about the daycare her son attends. When asking the workers of the facility how her son did, she was simply told that ' he was better '. I looked at her and asked, ' Better than what?". As a parent, you want to know how your child is doing, how he is adjusting, how he is spending his day. Due to the ' bitchiness' of the ladies, she decided to look for someone that would take care of her son at home. In a whispered voice, she confessed a thrill at having found someone through a family she knew. This lady had worked for that family for near 7 years and she would now be helping this acquaintance. She said she was ok with her son learning spanish, then followed it up by saying the lady is indeed Illegal.

There are people that are here for one reason or another. Most are very hardworking individuals/families. If the need wasn't out there, then they would not be here. They should face fines and penalties, but if they are going to work in this country, they should be made to contribute in the financial aspects too. They should follow the process just like everyone else, but only AFTER the border is secure. Amazingly enough, at this point, I have heard it was already secure. IF that were the case, The United States of America would not be faced with this situation right now.

Jody - Yes I agree, the worst thing to do while in a recession is to cut spending. That is why I was for the stimulus (actually wanted more spending and less tax cuts). Don't understand how the EU can become healthier by cutting more government spending if their private sector can't sustain thier economies.

Now in this case, in the US we are not a recession because it is only a small dip in one quarter. I believe this is a small setback. I agree our debt is a long term problem, but it may be easier to address it now. Obviously it can't be all brought down immediately. Just as the case can be made for government stimuls and spending due to low interest rates right now, you can argue it will be easier to try to address deficits now before they become unmanageable.

I think that even with this minor dip, we will continue to stay on a path to recovery. A recovery that will allow some cuts to our defense and non-defense discretionary spending. It will be intersting to see what happens in March.

how well does Keynesian economics work again?

Caesar Augustus-

LMFAO

The upcoming TV show 'The Americans' featuring Tomas Grande

Good one!!! You know I'm just egging people on.

BTW, is "The American's" on Faux owned by News Corporation's Fox Entertainment Group?

Viva la resistance!!!

Salud

Time for a repost.

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

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.

Interesting Foreplinger,

While I'm not a republican, I am a conservative. I can easily find very similar articles insulting and describing liberals and progressives.

myname,

Liberals do NOT care, they just want more voters.

You are exactly the sort of RWNJ cynic that I was talking about in post #1.7.

They want a one party system, and they will do anything to have it.

If you paid any attention at all, you would know that Liberals on this site regularly bemoan the fact that there is no longer a viable, center-right Republican Party. We welcome the opportunity to exchange ideas with rational people, even if their views differ from ours. That's what makes this country great.

In fact, it is the Tea Party and RWNJs (often, one and the same), the 1%, and Corporate America that want a one-party system.

ForePlinger--EXCELLENT post!

BTW, is "The American's" on Faux owned by News Corporation's Fox Entertainment Group?

nope NBC.

actually it's FX but close right? minus the vowel.

Libby Reasoning is pretty funny.

Caesar Augustus asks:

"how well does Keynesian economics work again?"

I've issued this challenge many times. Show us one single economy where Keynesian Economics has EVER been implemented. Until such time as his theory is put into practice no one can say whether it works at all.

As usual, your comment is just another of your snarky, worthless drive-by's.

@Dog

Okay, after looking at this data could it be possible that we must be careful about how we go forward with the budget battles and sequester? I have been one to always say that the sequester must go forward with no attempt to lessen its cuts. I have said that all defense cuts and cuts to government spending must go forward to help reduce the deficit. This could just be a minor set back, however, I could be wrong. Perhaps our economy can't survive the sequester? If government cuts put in place in 2012 affected our growth, maybe we should lessen the brunt of the cuts to non-defense discretionary spending?

Any opinons?

The effects of the sequester will be cancelled out by the $50 - $60B of Sandy Recovery spending.

You know both parties are simply addicted to spending. If a family has to fix it's roof it cancels vacations for the next couple of years or cuts back on clothes but it finds a way to pay fr the emergency rather than just putting it on the credit card again. The Federal government simply prints more money. It doesn't matter if it's Reagan, Bush or Obama. The spending is simply out of control right now. We currently have an Administration claiming that it has cut spending by 1.2T. In fact it has simply altered the CBO's future budget and is claiming savings on what it would have spent. Only in Washington does accounting work this way.

Go look at Nate Silver's blog on government spending, now 40% of GDP (Federal + local). The explosion is in healthcare at both levels. Unless that is brought under control by paying providers less we are going bankrupt.

I've issued this challenge many times. Show us one single economy where Keynesian Economics has EVER been implemented. Until such time as his theory is put into practice no one can say whether it works at all.

Haven't we been running Keynesian economics since 9/11/2001? I believe we have had a deficit since then. Bush borrowed for two wars, cut taxes and created Medicare D. How is that not stimulative? Even Christine Romner claimed tax cuts were stimulative in her proposal for the 2009 stimulus, along with the additional public spending. Was the payroll tax cut not stimulative? Is the Feds QE1, QE2, QE3, twist etc not stimulative?

When will you admit that Keynes may just be wrong?

As usual, your comment is just another of your snarky, worthless drive-by's.

much like yours, just not as long winded and self serving.

True Communism has never been implemented either however we still label Cuba Communists.

back to your white tower

Alan I dont even bother with Davide Walker. He's too busy gawking at his own reflection

How come all the posts from name-calling children on here are also from the left?

Apparently you don't visit here often.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/29/16753708-first-thoughts-obama-to-embrace-senate-deal?threadId=3655541&commentId=73782882#c73791271

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/29/16753708-first-thoughts-obama-to-embrace-senate-deal?threadId=3655541&commentId=73782882#c73782733

These are just two of the charming posts from the oh so pleasant right wing posters.

Caesar Augustus:

Can't do it, I see. All you got is nuthin'. How about showing us an economy where Keynesian Economics has been partially implemented?

You're in way over your head and you know it.

Alan - The concern is that by bypassing the vacation to repair the roof, what will happen to the house occupants? Now I now you were using a quick analogy, but our government spending and obligations are not frivilous expenditures like a vacation. All agencies will be cut, social services, regulatory services etc. My fear is that without a full infusion of funding what could happen to those who depend on those services? I am becoming torn about my previous position on the sequester. However, much like I never feared that taxes would go up on everyone, even though I advocated for it, I believe the sequester will be lessened in both the defense and non denfense discretionary realms. Perhaps that is actually a good thing.

Agree about the health care costs, understand both you and I would've liked more competitive measures in HCR. We really can't pay providers less can we? The rising costs will continue to drive up premiums in the private market which will utlimately drive up prices in medicare and medicaid (to ensure doctors don't stop accepting people). That being said, the federal programs are more efficient cost wise than private insurance so it looks like medicare and medicaid needs to be strenghtened. I'm glad that they aren't part of the automatic sequester cuts.

Caesar Augustus-

actually it's FX but close right? minus the vowel.

I Googled FX Network.

It's owned by Rupert.

Gee, a RW media outlet producing a show (much like the show "24") that perpetuates anti-liberal stereotypes.

LOL.

Salud

I just KNEW I could count on the tighty righties to be popping corks this morning on news that the economy contracted.

But let's not celebrate too quickly, boys. It takes 3 (count them THREE) quarters to be considered a DEPRESSION. Even Bush's boondoggle didn't qualify as a depression. Although most experts agree it was catastrophic!

So, let's put the streamers away, bake the cake another day and hold off on the @!$%#ing party. Although, we sure do know what pulls you @!$%#s out of a funk. Too bad America has to fail to make you numbnuts feel a little better.

Four more years of your utter misery is just the tonic I needed today!

hahahahahahahah LMAO at YOU little joey!

all of the states money goes into government spending,

This is not a fundamental of Keynesian economics, although it is what conservatives love to believe.

poison America's children with drugs manufactured and distributed by Mexico,

When did the Meth Belt become part of Mexico?

Agree about the health care costs, understand both you and I would've liked more competitive measures in HCR. We really can't pay providers less can we? The rising costs will continue to drive up premiums in the private market which will utlimately drive up prices in medicare and medicaid (to ensure doctors don't stop accepting people). That being said, the federal programs are more efficient cost wise than private insurance so it looks like medicare and medicaid needs to be strenghtened. I'm glad that they aren't part of the automatic sequester cuts.

This is where we part ways. The private sector can do what it wants. It does not affect the Federal budget. As to Medicare and Medicaid how are they efficient and how would you strengthen them? They are not efficient as their costs are increasing as fast as the private sector. What I believe is the solution is for the government to guarantee certain services, and as a large payer negotiate prices with providers. If a consumer wants more then they can buy supplemental insurance.

the principle is to funnel money through the government to create job growth,

Try again. This is simply one option during recessive periods to stimulate economic growth. No where does Keynesian policy say this must be a full time measure.

myname,

I'm surprised you know your own name. Somebody says "white", you say "black", and that's as far as your knowledge extends.

And yet it is still the principle.

Here is the basic fundamental behind Keynesian economics. If RI only follows part of the model, it isn't a failure of economic model, it is a failure of the government of RI.

Keynes advocated what has been called countercyclical fiscal policies, that is, policies that acted against the tide of the business cycle: deficit spending when a nation's economy suffers from recession or when recovery is long-delayed and unemployment is persistently high—and the suppression of inflation in boom times by either increasing taxes or cutting back on government outlays.

Davide Walkehr. 2001 to present. SPEND SPEND SPEND!

I Googled FX Network.

It's owned by Rupert.

Gee, a RW media outlet producing a show (much like the show "24") that perpetuates anti-liberal stereotypes.

LOL.

Like you said you always have NBC/MSNBC to get the full 'truth'.

Alan - Medicare is administered by the government it is more efficient (less expensive) because it is not putting profits above providing services. In short, overhead costs are lower because the government doesn't have to include big bonuses to CEO's in their overhead - among other things.

The costs for medical procedures, medicine, equipment are going to be the same between the two but the savings comes from the overhead differences. To get real savings though you need to bring health care costs down...

___________

Paul van de Water of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explains, the public debate has focused on transforming Medicare and Medicaid in the coming years, constraining cost in the very programs that are the most cost-efficient. If anything, the opposite should be true, and more and more of the system should be converted into public programs to increase the risk pool, allow for greater bargaining leverage on prices, and provide stability.

These data belie the claim that spending for Medicare and Medicaid is “out of control” and that the programs must be fundamentally restructured by adopting Medicare premium support or converting Medicaid into a block grant.

Medicare and Medicaid spending per enrollee will grow at rates of 3.1 percent and 3.6 percent, respectively, over the next ten years — well below the projected growth rate of 5.0 percent for private insurance and somewhat less than the growth of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. (See figure.) John Holahan and Stacey McMorrow of the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan research organization, base these estimates on the latest projections of national health expenditures prepared by the Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

I'm sure you can find Cato institute reports to disagree.

HELLO!!.....It is all a big hoax folks, neither the president or eight Congressman's so-called comprehensive immigration reform packages will change anything.

How many of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants will voluntarily expose themselves and agree to submit to background checks, pay fines, back taxes, learn English, get a drivers license, auto and health-care insurance and get at the back of the line ?.....In reality, when all the drama and political hoopla is over, there will still be roughly 12 million and growing illegal immigrants in the US.......

Caesar Augustus:

Keep digging that hole. Keynesian Economics has quite a number of components. Spending is merely one of them. When you go to the store, you spend, spend, spend. That hardly is an example of Keynesian Economics.

David Walker

Keynes's idea that full employment could be achieved through inflation, which was thought to be proven by the so-called "Phillips Curve," was also discredited after the experience of stagflation during the 1970s--high unemployment accompanied by high inflation.

AS demonstrated during both the thirties and recently with the stimulus, the result is short term gain at best.

Houston!

A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth. There is no technical definition of a depression, but it's certainly not one quarter of -0.1% growth. The Bush Recession that ended in 2009 came very close to being a depression, though. The fourth quarter of 2008, the GDP growth rate was -8.9%, or 89 times faster than the rate that the Obama haters are desperately wishing was terrible

An yet... her we stand with negative growth in the GDP for the fourth quarter of 2012...

Weren't we supposed to be in a health (albeit slow) recovery? Isn't that what I heard for the current administration, especially around election time?

How exactly is NEGATIVE GROWTH IN THE GDP ANY RECOVERY AT ALL!

Sounds like a step backwards to me!

The Fuhrer says we are in recovery... then we are in recovery. NEXT! Here comes guns.. no immigration... no... what?

@Dog

Alan - Medicare is administered by the government it is more efficient (less expensive) because it is not putting profits above providing services. In short, overhead costs are lower because the government doesn't have to include big bonuses to CEO's in their overhead - among other things.

Actually, the claim that Medicare and Medicaid is more efficient is because they do not have to include certain functions as costs, the obvious one being premiums that are collected by employers / IRS. These costs are not included in their overheads thus making them seem more efficient. When was the last time the SSA or HHS cut staff because of productivity improvements?

And this is before we look at fraud detection costs which are incurred by the FBI.

Medicare and Medicaid spending per enrollee will grow at rates of 3.1 percent and 3.6 percent, respectively, over the next ten years — well below the projected growth rate of 5.0 percent for private insurance and somewhat less than the growth of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. (See figure.) John Holahan and Stacey McMorrow of the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan research organization, base these estimates on the latest projections of national health expenditures prepared by the Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

As to the projected costs of these programs that is wonderful, although I'm sure you'll agree that the Urban Institute is not non-partisan. However, that is a projection whereas if we check history we see that this is not the case

Specifically, overall government spending on entitlement programs increased at a 4.8 annual rate in the 40 years between 1972 and 2011, net of inflation. Health care spending increased at 5.7 percent per year (and federal government spending on health care increased at a 6.7 percent pace). In contrast, the gross domestic product grew at a rate of 2.7 percent over this period, with tax revenues increasing at about the same rate as the G.D.P.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/what-is-driving-growth-in-government-spending/

Government spending on healthcare grew faster and this can only increase at a macro level because of the baby-boomers. So far you have not refuted my original statement that unless we cut the amount we spend on healthcare, the Federal Government will go bankrupt. (...and this is before spending for ACA, with it's low-ball projections).

SickOfTheBickering

How exactly is NEGATIVE GROWTH IN THE GDP ANY RECOVERY AT ALL!

Maybe because the private sector reportedly added 190,000 jobs this month. And a negative -0.1% rate is essentially a zero rate that's been attributed to cuts in major cuts in government spending and other temporary factors. So maybe the recovery is still ongoing, even though I know you're praying real hard for a recession.

Houston,

I think SOB is reading challenged - he makes "...for the fourth quarter..." sound like it was four quarters of contraction. It was ONLY the 4th quarter that contracted. And, as you pointed out, at a miniscule amount attributed to Government cut backs.

But let's not forget that GOVERNMENT isn't the ANSWER. Government is the PROBLEM. Which is why Republicans are determined to fulfill their own 'prophecy' every time they get government power. Yet another of many reasons to NEVER vote Republican!

Id like to know how that is different than what i said, you just dont like that im right becasue you want to believe it is effective and hate the idea that i gave proof for

That's why I responded as I did. RedDevPS keeps trying to explain it to you, but it simply doesn't sink into your thick noggin. RedDev is saying something "different" than what you are saying.

Here we go, folks, more decrees from the Emperor-in-Chief. I hope the lefties enjoy watching all their right being taken away and supplanted by more and more government programs and higher and higher taxes.

Alan -- Fraud is perpetrated by the PRIVATE sector. Doctors, dentists, medical equipment providers etc. They do things such as up-coding, merging and price fixing and on and on it goes.

EVERY Administration has used a quasi Keynesian economic model. In every single administration you will find examples. Further more, the United States has never come close to fully implementing Keynesian ecomonics. If we did we would have set aside surplus in good times. Hasn't happened.

Simple Theory wrote:

"Keynes's idea that full employment could be achieved through inflation, which was thought to be proven by the so-called "Phillips Curve," was also discredited after the experience of stagflation during the 1970s--high unemployment accompanied by high inflation.

AS demonstrated during both the thirties and recently with the stimulus, the result is short term gain at best."

Again, Keynes' Theory was not put to the test in either of the cases you cited, nor has it been tested anywhere else in the world. Virtually, every time I ask the question what I get is some "answer" that turns on government spending.

Stagnation and inflation are recurring themes in any number of economies, none of them modeled along the lines suggested by Keynes. Further as DCIA points out at 1.83, when economies have run a surplus, additional funds were not collected for that "rainy day" as theorized by Keynes.

Keynes Theory has NEVER been put to the test.

Fraud is perpetrated by the PRIVATE sector. Doctors, dentists, medical equipment providers etc. They do things such as up-coding, merging and price fixing and on and on it goes.

And the private sector, Insurance Companies, pay for their own detection. I was simply pointing out that the HHS does carry the cost of fraud detection, so when you make a comparison of efficiency and overheads, make sure it is an apples to apples comparison. Nice deflection though as it has nothing to do with the conversation between myself and Yellowdog.

EVERY Administration has used a quasi Keynesian economic model. In every single administration you will find examples. Further more, the United States has never come close to fully implementing Keynesian ecomonics. If we did we would have set aside surplus in good times. Hasn't happened.

So you would agree that we have been running a Keynesian deficit model since 2001? As to your surplus comment I completely agree. Keynesian economics is like Marxism, it assumes a benevolence that simply does not exist in reality. There is not a government in history, nor in the future, that will cut spending in a counter-cycle manner, when times are good. The reality is that when times are good, we can afford this new program, and when times are bad, we have to spend to boost demand.

Marxism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"....nice theory...not going to happen in reality.

Simple Theory -- Do tell, what economic model do you favor?

Alan -- This Administration's economic policies are no different than any other Administration when it comes to using stimulative measures. Period. BTW -- Not deflecting at all. Just saying Private sector is no model "citizen", and in fact, they rob the taxpayer if given a chance.

You really this upset that i know dems only care about creating voters, and not the actual people? truth hurts, get over it.

No, what really upsets me is people who can't write a grammatically correct, intelligent sentence. You're just talking to hear yourself talk, and it doesn't matter what anyone says because your mind is zipped close.

If Hillarity will not shut the door on a run in 2016 the nation SHOULD! She is NOT entitled and her stint as SoS was just a four-year long government funded series of world tours and photo ops with NOTHING to show for it.

I think the Republicans are making a mistake by reading too much into the Hispanic vote for Obama in 2012.

In 2008, when McCain made a big play for the Hispanic vote by proposing a 'Comprehensive Immigration' plan, he only got 31% of the Hispanic vote.

In 2012, when Romney didn't court the Hispanic vote, he got 27% of the Hispanic vote. That's not a very big difference - only about 1 million extra votes for Obama out of 127 million votes (only about 0.78 of 1%) in 2012.

Pandering to the Hispanics for votes is not going to make that much of a difference.

The REAL difference in 2012 was the estimated 12.9 million extra votes that Obama got from those on public assistance (the Welfare Vote). I guess adding another 17 million people (a 57% increase) to the welfare program under Obama, and those ads about " Rich Romney will take away your food stamps" paid off big time for Obama.

Romney won the groups that DON'T get welfare by 8 million votes (the ones that actually pay the income taxes to support those on welfare), but the 12.9 million 'Welfare Votes' resulted in a net win for Obama of about 4.9 million votes.

Marxism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

I need a nice living, but I don't want to work. I do like days at the park or beach, so if the Democrats will give me what I 'need', I promise to vote for them.

lol

Romney won the groups that DON'T get welfare by 8 million votes

What groups are you referencing?

Clara KCMO

Houston,

I think SOB is reading challenged - he makes "...for the fourth quarter..." sound like it was four quarters of contraction. It was ONLY the 4th quarter that contracted. And, as you pointed out, at a miniscule amount attributed to Government cut backs.

Actually, Clara...

It is apparently YOU who are "reading challenged" since I typed EXACTLY what I meant... contraction for the fourth quarter...

I did NOT say "for the fourth quarter in a row." BIG DIFFERENCE don't you think.

Perhaps you would be less snarky about other people's comments if you actually READ them and (heaven forbid) COMPREHENDED them.

Quit reading things into other people's posts - doing anything other than that makes you look like a lunatic!

(BTW... it's still negative growth... you can spin it any way you want... but it's negative growth.)

Marco Rubio and Republicans considering any comprehensive immigration reform want a "trigger" to make sure that border enforcement comes before legalization. “Unless there’s real enforcement triggers, we are not going to have a bill that moves on the opportunity to apply for a green card,

Anyone have a problem with this?

David, yours is a brilliant summation of the political climate in this country, that makes it so difficult to address problems in a pragmatic and practical way. Not everything has to be an ideological battle - why can't we all just try to do the right thing?

why can't we all just try to do the right thing?

Because your right thing and my right thing may not even be distant relatives. Oh you meant the right thing in the land of the liberals/liv's as you know best what is good for all. Got it.

Talk to the Hand

Because your right thing and my right thing may not even be distant relatives

Usually produces a sound marriage with healthy children.

Usually produces a sound marriage with healthy children.

Ha, Ha! Good one, BCW!

David, great post. Cynicism is the hallmark of the right and until they stop politicizing every word or deed and offer some doable alternatives for what they disagree about nothing will get done.

Their latest kick on playing the victim is to accuse the President of trying to annihilate them, of taking their manhood em..their guns from them among other misperceptions is getting old. Must they always have a fight about everything that the majority agrees about. This verbal bullying has got to stop or the country will surely fall as we battle amongst ourselves.

Good morning David. Excellent post. This morning we see an example of what would happen if austerity measures were enacted on a grand scale. The economy contracted when government spending shrank. That's why it's best to take a balanced long term approach to dealing with the debt and deficits. The extremists on the right would love to see our economy crash. That would be the validation they so desperately seek. They are too ignorant to understand the impact that would have, not just here in our country, but around the world.

May the extremists continue to be marginalized and intelligent solutions be found that garner broad support from both sides of the aisle. The alternative is just too awful to contemplate. United we must stand.

Their latest kick on playing the victim is to accuse the President of trying to annihilate them

You noticed that too Gingerbread Mamma?

Pre-election they held "pity parties" for themselves, these days the number of them has swelled to "pity parades"!

DAYUM they're SORE losers! lol

David, I agree conceptually with your comment, but not all of it.

"Both Republicans and Democrats have recognized the problem, yet we never seem to be able to come up with legislation that deals with easily breached borders."

Frankly, that is patently absurd. There are laws on the books now that will solve the border issue. The problem is, those laws are enforced intermittently, and apparently for show. If the Federal government aggressively enforced laws already on the books dealing with employers who hire illegals, employers would get the message and stop hiring them. If there are no jobs for illegals, there will be no incentive for the ones here to stay and no incentive for others to come across the border. Proof of this is the fact that movement across the border into the U.S. declined profoundly when the economy crashed and their jobs dried up. In fact, the illegals were going back south across the border, because there was no incentive for them to stay here. Then the border patrol could focus the vast majority of it's resources on the approximately 20% of illegals who come across the border for the soul purpose of leading a life of crime.

------

"In an "us against them" climate, our problems are insurmountable. They will crush us, and only that small group of self-destructive extremists will triumph. Their destruction is proof they were right. Even as they choke, they will be sputtering their, "I told you so's."

United we stand. Divided we fall. Team U.S.A. sounds very good. Lest we forget, the "U" in U.S.A. stands for UNITED."

Well, that sounds very nice, but it is not reality. Do you know of any nation of size where every citizen has the same values, beliefs, goals and interest. A nation where there is no conflict and everyone gets along. In other words, can you tell us where Utopia is?

If life were only so black and white as we wish, so everything would be cut and dry. Simple.

One way or another, immigration reform is going to tell us who we are. Team America or more of the destructive "us against them". Working together or red vs. blue,

Mr. Walker, I agree. Both the Democrats and the GOP are needed to get a solution that will pass their chambers. Unfortunately, I already see people condemning McCain, Rubio for being part of the process. Chants of "send Rubio back"... McCain is finally done screaming at pigeons...etc from the left. Cries that the GOP is only doing this to get votes. Frankly, in my mind I don't care their true intentions. This is more important than winning political points. There is a chance that this can be solved. I hope the "Us vs Them" doesn't blow up this fragile framework.

In reading through some of the points about the plan. It is something I can accept. I watched MSNBC last night, (GOP poster eyes roll), because I wanted to see their comments and hear Obama's speech. Ed Shultz complained about the fines and back taxes that someone would have to pay. I disagree with him those fines must be kept in place. Other commentators like Rachel, noted the long time that would be needed to go through the process. She pointed out all of the obstacles that can come up. In my wife's case a legal immigrant who came for college, was granted a work visa, married me a citizen; it still took us almost 10 years for her to become a citizen. Maybe to quicken the process we need to hire more officials to push legal immigrants through so that the undocumented can get their citizenship quicker. In effect a total, comprehensive reform of the process, system and rules.

For the undocumented the most important thing is to get legal status and a pathway to citizenship. A pathway that invovles paying a fine and starting in the back. It is also important to cut the red tape for the legal immigrants. Some on the left, like Shultz may be trying to sabatoge the plan so that this issue can be kept alive to demagouge.

hs321:

What is patently absurd is demanding enforcement of laws even as legislators cut back on funding the enforcement mechanism. Regardless, those laws have been enforced by the current administration to a far greater extent than the previous administration.

As with so many "wars on this 'n that", they fly in the face of supply and demand. There is a demand for cheap labor by those who live in the U.S., just as there is a demand for illegal drugs in the U.S. Demand ALWAYS wins.

Further, much of the work that is done by illegals is work that is refused by Americans. That fact has been documented time and time again. Enforce those laws and you'll be back whining about the high cost of the foods you eat, the high cost of lodging, of dining, and a host of other services and products whose prices are dependent on labor costs.

Of course my solution sounds nice, and it would be a lot easier to move in the direction of nice if cynics, deniers, and noisemakers like you would get the hell out of the way.

David W, excellent summary of where this country finds itself today and why.

I, too, am hopeful at the glimmers of bi-partisanship we see emerging. Perhaps the Nov 6 re-election of President Obama despite their 4-year effort to make him a one-term president woke them to reality. Or perhaps it was the 2012 year-end "fiscal cliff" debacle, the failure to fund Hurricane Sandy disaster relief made the GOP look completely inept, or the potential of a default on our debt. Whatever it was, it seems to have finally sank into the minds of the GOP legislators that their behavior has been irresponsible and horrible for the country. Whatever the reason, the glimmer of hope cheers me because it is about time. For 30 years too many of our problems have been kicked down the road, the refusal to recognize that government needs revenue as much as it needs smart governing of that revenue in order for the country to be powerful, not just militarily, but in everything. To do that means both sides finding their way toward middle and doing it together.

Neither party is perfect but since the Gingrich "revolution", we have watched the GOP become more resistant to compromise; it didn't happen in one year, it happened over 18 years. When President Obama took office, this resistance became their battle cry; their weapon was obstruction of everything. The result of this unyielding obstruction--and failure to even support their own conservative ideas--hurt Americans, right and left, red and blue, and mostly it hurt those who were already living on the margins. Finally, we are watching bi-partisanship, which has always made this country great, emerge once again. Let's just hope one successful effort leads to another and another. Yes, we can.

Jody,

Agreed. But Republicans are going to have to break completely free of Limbaugh and Norquist, to name just two. Diminish their status and perhaps some semblance of rationality will return to the Party.

"Regardless, those laws have been enforced by the current administration to a far greater extent than the previous administration." LOL!

All the illegals deported by Bush and Obama together doubled doesn't put a dent in the problem. Obama stepped up deportation on illegals who have committed crimes in addition to being in the country illegally. This way he can look like he's doing something and the likes of La Raza, MECHA, LULAC, etc. can't complain because he's deporting criminals.

It's all smoke and mirrors. Nothing serious is being done about the problem. What was it Lincoln said? Something like, "You can fool some of the people all of the time...."

You will know a politician is serious about illegal immigration when he/she cracks down on the employers who give them the incentive to come here in the first place.

----

"Further, much of the work that is done by illegals is work that is refused by Americans."

Of course it is David. Who is going to wash dishes in a restaurant along side an illegal who is suppressing your wages? Any illegals driving down teachers wages so low you wouldn't do the work for that salary? Of course not. Why work for such small wages if you can get more in welfare from the government? It was once easy for an American to have a landscaping company and be competitive hiring Americans at decent wages for the hard work. Not any more. Unless you're a pathetic piece of scum who hires illegals, it's extremely difficult when you're competing against people using economic slaves and paying them under the table and illegally dodging taxes.

Do you really think giving amnesty to these millions is going to stop the flow of illegals? Please!!!

As soon as one of them wants more money because he/she is now an "American", the pathetic piece of scum who hires illegals, like my Democrat neighbor who utterly despises Republicans, but uses illegals to mow her yard, is going to pay them more when the illegal standing next to the new American will do the job cheaper? Please, please, please!!!

They don't have a problem anywhere near like this in Australia. Do you know why? They enforce their laws. So the demand may be for cheap, illegal labor, but there is no supply.

It's not just demand. It's supply as well.

This will go on for eternity until we grow a spine and enforce our laws. I don't see that happening in my lifetime.

Head of ICE Organization Says Agent Morale 'In the Toilet'

By Newsroom America Staff at 3 Aug 2012

(http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/267444.html)

(Newsroom America) -- The head of a national organization representing federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents said morale was "in the toilet" following changes in immigration enforcement policy by the Obama administration last month.

"Morale is in the toilet right now," Chris Crane, president of the National ICE Council, told Todd Starnes of Fox News. "Most of the guys out in the field are just in an uproar."

The major change in the administration's policies allow the federal government to use "prosecutorial discretion" which essentially allows younger illegal immigrants to remain in the country and get work permits. Critics of the change say it amounts to a backdoor amnesty program, but the administration has defended the shift, saying it does not lead to citizenship.

Nevertheless, Starnes said, ICE agents in the field are getting increasingly frustrated with supervisors who they say are ordering some illegal aliens freed because they are not what the administration has described as "primary targets."

In one case, a veteran agent arrested a 35-year-old illegal immigrant who had 10 prior traffic violations, but was told to release him by a supervisor, even though the alien did not meet the criteria put out by the Department of Homeland Security. The agent refused and is now facing a three-day suspension.

In another case, Starnes wrote, an ICE agent was injured in an attempt by an illegal alien to escape custody, but supervisors ordered the alien released without charges anyway.

The administration calls it "discretion but it’s not our discretion," Crane said. "We have no discretion."

Referring to ICE agents, Crane said, "They’ve got their heads down. We feel like the administration is against us and not the people who are violating our laws.

"We can’t do anything anymore under these new guidelines," he said.

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

Whatever you do, please don't tell me Obama is serious about enforcement.

Yellowdog,

I agree with you. I have family and friends going though the process to become citizens and they worry that somehow this will delay what has already been a long process for them. I hope not.

Jody,

I think both parties needs to do some soul searching Your comments always ends with, but the Republicans, yada yada yada. Its disappointing that you have became so jaded, I used to look forward to your weekly roundup.

hs321:

Hey there, little low-info guy, if you don't believe me about the Obama Administration's greater success rate than Bush on immigration law enforcement, you could stop with your LOL and look it up. But you won't because you have your talking points as you show here, when you write:

Of course it is David. Who is going to wash dishes in a restaurant along side an illegal who is suppressing your wages?

The person who is going to wash dishes is someone who needs a job regardless of immigration status. You mention that you shoot pigs on your Dad's ranch. Do you do that in your time off, or do you get free room and board for whatever it is you do, besides typing claptrap? If you have a job, I'd be willing to bet you've never asked him/her for proof of their status.

You mention that your Democrat neighbor who hates Republicans, uses illegal labor. What have you done to notify the authorities of this egregious transgression of the law?

But, you low-info, right wing dogma food addicts never know when to stop. You write:

"It was once easy for an American to have a landscaping company and be competitive hiring Americans at decent wages for the hard work. Not any more. Unless you're a pathetic piece of scum who hires illegals, it's extremely difficult when you're competing against people using economic slaves and paying them under the table and illegally dodging taxes."

That's garden-variety BS from someone who really doesn't know when to shut up. I ran my own landscape business for almost 20 years and never hired an illegal. You can whine all day and all night about uncertainty, about immigration, about all the rest of your hollow talking points, but the fact is you cannot hire unskilled labor in this country, and any employer knows that's true. They're full of all kinds of self-esteem and if it's not that, they're full of BS like you.

Don't lay your BS on me, bub, I know better. Experience trumps talking points every time. I have experience. You have empty talking points.

@David Walker#2: Very profound, and accurate missive Sir. Begs the question; what is wrong with us? We're talking the "Great USA". Is the country really a facade of greatness thinly veiling an ungovernable mass of frightened fools grasping for relief, by the time honored efforts of exaggerated blame of things hatefully imagined? Could such be? Are too many of those sent to governing bodies to represent us doing so within the context of further building upon those specters of unreasoned national, fear bound fury? Could this indeed be? If one can give a considered probable "aye" in answer, as I believe is probably correct, then whom do we look to for correction? The greedy wealthy few, who gain much more through the exploitation of the great illusion? No. Only a government capable of enhancing the well being of all Its people through the light of reason, and the unburdened toils of fairness can free us from the shackles of those fears, which presently distort our conscious capacity, and invade our timely respites. At present, neither party appears up to the task. Regards David

Theotas - I think and believe that the plan going forward should improve wait times and procedures for legal immigrants if they overhaul all the steps. Perhaps it is a taboo to speak on here, but more government workers are needed to run the system. A backlog of cases can causes years of waiting for both the legal and the undocumented immigrants. For those currently undocumented I don't mind it taking 4 to 8 years, it is only fair for them to wait. In addition to clarify, regarding fines and taxes, I don't want to forever put them in debt with unmaneagable costs. Instead I suggest they base each fine on a percentage of what a person makes not a never changing set in stone fee.

Besides in eight years or so the democratic party, without Obama or a Clinton running, will need the newly legal citizens infusion and support :}

The majority of Americans were against the ACA too. And before you acuse me and lable me anything, I don't & would never belong to a polictical party. Apparently a majority of public opinion means nothing to these party's.

the liberals on this vine are down right hilarious. When you need a good laugh, come here. You guys and Obama are peas in a pod. He does no wrong in your world. I think he could take your paycheck, shoot your mother and give your job to an illegal and you would still worship him. FUNNY @!$%#!

David "Hey there, little low-info guy, if you don't believe me about the Obama Administration's greater success rate than Bush on immigration law enforcement, you could stop with your LOL and look it up. But you won't because you have your talking points..."

You cannot quote me saying Obama didn't have a greater success rate than Bush. Deporting .5% is deporting more than .2%, but, as you can quote me, neither, added together and doubled put a dent in the problem.

I don't have all the answers and have never pretended to. However, you seem to always have an answer for everything, even if it's not addressing what was actually said.

So let's you and I just drop it, and you can go on believing all I have is "empty talking points" and everything you have say has the most profound and deepest meaning.

Good day, sir.

Yellowdog,

Agree with you, the process for legal immigrants to gain citizenship must be hurried up, but disagree with on the illegal immigrant issue.

In the illegal immigrant issue it is easy to forget most have made it a practice to ignore American laws and move about in the shadows, and no law is going to change that....The only way to force these people to take the legal channel to citizenship is to make it impossible for illegal immigrants to find jobs and make it a felony to enter America illegally.

Go to change.org and sign my petition to Congress to make entering America illegally a felony... thank you

Hey there, little low-info guy

(Snort!)

Another smashing post. So glad you mentioned the MOST RECENT Supreme Court case. You listen to the yahoo's and camo cowboys stroking their guns and screaming, "Second Amendment rights," whatever the hell that means.

And that's the whole point. What the hell does that mean? The Second Amendment has been up for interpretation by the Supreme Court time and again. It is hardly the stuff of bedrock. There is no ironclad and immutable rule that says your right to the ownership of firearms is unrestricted.

To hell with the gun strokers. There WILL be restrictions on ownership. The vast majority of the American public demands it.

Maybe I missed something, I'll admit while at work I have to skim the news while code is compiling, etc.

But where in the executive orders and the laws that could actually get voted in (i.e. not Feinstein) do they deal with the large number of illegal guns in the hands of gangs? While it wouldn't completely get rid of homicides in the country, it would put a serious dent in them if gangs lost their guns.

Many that hate any type of gun control are uneducated white men who think that carrying an assault rifle will make them bigger men.

While it wouldn't completely get rid of homicides in the country, it would put a serious dent in them if gangs lost their guns.

By "gangs" do you mean those fat guys in cammies sneaking around in the woods? I'd include them in that group. They're a danger to society.

AlexM they are proposing some new regulations dealing with Gun Trafficking, There are some existing laws that deal with it that need better enforcement, and better background checks should also help. When you verify guns in legitimate hands it is also going to make Illegal Purchasing more expensive thus pricing some out of the market. As my friend Jack says you've got to include every body in your definition of what constitutes a gang and chase down where large quantities are going. Your never going to to completely eliminate it but cutting it down ought to help Law Enforcement. Hope this helps in your struggle for trust.

IR, another excellent post.

Justice Scalia is the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court, he's a strict constitutionalist so his words in the Heller decision are potent. The government does have the right to limit certain types of weapons and ammunition, it does have the right to set parameters for who can and cannot own guns, it can establish laws for universal background checks and licensing, and it can establish where guns are not allowed. Those are common sense gun restriction parameters, and Justice Scalia wrote them.

As for guns in the hands of gangs, Jack and IR pretty much covered it. I'll just add that if those "gangs" have illegal guns and are caught, there are existing laws covering criminal use of fire arms.

This better enforcement needs to get states to get death penalties instituted or reinstituted. IMO if you are charged with 1st or 2nd degree murder, you should pay for it with your life. 1 appeal. No dragging the executions out 15 years either. This should also apply to 1st & 2nd degree rape, and child molestors. The ACLU serves a purpose but, they need to get out of the business of representing the real slime of America, with their "these people are human beings and deserve empathy" crap.

Dear Real Slime of America,

The ACLU serves a purpose but, they need to get out of the business of representing the real slime of America, with their "these people are human beings and deserve empathy" crap.

Ever hear of "innocent until proven guilty"?

How about everyone has the right to an attorney, even if they cannot afford one, and a fair trial? Either of those ring a bell?

Didn't think so.

Been reading your posts. You're not a particularly empathetic guy, are ya? I wonder how you would feel if you suddenly found yourself in prison for a crime you didn't commit.

all that damage from the man who just yesterday declared the Constitution "...dead, dead, dead..."

Kinda' makes you wonder if HE's still mentally fit to serve.

Oh well, even a broken clock is right twice a day!

Thanks, Scarecrow, for another Good One!

@ Jack

Sorry, I should have clarified better. If/when convicted. Is that better?

About the put in prison for a crime I didn't commit. Never will happen my friend. I don't put myself in places that have me in that kind of jeopardy.

Empathy: I have plenty of empathy. Not for murderers, rapists, or child molesters. My mother has alzheimers and growing dementia. I'm pained everyday that someone has to go through that, as I am, and many others have to. I also have alot of empathy for the disabled, as I have had rheumatoid arthritis for nearly 30 years.

If you've kept up on me then you know I belong to no political party, so I have plenty of empathy for those who feel that they must and have to belong to political. That is there choice but, to me I just have to laugh at how firm both of the party's platforms are and have been for a long long time

About the put in prison for a crime I didn't commit. Never will happen my friend. I don't put myself in places that have me in that kind of jeopardy.

That just has to be about the dumbest statement I've read on this vine. It's like saying I won't get in a car accident because I don't put myself in places where one might happen. Or I'll never be robbed at gunpoint. Virtually anyone who leaves his/her dwelling can get caught up in the unimaginable. And I'm talking about empathy for those who do get caught up in the unimaginable, not rapists or child molesters. And since no one can be sure at the time of arrest that the person arrested is in fact the person who perpetrated the crime, that person deserves an attorney.

Oh, never mind . . . .

. . . so I have plenty of empathy for those who feel that they must and have to belong to political. That is there choice but, to me I just have to laugh . . .

I can't make heads nor tails out of what you're trying to say there.

David Walker has pointed out in several places today that you don't know what you're talking about, and he rightly referred to you as a "tighty-righty", despite your protestations to the contrary that you don't belong to a political party.

Poor Phil doesn't like his tax rates. Bo Hoo, I feel so sorry for him!

Poor Phil doesn't like his tax rates. Bo Hoo, I feel so sorry for him!

Tiger Woods said today that the reason he left California in the mid-Nineties was because the state's taxes were too high.

The golfer spoke at a press conference on Tuesday about his decision to move to Florida in 1996.

Speaking at Torrey Pines Golf Course in La Jolla, California, Woods said: 'I moved out of here back in ’96 for that reason.'-Dailymail-UK

So Job1, any comment about Tiger's comments at Torrey Pines? I'm thinking.................probably not. Do you feel sorry for Tiger too? HAHA, you people are amazing................

Paul,

All of us would agree with the statement, "I would like to pay less in taxes."

However, Phil Mickelson, in 2011, is reported to have hauled in $62 million in income...$9 million in winnings from playing the game of golf and $53 million in endorsements because he plays the game of golf.

A guy make that much money complaining about his taxes is hardly going to elicit sympathy from others.

Good one, Da Noid. Nothing like another multi-millionaire whining about his tax rate which, in reality, is probably a lower rate than the rest of us pay; poor baby, Phil.

My heart breaks for both of them! Poor Tiger and Phil----having to scrape by on tens of millions of dollars in earnings each year. They should pay less taxes so they could be job creators---that worked so well during the Bush years, didn't it?

It must be pretty tough to get up everyday and have to make photo ops and endorsements, That, and the terrible load of having to play golf everyday FOR A LIVING!

AW GEE! POOR POOR Phil!

They should pay less taxes so they could be job creators

LOL! Do you mean hire more caddies?

Speaking at Torrey Pines Golf Course in La Jolla, California, Woods said: 'I moved out of here back in ’96 for that reason.'-Dailymail-UK

So Job1, any comment about Tiger's comments at Torrey Pines? I'm thinking.................probably not. Do you feel sorry for Tiger too? HAHA, you people are amazing................

...and, by the way, Phil is free to move out of California any time he bloody well pleases.

You're right, he shouldn't had gone public about taxes, it's a private matter. He opened himself up. If I was getting taxed $.63 out of every dollar I made I would leave too and I wouldn't complain to the world about it.

Got to ask you though, why is Capitalism such a bad thing?

You people complain about the tax rate, but it's the Government that did this to us, but you want to go after the people who made the money. So which is it, go after the Government to fix it or go after the people who earned it?

Paul-Florida:

What Michelson exposed to the public was his ignorance. Either he has an incredibly stupid accountant or he simply doesn't know what he is talking about.

But, numbers guy that you are, why don't you show us how he could have paid a 62 or 63% rate as he said he did.

Woods has already damaged his standing with the public and Michelson is doing the same. If this country is so awful, so horrible, it would probably be best that these oppressed fellows find another country that wants to kiss their asses.

As some of the other high earning golfers that also live in CA said of Phil, if he is paying that much then he needs a new tax account.

To me, having the govt. take millions of dollars from someone by force is what is wrong, not that the person earned that amount of money to begin with.

Bob,

Then how do you propose to fund the Local, State and Federal government?

I know it's a repeat but if Phil M. pays 62-63% in taxes, he's either exaggerating, mathematically stupid or his accountant is ripping him off. If Mitt Romney pays 14% in federal and state income taxes, plus whatever the sales taxes are and property taxes--one can figure that at most, Mickelson pays between 30%-35% total taxes. If he owns a McMansion, that might be slightly higher but that's a luxury he chose.

Let us all not forget the illustrious Mr. Kerry and his beloved boat. Too bad he didn't expose his tax cheating attempt too LOL

• If Phil is paying over 60% of his income in taxes, what he needs is an entirety new team of financial advisers because the ones he has now are worthless.

Jay-lotsanumbers:

What Senator Kerry did was not particularly commendable, but it was completely legal. There was no tax cheating at all. Senator Kerry was following the wisdom of the great Judge Learned Hand, who said:

"Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.

"Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands."

Dennis:

In post #4.11 you imply that he is not taking full advantage of loopholes (legit deductions). But in post #4.13 you then imply that he needs to fund govt. by himself. Which is it, use loopholes or pay more?

If the govt. did not waste as much money as it does, then we could all pay less. If the federal govt. did not automatically increase its baseline budgets by 8% per year, we could all pay less. If the federal govt. did only what it is limited to in the constitution, we could all pay less.

Get the federal govt. out of state and local issues and we could all pay less in taxes.

And no I am not going to start naming all the things that the fed should not be doing. If you can't or won't bother to read the constitution to know, then to bad. (yes, I know about the commerce clause)

Bob,

I was referring to your comment … [To me, having the govt. take millions of dollars from someone by force is what is wrong].
You imply that for the government to collect taxes is criminal.

[If the federal govt. did not automatically increase its baseline budgets by 8% per year, we could all pay less.]
The government ONLY used the 8% increase for future year projections … projections have nothing to do with actual spending.

[Get the federal govt. out of state and local issues and we could all pay less in taxes.]
Actually if that happened the states would have to pick up the burden for those service which means that states with smaller populations would most likely end up costing their citizens more than other states.

Be careful what you wish for.

@ David

I get it now. Its ok for now our SOS to move things to avoid taxes, but it was horrible that someone had moved money to the Caimans. That clarifies everything. rotflmao

Will all of the Californians who came to Idaho to avoid their taxes please go back to Cali. We really need you to take care of your state, not ruin ours

Jay lotsanumbers:

You tighty-righties are sure digging yourselves some deep holes today. There is a vast difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Now, if you had any comprehension skills, that would clarify the issue.

You really should spend less time rolling on the floor.

Dennis;

"You imply that for the government to collect taxes is criminal."

In a way it is criminal that one person pay such an exorbitant amount for government. Does Tiger Woods or Phil Michelson get "more" or "better" govt. than what you or I pay in taxes?

"The government ONLY used the 8% increase for future year projections … projections have nothing to do with actual spending"

When the department for paper clip counting spends all of its money, it will get an 8% increase for next years paper clip audit. No matter what, the head paper clip counter will make sure he/she spends all the money.

"Actually if that happened the states would have to pick up the burden for those service which means that states with smaller populations would most likely end up costing their citizens more than other states."

Why is there a federal dept. for education (among others that can be named)? Each state had one long before the fed put their nose in it. That is the kind of spending that the fed govt has no business in.

"Be careful what you wish for."

I wish for less govt in my life!!! I know what size of soft drink to buy or how much salt to add!!

Bob,

[When the department for paper clip counting spends all of its money, it will get an 8% increase for next years paper clip audit. No matter what, the head paper clip counter will make sure he/she spends all the money.]

That is simply not true. Name any department that in the past dozen years (other than Defense or Homeland Security) that has received anything close to half of that (4%) – you won't find one.

Name any department that would, in no way need to be supplemented at the state or local government level if it was eliminated. Or are you one of these people that truly believe that states can exist on its own like a country and be better off? If so please look at the population density of many of our great states to get an idea of what proportion of any additional cost would impact each person. Look at the distribution of Federal funds where the less population density states receive back much more than they pay in.

Dennis;

Federal Budget 2013: How Obama's budget plan affects each agency

By Washington Post Staff

The Obama administration proposed Monday increasing theTreasury Department's budget
to $14 billion, an increase of nearly 7 percent over its 2012 budget,
with new funding directed toward enforcing the nation's tax laws.

(IRS)

You said to name one that was even close to 4%.. here ya go and its from the Washington Post so it must be true.

The amount of money that states send to Washington does not magically grow in size and then come back to the states to use as they see fit.

The rules set down at the fed level in education tie up teachers time filling out reports and forms that are duplicates of state forms. (ask a teacher.. I did).

Education dept is nothing more than a regulatory agency that tries to make a one size fits all approach. The state of Florida does not have the same need or curriculum need as the state of North Dakota. (as an example)

Yes: reading, writing and arithmetic are the same but practical needs that are being taught are far different.

Bob,

[The amount of money that states send to Washington does not magically grow in size and then come back to the states to use as they see fit.]

You are intentionally trying to be deceptive at least I hope that is the case. You know darn well that the densely populated states get back far less than they pay into the Federal government.

Okay you found ONE but that is far and away the exception. Actually the IRS is not a department they are part of the Treasury. What was the budget for then Treasury?

You are just going in circles trying to prove several failed points.

Dennis;

I am not trying to be deceptive at all. You asked me to find a dept that had a 4% increase .. just one is what you asked for.. I found one that had a 7% increase and your saying that its deceptive? I did mention that the IRS dept. is part of the treasury dept.

Do you want the govt telling you what size soft drink to buy or how much salt to add to your food? Is it any of their business at all?

Does Tiger or Phil get better or more govt for their amount of tax money (millions btw)? Do you want to pay 67% of your income to the govt.?

Yet if someone uses legit tax code to pay less its called loopholes by those who dont like it when someone pays less than what others feel they "should" pay.

Why should the govt. be allowed to collect money when someone dies (40% of anything over 5 million [+/- a bit] of assessed value)? That is the one that gets me the most.

Adam Lanza's mother legally owned those weapons and legally purchased those magazine clips but she was anything but "responsible" because she knew her son, Adam, was mentally disturbed.

Exactly. If people want to shoot these weapons as a hobby, they should be able to go to a gun range and rent one, on the condition they cannot leave the premises with it. These weapons are useless for home protection and the danger to civil society of having them out on the market is too great to indulge the gun-lovers by allowing their sale.

Another argument along that line is that there are millions of responsible gun owners that didn't kill someone today. But you have to ask yourself, how many deaths are acceptable just so you can carry? Was Sandy Hook just collateral damage?

Owning and using a gun should be like owning and driving a car. Regulate training, register and license. Had these steps been in place 25 to 50 years ago, we most likely wouldn’t be having this debate.

Guess what, the second amendment would have still been in place, and the Nations People would be seeing a lot less gun deaths.

However, the NRA makes a lot of money from the gun manufactures, and that blood money is more important to them than the lives of our citizens.

Jody and Amy:

I think you have identified the iconic question in this debate. Why do you need a semi-automatic/easily converted to automatic weapon with a magazine capacity in excess of five rounds?

To contend that an AR-15 fires a relatively small caliber round begs the question: Why are we arming our military with varmint rifles? To contend that you need it for hunting is absurd on its face. To contend that you need it to bring down a repressive government you couldn't peacefully defeat at the polls speaks to the fact that the "repressive government" is the choice of the majority of voters.

No amount of firepower will compensate for their weak minds.

The hearings on gun control today sum up where we are as a nation---Gabby Giffords and her husband---victim of gun violence, elected member of Congress with a bright future before this happened and an astronaut versus Wayne LaPierre, paid lobbyist for gun manufacturers who refuses to consider compromise. I know who should be listened to and heeded but I'm afraid who will be listened to and heeded.

The 5.56 mm or .223 cal. round IS a small caliber round. Just a shade larger than a .22 cal. However, at this point, all similarities end. The shell casing and powder load are WAY larger than a common .22 cal. round.

The 5.56 mm was developed by the military to be a light weight, very efficient, LETHAL round.

Jody "Our existing laws are outdated, ineffective,..."

Ineffective is the wrong word. Had you used "unenforced", you would have been 100% correct.

Passing more laws, or new laws, etc., that will not be enforced will land us right back where we are today. Doubt it?

The 1986 amnesty was Ted Kennedy's idea, and strictly enforcing existing immigration laws from then forward, promised by the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, was supposed to be part of the deal. So Reagan (who later said it was the biggest mistake he made) and Congress (Dems and Repubs alike) went along and gave amnesty to almost 3 million illegal aliens, sending the message, that if you can steal in and stay long enough, the Americans will reward your illegal acts by giving you amnesty. How strong was that message? We now have 4 times as many, or more, wanting amnesty.

So, let's give these 12 million illegals amnesty and in another 20-25 years it will be 48 million wanting amnesty. Does that sound like a good idea to anyone?

“In 1986 Senator Kennedy said, ‘This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this.”

LOL! Here we are right back in the same place. DC is circus and the politicians are the clowns.

If you want to see what the face of a victim of gun violence looks like, look no further than Gabby Giffords, as she struggled, this morning at the Senate hearing, to say how we must try very hard to change the rules of owning guns.

This is a no brainer, if you are a responsible gun owner, you cannot object to some of these changes.

Fuzzy44. The round used by the military is not intended to be more lethal. In fact, the smaller caliber is intended to result in more of the enemy wounded. This results in the enemy using more of it's resources on the wounded. They use FMJ and not hollow points, lead points are any type of ballistic tip for the same reason, as these types of rounds result in more of the bullets energy being expended in the target, as opposed to passing straight through with less deformation.

But what you said sounds like a good talking point.

hs321,

You are correct about the wounding ability of the .223. @ 250 m. the round begins to tumble end over end resulting in the "walking affect" of the round. (You get hit in the thigh, but it exits at your waist). When I was in the military, they told us to shoot for a wound rather than a kill, because a wound takes 3 men out of the battle, instead of just 1. But at close range, like in a room, it's still very lethal.

hs321 and fuzzy44:

The .223 round is designed to kill. Period. It was not designed to tumble, nor as evidence suggests, does it tumble until impact.

The three for the price of one argument is ridiculous. Medical assistance has now evolved, right along with everything else on the battlefield, to the point that an injured soldier does not take out two more soldiers to assist.

Regardless, these arguments are simply distractions and deflections. Military-type firearms have no value for anything beyond killing humans.

I use an AR chambered in .223 for feral hog control on my Dad's ranch. When a group of them cross a field, I can kill several of these top-soil-destroying equivalents of rats because the low recoil allows me to get back on the next target quickly.

I can't get this performance with a bolt action rifle because of the recoil and time it takes to chamber the next round. At very close range, assuming I can get close, I can use a semi-automatic .22, but the hogs are very quickly out of range for that to do any good.

Yes, semi-automatic ARs, not fully automatic military style, may seem to have no use in the civilian population, but the fact is, they do. Sorry David.

hs321 writes:

"Yes, semi-automatic ARs, not fully automatic military style, may seem to have no use in the civilian population, but the fact is, they do. Sorry David."

Don't feel sorry for me. Even at my advanced age, I can still hit a target. It's a shame you can't. You might want to check into .177's.

hs321, no one disputes that ranchers and those in rural areas have a different need for weapons. BUT the only reason you use it as I read your comment is because it is easier to kill more feral hogs and do it quicker. Easier for you and easier for the mass murderer.

@ Job 1

Exactly correct. So all of you idiots who took a drivers ed training course that did not include how to parallel park, must relenquish your licenses, and get the proper training. You wonder how there are so many stupid drivers. There's part of the reason.

Jay lotsanumbers write:

"Exactly correct. So all of you idiots who took a drivers ed training course that did not include how to parallel park, must relenquish your licenses, and get the proper training."

That's right Jay, so all you idiots, who took English and didn't learn how to spell relinquish, should never post here and get the proper training.

Jody....well, if I could some how round a bunch of pigs up and put them in, say, a class room or a movie theater, I could use a couple of one gallon cans of gasoline and do away with them every single one of them rather quickly.

If I wanted to do it slowly, I could do it with a knife, like the guy in China that walked into an elementary school with one and killed over 20 people.

@ David

Definition of relinquish (vt)

bing.com · Bing Dictionary

re·lin·quish
[ ri língkwish ]

1. cede something: to renounce or surrender something
2. abandon something: to give something up or put something aside
3. let something go: to let go of something physically

Synonyms: give up, surrender, hand over, abandon, renounce, resign, turn down, let go by, let pass

Nice try moron. Better think about where you went to school

Jay-lotsanumbers:

Since you're into definitions, go look up comprehension. Then, go read my post againt 5.16. I clearly wrote that you couldn't spell. So, what do you do? You double down on dumb.

hs321,

Your facts are wrong, the knife attack in China resulted in NO deaths. Big Difference!

Clara, well if the facts are wrong, then they're not really facts are they? In fact, you are correct, as the incident I was referring to resulted in no deaths, just multiple stabbings. I respectfully stand corrected.

However:

May 12, 2010. An attacker named Wu Huanming (吴环明), 48, killed seven children and two adults and injured 11 other persons with a cleaver at a kindergarten....

On March 23, 2010, Zheng Minsheng (郑民生)^[2] 41, murdered eight children with a knife in an elementary school in Nanping,

On 4 August 2010, 26-year-old Fang Jiantang (方建堂) slashed more than 20 children and staff with a 60 cm knife, killing 3 children and 1 teacher, at a kindergarten...

In September 2011, a young girl and three adults taking their children to nursery school were killed in Gongyi,^[19] Henan by 30-year-old Wang Hongbin with an axe.

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_%282010%E2%80%932012%29)

I was just thinking this morning, with the passage of the Health Care Act, and now legislation on gun control and immigration, I can't think of a President as effective as Obama, since FDR.

During Roosevelt's tenure, child labor laws were passed, workplace safety measures, unemployment insurance, Social Security and financial regulations, on top of defeating Hitler. FDR really helped make us the most powerful nation on the planet.

You would do that? On DICK CHENEY'S B-Day? ...;-)

http://www.famousbirthdays.com/january30.html

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

As another famous 1/30 birthday boy would say;

"Good day to you sir! I say to you, GOOD DAY!"

Amy,

I can't think of a President as effective as Obama, since FDR

LBJ, were it not for the fiasco of insinuating us into Viet Nam.

Say, what's up with your Governor? Beefing up education while at the same time de-funding it? Do I have that right? Only heard a snippet on NPR this morning . . . .

Dick Cheney? Isn't he the poster-boy for both sides of the gun argument?

Only if you go hunting WITH him...;-)

(I do like the idea of honoring Wilmer Valdarama's birthday, count me in!)

AMY-

There is no legislation on either immigration or gun control as we write.

Wilmar ... aka Handy Manny? Talking tools require a stiff libation or a house full of kids ... actually the house full of kids requires a stiff libation.

I apologize for my lack of knowledge when it comes to what the 4-8 set is jamming to now...but yeah..;-)

Speaking of...well, nothing...

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/01/29/dumbest_statement_of_the_day

"Camera" Cruz is going to be very entertaining (and apparently on a daily basis) , but get in early because this kind of performance always has a dark 2nd act...

What's up with Maine's governor? We'd all like to know. Thanks for asking, Jack.

Basically, LePage operates from the right wing playbook. Public education is a "bad thing" and everything can be done better by the private sector. Forget the fact that LePage himself is a product of public schools and universities, he thinks the most effective way to govern is to attack public institutions and government employees, putting down Maine's principals while championing virtual, for-profit schools as a way to improve education. He's Rush Limbaugh without the gracious demeanor.

http://www.theforecaster.net/news/print/2013/01/14/universal-notebook-governor-flunketh/147955

Mr Cruz needs to learn that the correct storage space for one's foot is in another person's ass and once there it should never find its way home to the mouth.

Amy,

Then in November, he went off again, advising Maine students, “If you want a good education, go to an academy. If you want a good education, go to private schools. If you can’t afford it, tough luck. You can go to the public school.”

Wow! I'm speechless . . . .

Jack, There are websites devoted to the stupid things Paul LePage says. At the same time the nation got rid of George W, Maine was saddled with a nut job governor, can't win for trying, I guess. We've been a laboratory for right-wing policies since 2010, and, so far, the experiment hasn't worked too well. On the plus side, it's now legal to blow your fingers (or your kid's fingers) off with fireworks at home.

One dead cat bounce does not make a vibrant economy. I just want Ally Bank to pay us back.

I think you're confusing the two. When you give money to companies that fail or get bought by China there's no return, there's no helping the economy. When you have Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, etc.....you have those companies making a profit, paying taxes, spending money on the economy.

Money to failed companies=no return

Money to succesful companies=revenue return

Do you mean to tell me that government spending actually helps the economy?

Doesn't necessarily help it. Just makes the GDP numbers look good. Private sector growth is the only thing that should reflect actual GDP. Government spending does not yield a product (you know that tricky little "P' in GDP) and only consumes it. But all GovCo spending is not purchasing actual physical things but also services.

Government spending does not yield a product

I could have sworn that Space Shuttle I saw was real. How disappointing to find out it was simply a hologram.

Real unemployment will drop below 7%, or the funky DC statistics will say it's below 7%?

If you're awake, you know full well there are many millions unemployed who aren't even counted.

Who cares. This is the new economy. The uncounted unemployed will just have to deal with it. And they need to be prepared for the several million new Americans with who they will be competing.

No he didn't but I will. Boo Yah.

Sonmanvb,

Did you send your congrats to the president for 34 straight months of job growth. Remember we were losing 700,000 jobs per month in 2008.

To all the Libidiots spouting "Job Growth" under the Clown Prez.........DOL (That's department of Labor for the libdolts) numbers indicate and CONFIRM that the jobs LOST under Obama exceed JOBS GAINED during the period of January 20, 2009 - Current. Therefore, NEGATIVE JOB GROWTH. Your Math is not only "fuzzy", so are your ability to think, and BOTH are hilarious as hell. ROFLMFAO at the ignorance of Lemming Libs.

Moderate,

To all the Libidiots spouting "Job Growth" under the Clown Prez.........DOL (That's department of Labor for the libdolts) numbers that the jobs LOST under Obama exceed JOBS GAINED during the period of January 20, 2009 - Current.

Prove it Dumba$$, show us proof to back up this ridiculous claim. We want statisically evidence that can prove what you said is TRUE.

Tick, Tock..

Jason....Prove WHAT, dipstick??? Are you so stupidly incapable of RESEARCHING THAT INFO ON THE SOURCE I PROVIDED??? Again, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR!!! Visit their site numbnuts. Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock....Did your Mother have any children that lived?? Scared sheetless of what you will find there aren't you??? Typical Lib Azzhole.....never has a clue about what they are discussing. Duh, heard it on MSNBC from RatchetMouth Madcow. That bitch wouldn't LIE, would she???

I already did my research dumba$$ and it shows 4.8 million new jobs has been created under Obama from 2009 to NOW. My research shows me that Obama first month in office we lost 800,000 jobs due to Economic recession of 2008.

Also my research shows me that in 2008 (Bush president) we lost a total of 4.5 million jobs in just ONE, I repeat dumba$$ ONE year.

Obama never lost 4.5 million jobs in 1 yr. So how in the hell can you say Obama job loss numbers is more than the numbers gain.

Here are my sources: FACTcheck.org, USNews.com.

So its obvious how stupid your ass is to go on DOL and you couldn't even comprehend the DATA your dumba$$ was reading.

I'm done with you crazy nut...

"Also my research shows me that in 2008 (Bush president) we lost a total of 4.5 million jobs in just ONE, I repeat dumba$$ ONE year."

But wasn't that when the Democrats controlled Congress? Of course it was.

But I already know it will be explained away, do no need to bother and call me a dumba$$.

(P.S. I like the way you cherry-pick the time periods to support your position. Let's here something about the Clinton surplus....)

What does Dems in congress have to do with losing 4.5 million jobs throughout the economy in 2008.

No need for me to cherry pick anything. The person before you claim that Obama job lost numbers was higher than the job gain numbers. I simply prove that idiot was wrong.

Hs,

So when the big banks collapse in 2008 that was democrats fault. Prove it!!

When the auto industry took a dive, that was democrats in CONGRESS fault. Prove it!!

When the housing market crash, let me guess it was democrats in Congress fault.

Wow!! So dems in congress must be some powerful people to have affected all these things at 1 time.

Its easy to make claims with no evidence to back it up.

Jason, I'm an independent and I can assure you I can gather mountains of information and lay it out in such a way that I can make one party of the other primarily to blame.

The fact is, both parties are responsible to some degree.

I understand Republicans don't want to admit the country has improved under Obama, but the reality of the matter is, it damn near hit rock bottom, except for the economic measures taken by both Bush, with a Democrat controlled Congress and Obama. I mean, it really couldn't have gotten much worse so it had no where to go but up. And I know the Democrats like to believe that was 100% the result of Obama and had nothing do with anything like a business cycle.

Jason

You better check out Peanut Carters introduction of affordable loans for those lower income families that was upgraded by Slick Willie to allow the investors to sell toxic mortgages all over hells creation.

Jay, there is a mountain of business articles and youtube videos that prove beyond reason that the Democrats, in the long run, were the biggest cause of the housing market crash.

There is also video of Bush, in his first term I believe, calling for reform that could have prevented it. It was his failure as a leader to get anything done, regardless of how intensely Barney Frank and Dodd opposed it.

They understand they just don't have any reasonable arguments against universal checks. Their real argument is it will stifle gun sales and since the NRA is owned and controlled by the gun manufacturers...well you see the problem.

markinbecker

Their real argument is it will stifle gun sales and since the NRA is owned and controlled by the gun manufacturers...well you see the problem.

Exactly. The gun manufacturers make as much money selling a gun to a criminal as they do to a "law abiding citizen." Preventing criminals from buying guns would cut into their profits. That's the one and only true reason the NRA objects to common-sense background checks.

Yes, let's be honest. Houston! is full of it. Criminals will not buy guns from a legitimate seller. That's one of the reasons they are called "CRIMINALS"!

sonmanvb

Yes, let's be honest. Houston! is full of it. Criminals will not buy guns from a legitimate seller. That's one of the reasons they are called "CRIMINALS"!

The criminals buy their guns from "legitimate" sellers who don't do the background checks. How do you think criminals get their guns. You don't think they materialize out of thin air and drop into the hands of criminals, do you?

Here's an article showing where criminals in Chicago get their guns, and it isn't out of thin air:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/us/strict-chicago-gun-laws-cant-stem-fatal-shots.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&smid=tw-share

Barking Pecker,

Damn you're good and the future and predictions. Could you help our southern and eastern friends out and let them know how many hurricanes to be prepared for and when and how strong?

You're a peach

You got my name wrong. Economic predictions are easy compared to weather predictions. If your economically challenged, like you, I can understand your confusion.

Great post mark,

Man these right wingers gonna go real crazy soon. The more an more the economy starts to look good, the more pissed off they get.

Economic predictions are easy compared to weather predictions. If your economically challenged, like you, I can understand your confusion.

Oh you mean easy as in unemployment will not go above 8% if we pass this stimulus or cutting the deficit in half by the end of a four year period. Those kind?

Barking pecker has failed once again to consider ALL the factors of a Strong Economy.......SUCH AS REASONABLE REDUCTION OF POVERTY, WELFARE ROLLS, FOOD STAMP PARTICIPANTS ........ALL AT HISTORIC LEVELS UNDER OBOZO THE CLOWN.....AND RISING EVERY DAY!!! Still has those Voter paybacks to take care of , doesn't he Pecker Head????? NOTE, NUMBNUTS: Not everything is Rosy when you pull your head out of your azz!!! Self examination of Colons is a Favorite Obozo supporter entertainment medium......when they are not examining HIS!!!

Talk to the hand,

What happen to that predicition right wingers where screaming last year, Oh yeah, Obama will be a 1 term President.

I bet you believe that crap when they said it. There is an old saying, don't believe everything somebody tells you. Hope that will be a lesson learn for you.

Moderate in Madison -

It's been a long week already and it's only Wednesday, so admittedly I'm a little slow this morning. So could you please point me towards the part of your post that shows how "moderate" you are? Is it "OBOZO THE CLOWN"? Or maybe "doesn't he Pecker Head?????" Perhaps " NOTE, NUMBNUTS"??? No, wait, it must be the "pull your head out of your azz!!!" part, right? Or the part in your earlier post where you asked Jason "Did your Mother have any children that lived??" and called Rachel Maddow a bitch? Or maybe it's just the whole headache-inducing overuse of capital letters and exclamation points?

Either way, if this is the "moderate" you, I can hardly wait to see "Bitter Angry Hostile Extremist in Madison"!

Well, actually.....maybe I can.....

And a lesson learned for you also. You probably believed silver tongue when he promised what I posted also.

"Economy shrinks for the first time in 3 years", "US economy still on life support", "Wall street flat on weak economic activity data". High unemployment has become the norm. Trampling of the Constitution continues to be done or threatened and you think people need or want bad economic news to make Obama look bad--I voted for him the first time and I seriously regret it for much more than poor economic performance.

Nice try, but just released data shows that the economy shrunk for the first time in over 3 years in the 4th quarter of 2012. Obamanomics has been a disaster, especially for those in the middle class.

The hater chimed in. LOL

Boy I am good, I just predicted that the only thing these Obama haters was going to say was look at the 4th qrt GDP, it shrunk.

Grishnak and Peter, thanks for proving my point.

Nice try Jason797 --wasn't me that said that--that's why it's in quotations--read the whole news for the day why don't you instead of just the: makes Obama look good stuff.

.

Don't y'all just love it when stark-raving mad lunatics try to pass themselves off as moderate. Must be something in the cheese, or else the Heifer is chomping on alfalfa laced with LSD.

Marriott-- I'm a middle income person and my taxes went up so what are you talking about?-- and what kind of income do you have and how can you possibly think that any tax manipulations are permanent?

The only taxes that went "up" was the end of the 2% payroll tax holiday that was NEVER intended to be permanent.

To put this in perspective for you, some states have a "back to school" sales tax holiday in the summer for kids clothing and school related purchases. During that time sales tax is not collected on those items. When the summer is over and sales taxes go back to normal, is that a tax increase?

Republicans had been trying to make the Bush tax cuts "permanent" for 12 years, but were consistently blocked from doing so by Democrats. Republicans finally convinced one Democrat, Obama, to support the Bush tax cuts. He just signed into law legislation making those tax cuts "permanent" for 99.3% of taxpayers. Even billionaires will be paying lower taxes than they would have had all the temporary tax cuts expired on December 31st.

Obama gave Republicans a big victory on taxes and got nothing in return. What a hoot! Even Bush2 has a big grin on his face.

The Repubs wanted big spending cuts in return for the tax increase on the wealthy. They didn't get sh!t. Not one penny of spending cuts. LOL!!!

That would require a Constitutional Amendment to revoke or change the 14th Amendment.
How about asking Senator Marco Rubio to get it started since he is an anchor baby?

Dennis, you might want to look up the definition of and use of the term "anchor baby". It would not include Senator Rubio.

Further, I am very much in favor of repealing the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment has long outlived its main purpose. But repealing and creating new Amendments are hard to do.

Obama is a lame duck. His influence wanes daily. In two years nobody will care what Obama wants.

Any President gets elected as leader of the Administrative Branch of our federal government, not an all powerful "King". His/her primary power is as "Commander in Chief" and in international affairs, not on domestic issues. The Congress is a separate branch of government and "owes" nothing in terms of whatever a President's agenda might be. The Congress holds the power in terms of what is legislated. Presidents get to implement what is legislated.

The VETO pen works all the way to the end little one.

Changing the 14th Amendment would take another Amendment to our Constitution, and that is not going to happen.

Then why bother calling it a comprehensive immigration reform when all we are doing is making the current batch of illegals legal and facing the same issues in another 30 years?

It's all about getting elected/re-elected. Anything else pales in comparison to a politician.

“We’ve been assuming that when the Baby-Boomer population gets most expensive [to support], that there are going to be [enough] immigrants and their children who are going to be paying into [programs for the elderly], but in the wake of what’s happened in the last five years, we have to reexamine those assumptions.” - Roberto Suro, Professor of Public Policy - University of Southern California - who studies trends in birth rates.

What happened in the last few years is the birth rate has declined more than expected due to the economy. Hispanics think Obama wants to help them. He wants to use them to support the Baby Boomers in their retirement years.