Bev;

Right on. MSM does not fact check as a rule. Several months ago I put up a post where they claim that it is up to the people to figure out what is true and what is not. With that mind set, then what do these people do. It is not journalism, that is for sure. Just lies, playing on peoples fear and hate just to push an agenda. This is what has replaced journalism today.

There are only a few media outlets that do real journalism and fewer that do any fact checking at all. And we wonder why 40% of the people do not now who is the VP of this country, some 30% still believe President Obama is an alien or Muslim, etc.

Almost half think that President Obama has raised taxes when in fact he has lowered taxes to record lows on 95% of the American people. Go figure.

Politicans today are buying their elections, they are not winning n ideas any longer. Just wo has the most money, who can yell the loudest and lie the best (and lie often), Karl Rove used to say if you tell a lie long enough a percentage of the people will believe it.

Typo correction and source:

U.S. companies are buying back their own stock in droves. What's more, it's $273 billion of their own shares, more than five times as much compared with this time last year ) which they (businesses) had set on for months.
Rather than willing to repatriate the money, because it would get hit with a huge corporate tax bill they'd prefer to hoard.
Americans should loath this type of greed of business men who talk with their mouths full; rather than loathe President Obama in an age of nearly a Great Depression which has indisposed US.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/06/AR2010100606772.html

In reality this recovery isn't much different than others in the last few decades. The pace is about the same, even the Summer slowdown in growth happened at the same time as in the last several recoveries, only to have growth start to increase again after a couple of months.

What's different this time? Republican economic policies cause our middle class to be weaker BEFORE the recession than any time since the Great Depression of Republican Herbert Hoover. Republican economic policies caused a much bigger bubble to burst, creating a longer fall before we can stabilize. Republican economic policies have moved wealth from the middle to the top faster than any time in our history.

The recovery is being led by manufacturing, and that's a good thing. Too bad Republican aspirations of America as a service economy have taken away so much of our long term strength.

Hilarious.

MSNBC, who has abandoned all pretense of neutrality or any dedication to actual journalism, pulled their prior lead story off a prominent position and replaced it with this.

What was the prior lead story?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39548132/ns/health-the_new_york_times/

White House allows big firms to dodge health reforms

This spins SO much better, doesn't it?

Remember the words of wisdom from Chicago's great Democratic Mayor Mr. Daley.

VOTE EARLY AND VOTE OFTEN

BEVERLY------- First no one is going to read your book length posts.

Second, spew all of the garbage you like, what we know and all we need to know, is that the inept liar in the white house spent 13 months pushing the insurance farce down our throat, while the UE rate went from 7.5% to 10.1%

The inept quasi socialist in the white house will be a lame duck , shortly.

If you missed my point, it doesn't matter who the conservative candidate is, we will vote for him, if it is Minnie Mouse, we do know we can't afford another two years of the "Supreme Campaigner" in the white house.

I am shocked that you all blame just one group for our countries inabilities. This is not a GOP or Democratic thing, but an out of touch, elitist group of people who think that they know what is best for the American people. You all sound like you need a leader to tell you what to do. Can't you decide your own fate.

Some regulations are fine, to protect the people, but our government has gone above that call. Why do we need 2500 pages and 156 new agencies for health care? Why do we need to report our purchasing of gold in a health care bill? Why couldn't they have saved some trees and paper by just saying that insurance companies have to except everyone, no matter what their pre-existing conditions. That would have taken a lot less time, and probably would have been acceptable to both sides.

Obama hasn't brought hope and change, he has divided the nation, not because of his race, but because he does not listen to 70% of the population and refuses to help the average person. He is intent on giving amnesty, taking from one group and giving to another, and has the backbone of a snake. So keep pleading you case that he cares. He does, only about his golf game:)

bgoode67

BEVERLY------- First no one is going to read your book length posts.

Wrong. Look again. 20 people thus far have. 6 thus far have read yours. the truth hurts you righties so you collapse posts to hid the truth.

If you missed my point, it doesn't matter who the conservative candidate is, we will vote for him, if it is Minnie Mouse, we do know we can't afford another two years of the "Supreme Campaigner" in the white house.

LOL, bgoode67, your vote for Minnie Mouse solidifies just much of a gap in your intelligence quotient you have. It also shows your truth and happiness quotient is very low too.

BigBear62

Obama hasn't brought hope and change, he has divided the nation, not because of his race, but because he does not listen to 70% of the population and refuses to help the average person. He is intent on giving amnesty, taking from one group and giving to another, and has the backbone of a snake. So keep pleading you case that he cares. He does, only about his golf game:)

You mean President Obama is not the "One" who reached across the aisle over and over for compromise just to hear"NOPE"? Or he made all those horrible signs TB love to bring to rallies depicting anarchy? FYI: the republicans in the Senate are sitting on 400 bills.

osamaobama

Was today your day to spew the ignorance for your little Communist clique ? Now you can sit back and wait on your little pack of slimeball Communist pals to tell you what a good little pile of poop you made. PUKE !!!

The "Puke" is TB speak for gagging on insani-ty; you are served daily.

Laugh out Loud you don't even know what Communism is; do you?

FYI: Communist have been following groups around for over 100 years. Every one red cent gained the working middle class and working poor has exploited by Wall Street and corporatist like the billionaires you speak for.

It always pays to know what you are talking about before you speak. Your media literacy challenge of the Day is to dabble your brain and learn what Communism is; instead of being a major exponent of the the "FREEDUMB" FOX NOOSE echo chamber.

FYI: Communist have been following groups around for over 100 years; particularly Black groups.. After all, this is a free country. The Tea publican TEAPOT is supported and bankrolled by the Koch Brothers and Karl Rove's billionaire's club who support sociopaths like militia. There is no comparison for this group which advocates violence and anarchy to Communist. Therefore you have no rational argument. If, you don’t believe me, just ask the nut bag Tea party candidate what Sharon Angle speak is for her 2nd amendment remedies.
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010/09/30/jk.rise.of.militias.cnn

Dr Martin Luther King Jr was also accused of being Communist did you not know that?

J. Edgar Hoover's FBI to portray King as a Bolshevik the same as you righties portray the President as a Communist.The President is not a Communist. He is a Christian.

In Dr King's words... "Now, don't think that you have me in a "bind" today. I'm not talking about Communism.

http://www.famous-speeches-and-speech-topics.info/martin-luther-king-speeches/martin-luther-king-speech-where-do-we-go-from-here.htm

ommunism will never survive in the Black Community. It is antithetical to the core beliefs of most Blacks. I bet you don't know way? Black Christians believe in God and have used that faith in God since slavery whether it was for rejoicing or to escape the drudges of slaver . That unshakable faith has endure to present day. The Black Church is the most powerful institution in its community I would argue. That's why all politicians will make their rounds to it during election. Communist do not believe in God.

Communism is a joke. It failed. Likewise so does yours and other righties accusing our President as Communist. I would be more worried about the militia groups in the Tea Party if I were you.

When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross

Sinclair Lewis quote

Big bear, I believe also that it doesn't matter whom is the republican candidate in 2012, any one of those mentioned would be a welcome relief from this fraud of a president we now have around our neck. He, demonstrably, knows nothing about economics, and surrounds himself with the far left wingers who only care about income redistribution. He and his administration have an extreme bias toward business, which is destroying any chance of wealth creation for this nation. Why the leftists think that the destruction of businesses helps the poor, is totally beyond comprehension to any competent economist.

Man, Republicans have a short memory.

Lets start with the fact that the Economy started to tank while your last savior was in the white house.

Second lets examine this "contract with (to fleece) america". It contains 7 of the biggest pieces of the healthcare legislation in it that Republicans would keep if they get elected. So where were these republicans when Bush and the Republicans were in the white house and in control of congress? Oh that's right it wasn't convenient then because they don't want to take money from their donors. Now with their feet to the fire because of the Healthcare overhaul they need to start acting as if they care about those with pre-existing conditions and lifetime spending cap issues....go f urself.

Yes, basedrum, it started to tank when the Democrats came into power in Congress, REMEMBER?????

Now we are tanking EVEN MORE due to OUT OF CONTROL DEMOCRATIC SPENDING, (guess you don't have short term memory retention either.)

The Health Care Farce is hurting millions more than it is helping. Already, premiums are skyrocketing due to the new mandates. (Much more so than before the bill was signed, thanks for nothing there.) The long term result will be far higher prices for less care. Is that what you were looking for? It won't matter if you have a pre-existing or not, your care will still be rationed, it won't matter about lifetime limits as you won't have access to the care to get anywhere near the limits.

Thanks for nothing.......

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

I am so glad despite my poor typing skills you were able to understand my post.

I'm equally grateful that you and I are on the same page. It's truly sad the Republicans have put America in such a precarious position. Yet, the slime coming from the GOP/TP is the President is a communist and hasn't kept US safe. When in actuality it is they who have subjected US to the highest bidder(s) and a change in the fabric of our socioeconomic future.

That is why I will be exposing this "BIG LIE" to everyone in my environment its important significance and encourage them to not to vote Republican or Tea Party.

I was skeptical after the Citizens United decision when analysts theorized that it might not lead to a huge influx of business money into campaigns. The theory was that business would be afraid of looking too partisan and would shy away from putting money into the electoral cycle. It seemed disingenuous at the time because it seemed so obvious to use a PAC or advocacy group to hide the source of the money. Then Republicans blocked passage of bills to force these deep pockets industrialists to be revealed.

If they were doing something honest Republican donors wouldn't need to hide their identities. The Conservative majority of the Supreme Court has legalized bribery. The GOPTP has no interest in stopping it.

Bev & John B.

I agree with you both. We are in some serious trouble as a Nation. We have no way of knowing who is bribing who, and that is what it is or maybe extortion is more appropriate.

I agree with John in that if you have a position that you support why would you not want people to know? Why are they giving huge sums of money in campaign contributions and keeping it secret.

How many people will go the Wall Mart or any major company if they new these companies were sending money to republicans to push an Agenda that is basically against their best interests. How would you feel to know that China, India, Russia or some other country is deciding what we in America can do, think or say? How about being promised Jobs that should stay here get farmed to India to repay their campaign contributions.

This huge influx of unregulated money for political gain is going to destroy this country. Not today, or tomorrow but not to far down the road it will happen.

And what does the Democratic party stand for.

Unions that have overpriced themselves in the workplace, yet build crappy items.

Amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Taking from one group and giving to another so they can get a vote.

The Republicans may not be perfect, but they haven't given us the following:

The Great Society-entering its 6th generation of welfare families.

Social Security-a no win situation if it is not reformed. What ever happened to people saving for their own retirement

Heath care--And we don't even know what is in half of the bill, but "too big to fail" companies are already getting waivers because they can't afford to keep the coverage for their employees.

Medicaid/Medicare--overpriced policies that government is scared to touch because they might lose a vote.

Income Taxes--a system that begs people to cheat.

And upcoming events

Cap and Trade, more bailouts, and of course socialism.

It won't be long and we won't eve be able to blog anymore, because the government is looking for a button to shut down the internet.

Monopoly of country for sale over...

Oh please spare us your selective condemnation and hypocritical outrage over corporate and foreign campaign finance. Obama and his election was all about corporate influence, bought and paid for by foreign funds and the only reason you don’t care is you happen to like the outcome. You get your talking points and outrage from MSNBC, whose parent company GE, up until now, had virtually exclusive corporate influence over elections via their media holdings. Now that it’s a level playing field GE’s miffed and you find it unacceptable? Imagine that? Before you start splitting hairs and making exceptions for your so called principles, there is no difference between pouring money directly into a campaign or pouring money into media to cover up, provide bias reporting, dupe the public and do the campaigning for the candidate.

I don’t particularly like the ruling either, but it sure as heck beats the influential monopoly we’ve endured at the mercy of bias corporations the likes of GE.

also, how do you not set a budget or vote on taxes! cowards!

Big Bear 62 - Blah, Blah, Blah....no one buys your sky is falling rhetoric. So stop already. However, the fact the Republicans are more than willing to sell this country to the highest foreign bidder is definitely something to be worried about. There's nothing wrong with programs like Social Security and Medicare and all the scare tactics that you drum up won't change the fact that they are two of the most successful programs in the history of this country....pulled seniors up out of poverty and gave them dignity. So get over it already. These programs will never be destroyed by the likes of people like you.

Well said BigBear62. As a veteran of Desert Shield/Storm I have to disagree with my "Comrade In Arms". I thank him for his service but at first glance, unfortunately, he falls into a category that mirrors the Democratic Party...Gimme! Gimme this or gimme that. (love that word huh) Take care of me b/c I'm unable or unwilling to take care of myself. Basically, I'm a Democrat so I deserve to be taken care of.

Folks, if there's a free lunch somewhere somebody else is paying for it. That's how things work. When you figure that out then you might understand why the Democratic platform is destined to fail.

Capitalism or Socialism...you choose. I sort of like capitalism myself.

Exactly correct.

You are neglecting Obamas billionaire friend George Soros a left wing loony that is controlling Obama like a puppet. Also, most of what you speak of is nonsense similar to believing 9/11 was a government conspiracy. There is plenty of buzz for the Republicans and they will take back the house next month as Americans are tired of speeches and blame.

I figured the koolaid drinkers would swarm to a picture of palin like flys to poo, instead of trying to explain their way out of the other article about how the white house has let some businesses slide on the health care thing. see no evil, right? or is it, blame bush again?

Gee Navy Vet... you must be so proud to support democrats across the board. Looking at it from your point of view, narrow as it is, I can understand why you want a deceptive group of individuals running this country. After all, the democrats own the horrible health care reform. A pile of trash that will cost us more, not provide the benefits and practically destroy the best health care system in the country... makes perfect sense, from your point of view. And I can see why you support Obama - who just caved in to the interests of big business, granting them waivers for not having to follow the health care reform he so heavily pushed through congress... It appears even he can't justify it's existance.

I can understand why you support people like Harry Reid, the one who declared we lost the war in Iraq. Nancy Pelosi, the wicked witch of the west that strong armed support for health care.

It's easy for you to blame republicans because you won't even look at all the corruption in the democrat party... Rangle, Boxer, et al. To you those events are a plot of the evil conservatives to discredit the honor of the democrats.

Amazing how you can still tie your shoes since you really have no vision.

BigBear62

And what does the Democratic party stand for.

Unions that have overpriced themselves in the workplace, yet build crappy items.

Have you ever had to supervise a union and non-union tradesman in the field? Have you seen the final product? I have supervised union and non-union pipe fitters, electricians, millwrights and carpenters.

I am far from a union supporter but the work speaks for itself. Union work costs more - but you get better work and better quality from them. If given the choice at work (or at my home even) - i would hire a union tradesman over a non-union one any day of the week. Better bang for your buck.

ANYONE ELSE NOTICING THAT MSNBC IS THROWING THESE STORIES ONTO MSN.COM ONLY AFTER THEY SIT ON THE NBC NEWS WEBSITE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME ALLOWING BIASED LIBERALS TO POST THEIR COMMENTS FIRST? (Since nobody but far left liberals looks at the NBC NEWS website now days after it has become very clear how biased they are in their reporting on politics)

Then they move the story and comments over to MSN.COM where many more people will see it since many people have MSN.COM as their home page, I am assuming this is an attempt to sway public opinion on political issues. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SMARTER THAN THAN MSNBC!

Beverly, your saying this left wing piece of crap, sponsored by George Soro's himself has any creditability what so ever except with the radical Left Wing of the Progressive, Socialist, Welfare, Democratic Party has any bearing on the hard working people of America. Do you ?? How sad it must be to put your future in this mans grasp....

Laurie,

It saddens me to think that there are people out there that don't fact check and don't find the truth. I am sure that you listen to Chris Matthews and Keith Oberman to get your facts and truth. Or you are one of the millions of people this administration is taking care of, therefore you vote for them, because it would be too hard to work and save on your own.

Here are the real fact, from the SS office and website.

in 1940, there were 159.4 workers for each beneficiary of Social Security

in 2006, when the Dems took over the Congress, there were a whopping 3.3 workers for each beneficiary

today, 4 years later, 2010 there are 2.9 workers for every beneficiary of Social Security.

You tell me how this is going to survive, without a bailout. Considering that 93% of the people in this nation are dependent upon Social Security and don't save for themselves. What, are we going to raise taxes on those of us who still work? We already pay up to 36% on regular taxes and 6.2% on Social Security. Are we going to lower income taxes to pay for Social Security taxes.

The problem with you liberals is that the only way you know how to fix something is take it from those who have and give it to those who won't work for themselves. All government programs need to be reformed. If you all can't think of a way to reform the programs without raising taxes, then you are no better than the GOP you complain about. Maybe you and your followers should take a history lesson from the Cubans. Socialism does not work!

If there is any doubt of the evil that Democrats and President Obama are up against, this quote says it all:

"Several leading insurers, including WellPoint, Aetna and Cigna, have also objected to new rules requiring them to cover even those children who are seriously ill, warning that they will stop selling new policies in some states because the rules do not protect them from having to cover too many sick children."

Mike,

I have worked around both types of people myself. I don't know what jobs your guys were working but in the 2 fields that I have worked with, the non union personnel were much better to work with than union groups. I refuse to give my money to allow someone to represent me at the local level. I don't make that much, and unions aren't going to help me in my present field.

But in my many life experiences, it really was management that made the difference between good working conditions and bad working conditions. Not some union rep that sat around convincing us that they would help. That is what capitalism is suppose to be about. Good businesses will make money and bad businesses will fail, unless of course the government keeps them around for the unions.

I believe that we would have been better off allowing the banks and automakers to fail. In the long run it would have saved the country. But bailing out businesses that don't perform is a waste of taxpayer funds, something we will never see dividends for.

BB,

Let's see what a true Republican Hero had to say about your lame rethoric:

Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this--in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

This is not you Father's GOP. You sound like one of those GOTP haters.

I guess you agree with the dumbest woman in America,Ms.Pelosi,who claims that unemployment checks and food stamps are the greatest stimulus to our economy?I guess you also agree that our govt. that produces nothing but corrupt politicians should be paying their employees DOUBLE what the average American worker earns.

You of all folks should wonder why an American serviceman or woman who puts his or her life in harms way should be paid 20% of what the average non-producing,non-working,govt.employee gets (notice I said "gets" rather than earns). If a dirtbag Congressman gets $165,000 for life + "special healthcare" what should we who have served our country in the military get??

Wake up, use your head for something other than a hat rack---ALL PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS ARE CORRUPT BASTARDS, AND THEY ALL NEED TO BE CHANGED EVERY FOUR YEARS (YES THERE ARE A FEW EXCEPTIONS).

We should not be "politically correct" we should be America correct--it's not the PARTY-its the PERSON.

Okay Amy - tell ya what.

You start an insurance company and you offer insurance to anyone who wants it, regardless of pre-existing conditions. Make sure you offer it at a reasonable price and make sure they can get unlimited benefits. Please let me know how long you stay in business.

just my thoughts - that's kind of the point. Insurance companies are charging exorbitant prices (or, more accurately, are doing very little to keep prices of providers down) because they are providing one of the world's most inelastic goods. They have to be regulated to provide 70 cents per dollar received of healthcare (medicare, for all its problems, provides 99 cents per dollar). Should the health of our nation's members be left to an entity with a profit motive?

I am sick of hearing about Sarah Palin! She is an “accidental” celebrity and not a real politician and certainly not a scholar. So why does the media insist on hanging onto her every word.

The woman is a dolt and just cunning enough and attractive enough to become a millionaire with her book deals and speaking tour.

Is the media intentionally talking her up so that she will be misguided enough to think she can run for President in 2012 ? We know the media loves the kind of mini-dramas associated with Palinand that it would make good copy and good ratings.

It literally makes my head hurt when the media talks about Palin as if she brings gravitas to the table. She is a manufactured phenomenon thanks John McCain and his ill-fated choice of her for the 2008 election.

I do not plan to vote Republican so it matters not to me who they nominate. Unless it is somebody reasonable and smart like Mitt Romney they don’t stand a chance against Barack Obama.

After all, the democrats own the horrible health care reform. A pile of trash that will cost us more, not provide the benefits and practically destroy the best health care system in the country.

The same "horrible health care reform" that the GOP is pledging to keep in their "Pledge to America"? The GOP say's they want to keep the new rules for insurance companies like not denying coverage to preexisting conditions, dropping people who get sick or life time caps on claims.

Is this the same GOP that preaches no government involvement in the free market?

Ive said this before - but living in NE Ohio, i refuse to back Democrats. It seems every week we are finding a new Dem and arresting them on corruption charges, bribery, etc. Ive also found through my own personal experiences that the Democrats - especially Sherrod Brown - were useless when actually trying to write them to get some answers. All I got were form letters with his talking points.

I dont agree with the Republicans on a lot of things. But the Democrats here have done nothing but acted like scumbags. I wont say that all Dems are scumbags, nor will i say the Republicans are the saviors. But i will not give the Dems my vote when they act the way our NE OH democrats have acted, and cant be bothered to answer questions from constituits.

But anyone sitting here saying that The Left have the answers or The Right have the answers are blindly fooling themselves with partizan politics. Both sides have ideas of merit, and Both sides have blame that they need to accept. NEITHER side is perfect and NEITHER side is flawless. They Both lie, and they both actively do everything they can to buy as many votes as they can. If you beleive otherwise, thats your curse.

You've brilliantly illustrated two major failings of statists, Rtypo, when it comes to accurately representing the differences between them and conservatives.

1. The framework of rules forcing insurance companies to abide by the contracts they write were ALWAYS agreed to by Republicans. ALWAYS. They were in fact part of the much smaller scale plan Republicans proposed as an incremental approach to the health care problem - as opposed to the everything but the kitchen sink and including student loans approach the Dems insisted on. Republicans also realize that a full appeal is virtually impossible. Since they always agreed with the revised insurance company rules, why WOULDN'T they keep them?

2. You don't actually understand, or refuse to understand, that non-statists recognize and accept the need for government regulation that forces people and business to abide by contracts, and enforce laws against outright lying, theft and other obviously undesirable activity. They do NOT believe in regulation that chokes a business to the extent that they leave the country or shut down, OR that aleviates individuals from their own level of responsbility for being informed consumers.

It's a hard balance to reach, and the Republicans have over de-regulated to a comparable extent that Democrats have over-regulated.

But just leave off with the hyperbole that Republicans want NO regulation.

It's patently false.

Look for piles of fresh manure...there should be a buzzing sound emanating from the swarm of flies present.

"You don't actually understand, or refuse to understand, that non-statists recognize and accept the need for government regulation that forces people and business to abide by contracts, and enforce laws against outright lying, theft and other obviously undesirable activity."

YOU may feel that way PTAF, but the Conservatives who lead the Republican Party don't. You need to acquaint yourself with the story of Brooksley Born, who saw the danger Derivetives held for the economy years in advance. She was stopped by Republican Alan Greenspan, who told her that government shouldn't prosecute fraud! http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/

Like it or not THAT is how crazy Conservative economics has gone. Even fraud is not to be regulated or prosecuted--just assume the market will take care of everything.

Pragmatic - I see conservative newsviners and GOP pundits consistantly bash the so called "Obamacare" (as demonstrated in my previous quote) yet if the GOP is backing much of the health care legislation, what specifically are they so opposed to within that legislation? As far as I can tell they are simply opposed to Obama himself.

I see a bunch of disgruntled people that are simply (still) pissed off that their party is a congressional minority and that we have Obama as president. They seem to be sowing sour grapes rather than any substantial opposition to specific legislation.

My sister and I have said to each other for years that the only way to assure fair elections is to take big money out of it. Arianna Huffington has just written a book which agrees with us, stating the system has become very corrupt....which we already know. Candidates should run on public funding only with no outside special interest groups able to donate money or run their own campaign adds. This way they are not beholden to anyone but the people they represent. Currently, they answer to those who give them the most money....Wall Street/big business, etc. It will also stop our representatives from going out on the fundraising trail when they should be spending time doing the job they are being paid to do. Limit the number of campaign adds they can show and possibly make them on the same level as public service announcements...free or nearly free. Unfortunately, they won't do this...they like the current status quo....they like all that money. So, it will have to be up to us...THE PEOPLE....to put these referendums on the ballot and vote them in. It will have to be a grassroots effort to do so. It's the only way to truly clean things up and take a lot of the corruption out of politics.

Liberty is what America should really be voting for not socialism.

It's time for people to start thinking for themselves rather than follow their parents party "just because that's what they've always been", and for those that have made an intellectual choice to re-evaluate through the lens of Liberty:

lib·er·ty

noun \ˈli-bər-tē\

1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.

Ron Paul

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Thomas Jefferson

Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Abraham Lincoln

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

John F. Kennedy

Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people.

John Adams

Liberty has never come from Government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it.

Woodrow Wilson

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.

Alexis de Tocqueville

Give me liberty or give me death.

Patrick Henry

Let's clear some things up about taxes for the rich...

Suppose that every day, ten people go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth person (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten people drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four people were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six people – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get their 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth person and the sixth person would each end up being paid to drink their beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each person's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth guy, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, they began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works.

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

You have no right to redistribute anyones wealth. THATS LIBERTY. We only have a moral obligation to make sure that lose less fortunate have access to PURSUING Happiness.

Lowering ALL taxes makes companies/people want to be where there's less tax burden. So by lowering Corp taxes companies like Intel will want to stay in the US, (creating jobs) and more importantly creating a large tax base.

On this volatile subject (which the Dems would most certainly pin on the Rep) think of this: If we tax every corp in the US to the extreme (say 80% of all earnings) does that really get us more useable cash? Short term yes, but then all these companies would leave the US and go overseas where there's less tax burden. No companies, no tax. If you lower the taxation on the evil corporations, more corporations move here. More corporations more taxes.

I know all the Dems are seething now that I've said "Lower corporate taxes", but truth of the matter is doing so gets us more money to work with and more jobs. The reason all these corporations went over seas is in part because you want to tax them to death to pay for your social engineering.

As stated in the below article by the former CEO of Intel "(The effective U.S. corporate income tax is 35 percent, far over the industrialized-nation average of 18.2 percent.)". Now where would a conglomerate want to be based? Certainly not here. It's just not good for business. But what happens when hypothetically PetroChina, or Toyota find out that the US cut the corporate taxes to say 10-15%? We get growth, and jobs and increased tax revenues because of the influx of business. Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20014563-38.html

For all you Socialistic Robin Hood's out there that want to rob from the rich to give to the poor. This isn't a Kingdom. One Monarch isn't tyrannically controlling all the wealth, in fact many of the wealthy are probably employing you and giving you a decent wage. Most of those wealthy are contributing to charities or public works projects, disaster aid, medical research, etc.. Why is it you think their success should be penalized and stolen from them? Didn't they earn it?

No, it's only because you think your Big Brother Socialistic Government needs to morally decide how that money is spent. For you only the masses moral dictatorship over the individuals liberty and morals should prevail. Sorry I'm not your cattle to be herded under you own moral agenda. I can make my own moral choices without infringing on your personal liberty.

P.S. I have absolutely no issue with paying taxes as long as it's not for bloated social programs.

Here is the purpose of the Government as stated in the Constitution :

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Many of you have a righteous cause "promote the general welfare", BUT you cannot do it at the sacrifice of "securing blessings of liberty". This is where you err and socialism is wrong.

Many of you sound like a serf in a kingdom.

What you don't see is that you have every facilty and every opportunity in this country to become your own Lord and Master. No one, no nothing is is preventing you from becoming rich except you.

There is no rich elite King holding you down. That's a fairy tale.

One more clarification and proof that the middle class isn't paying a greater portion of thier income to taxes using information from:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in11si.xls

Using this data from the IRS, you can use the average income per bracket, and then compare that to the Average Tax paid in by people in that Bracket AFTER DEDUCTIONS. That works out like this:

No adjusted gross income 0.0%
$1 under $5,000 6.1%
$5,000 under $10,000 2.7%
$10,000 under $15,000 2.9%
$15,000 under $20,000 3.8%
$20,000 under $25,000 5.2%
$25,000 under $30,000 6.2%
$30,000 under $40,000 6.8%
$40,000 under $50,000 7.5%
$50,000 under $75,000 8.4%
$75,000 under $100,000 9.2%
$100,000 under $200,000 11.3%
$200,000 under $500,000 16.0%
$500,000 under $1,000,000 21.8%
$1,000,000 under $1,500,000 24.0%
$1,500,000 under $2,000,000 24.6%
$2,000,000 under $5,000,000 21.1%
$5,000,000 under $10,000,000 21.9%
$10,000,000 or more 31.2%

This clearly shows that people making under $100,000 per year are only actually paying less than 9.2% of there income in as Federal Taxes. While on the other hand the rich are paying over 20%, and the ultra rich are paying 30% or higher.

The Rich pay a higher amount in taxes, period. In fact 74.5% of all adjusted income taxes collected are paid by those making 100,000 or more. And 52.0% of all adjusted income taxes collected are paid by those making 200,000 or more.

Social Security's future problems are predictable, even if their exact timing is uncertain. As millions of baby boomers approach retirement, the program's annual cash surplus will shrink and then disappear. Then, Social Security will not be able to pay full benefits from its payroll and other tax revenues. It will need to consume ever-growing amounts of general revenue dollars to meet its obligations--money that now pays for everything from environmental programs to highway construction to defense. Eventually, either benefits will have to be slashed or the rest of the government will have to shrink to accommodate Social Security.

The exact timing of this crunch is less important than its inevitability. Whether Social Security begins to spend more on paying benefits than it receives in taxes in 2017 or 2018 or any other specific year means much less than what these deficits will mean to our economy. Our children may be faced with the choice of paying retirement benefits to their parents or paying for programs that help their own children. That future is coming, and no amount of wishful thinking will change that.

The reason that Social Security's deficits are inevitable is fairly simple. Demographics are more predictable than most events. Millions of baby boomers will begin to retire in 2008, when those born in 1946 reach Social Security's early retirement age of 62. From then until 2025, every year will see another crop of baby boomers reach the 62 year-old threshold. Because the baby boomers have not produced enough children to replace themselves, the number of taxpaying workers will shrink.

Demographic trends do not change rapidly. It takes about 25 years to grow a new taxpayer. We can estimate with surprising accuracy how many people born in a particular year will live to reach retirement. The retirees of 2070 were all born in 2003, and we can see and count them today.

This is critical, because a retiree's Social Security benefits are actually paid from the taxes of those who are still working. The program's finances are based on the relationship between the number of workers paying taxes and the number of retirees receiving benefits.

Back in 1950, as the baby boom was just getting started, each retiree's benefit was divided among 16 workers. Taxes could be kept low. Today, that number has dropped to 3.3 workers per retiree, and by 2025, it will reach--and remain at--about two workers per retiree. Each married couple will have to pay, in addition to their own family's expenses, Social Security retirement benefits for one retiree. In order to pay promised benefits, either taxes of some kind must rise or other government services must be cut.

This future is coming with steady speed. Social Security's annual cash surpluses will begin to fall in 2008, the same year that the first baby boomers reach early retirement age. Over roughly the next 10 years, those Social Security surpluses, about $100 billion a year at their peak, will continue to shrink and then disappear completely. Without those surpluses to reduce the size of the federal deficit, Congress will have to raise taxes to bring in billions of dollars of new revenues, cut programs, or let annual deficits climb.

And then the real problems hit. Somewhere around 2017, on top of replacing Social Security's $100 billion annual surplus, Congress will have to find billions more so that Social Security can pay all of the benefits that it has promised. Within about five years, that additional money will reach $100 billion a year (not counting inflation). From there, the annual demands will reach first $200 billion a year, and soon $300 billion a year.

Then there is Medicare. Together, Social Security and Medicare will consume an estimated 60 percent of income taxes collected by 2040. What's left would have to finance the entire rest of the government.

Without reform, Social Security's future is inevitable, like it or not. We can either prepare now, or dither about what year it will happen.

This Socialistic construct had basis in morality, but was created in the face of Liberty. (Freedom of Choice). Had this been constructed originally as more of a mandatory savings by Americans for retirement in individual personal accounts, this situation outlined above wouldn't be the predicament we are in now.

Sure you don't want to end your kind hearted moralistic social program, but the bubble is coming and frankly the blame for it lands squarely on your shoulders.

I for one don't want any more of your social engineering. I've saved for my retirement.

"I am far from a union supporter but the work speaks for itself. Union work costs more - but you get better work and better quality from them. If given the choice at work (or at my home even) - i would hire a union tradesman over a non-union one any day of the week. Better bang for your buck."

I guess that is why my Chrysler Mini van is back in the shop again, now needs a new Axel at 37k miles, been in there for 2 days. I have had this van for right at two years, bought it new and it has been in the shop 5 times for pretty major stuff. American auto manufacturers can't compete with Japan when it comes to quality. The only thing keeping them competative was the cost factor, american cars used to be cheaper, not any more.

Everyone is so upset that some of the Republican Campaign supporters don't have to diclose their contributors. Are you just as upset that Democrats have the same type of organizations?

Janet,

The Democrats do the same thing, they are just complaining right now because they are behind in many places. It is hard to get donations from people on welfare or unemployment when they are just trying to stay alive. Their big donors in Hollywood have moved their money overseas to protect it and the others are not getting the results that they desire.

As far as taxes go,

Well we should just reform the old system, and give ourselves a flat tax rate, something that everyone should pay. Instead of millions of deductions, people should get a credit for home ownership, children, dependents, and health care. Then they pay 9% in income taxes. And by the way, the government, all of them, should have to learn to balance a budget, even if they have to take a pay cut.

Va Ind said:

I guess that is why my Chrysler Mini van is back in the shop again, now needs a new Axel at 37k miles, been in there for 2 days. I have had this van for right at two years, bought it new and it has been in the shop 5 times for pretty major stuff. American auto manufacturers can't compete with Japan when it comes to quality. The only thing keeping them competative was the cost factor, american cars used to be cheaper, not any more.

Actually, the American auto makers, particularly Ford, made gains in quality and longevity in the mid-late nineties. Generally speaking, Ford is on par with Toyota and Honda in terms of quality and has been for a decade. GM lags behind but has improved, and Chrysler, with all of its problems, is the worst of the big three. Even then, your axle blew out. I'm not a huge union supporter (public sector unions in particular), but can you really blame component failure on the laborers that put your car together?

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveonaCar/WhoMakesTheHighestQualityCars.aspx

Wow Sybrsean...you sure can type fast. 5 long posts within 7 minutes. I think you win for long posts in the shortest amount of time. Congrats.

Why don't we just get rid of all taxes. This will settle everyone's tummies and we can all just keep everything we earn or don't earn. Why should corporations have to pay taxes on their buildings or their profits. They don't make enough profits as it is. And forget all those stupid regulations. I think red toxic sludge running through towns and villages and contaminating the water for several countries is a great idea.

NO regulations, No taxes , YEAH!!!!!!

I've been fighting the socialists for a few weeks now. I'm prepared.

With respect to your comment on taxes why don't you try reading what I actually said before putting words in my mouth.

From Above: "P.S. I have absolutely no issue with paying taxes as long as it's not for bloated social programs."

bigbear wrote:

people should get a credit for home ownership, children, dependents, and health care. Then they pay 9% in income taxes....

The mortgage tax credit is widely criticized as one of the least effective/necessary deductions in our tax system. Many economists believe it is costly and ineffective.

Given the constant increases in health care costs, how big a deduction do you think would be required?

I understand that you feel anything less than a flat tax is wealth redistribution, which you believe is unfair. That's fine, but how many of the rich do you believe followed the American dream and are self-made? What of their opportunities as youngsters? How many are second-generation rich and beyond? Is it fair for the poverty stricken to pay another 9% of what little they have in the interest of your definition of fairness?

Robin Hood the real story.

Well done Sybrsean and keep fighting.

If I may, I would like to bring a little clarification to your Robin Hood analogy, which the libs have been distorting for years. You see Robin Hood didn’t rob from the rich and give to the poor. He took from the King (the govt) that which the govt had unjustly taken from the people. He was simply returning what had been stolen from them. Libs like to use Robin Hood as proof that taking from the rich is acceptable. It just ain’t so. Now you know the true story of Robin Hood.

Excellent Paul. I stand corrected. :)

Wow Sybersean, did you learn all of that from Glenn Beck?

I completely agree, do away with federal taxes. Then institute a VAT tax, Fair Tax or whatever you want to call it. No deductions for ANYONE, no earned income credit, no tax loopholes for corporations, and no refunds for ANYONE. Determine a fair amount and everyone pays the SAME for EVERY ITEM they buy. Perhaps exclude food that isn't convenience food. That way even the poorest among us would be able to buy nuitricious food, like fresh vegetables and fruits without the tax. EVERYTHING ELSE should be taxed. 50% of the country doesn't pay any Federal Income Tax, its time EVERYONE should.

RTypo6 said "Wow Sybersean, did you learn all of that from Glenn Beck?"

I don't even know who that is. I assume it's a talking head from Fox. I don't watch the propaganda (news).

I'm simply a free-thinker not bound by the chains of two dysfunctional parties.

You may also note that I back up my statements with links to some sort of proof that substantiates where my own ideas come from. Those sources are probably as unbiased as anyone could hope for. (Not to say that they are infallable).

Atleast I had something meaningful to contribute.

Atleast I had something meaningful to contribute.

Indeed you did. My apologies.

Accepted. (/virtual handshake)

I don't think we'll ever get out of our messes until we all start talking about this stuff in a meaningful way.

Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people. John Adams

John, you pick out ONE conservative from 15 years ago, and decide that that person's opinions are indicative of EVERY conservative in the US now, or more specifically, Washington? I really can't stand having conversations with liberals sometimes, because of the propensity of doing that. Then out of the other side of your mouths, you say stuff like "Not ALL Muslims are terrorists, you're a bigot!!!"

Here's the thing: There aren't many true FISCAL conservatives in Washington, and there haven't been for a very, very long time. CLINTON was more fiscally conservative that Bush, FFS. He sort of got forced into being that way, but nevertheless, he was.

People, and I think this may include you, get confused. They think that because someone like John McCain or George Bush SAYS they're a conservative, that they are. They're not fiscal conservatives, they're SOCIAL conservatives.

Here's my dream party: Fiscal conservatism, TRUE fiscal conservatism, ala Harding and to a lesser extent, Eisenhower - mixed with a REASONABLE amount of social liberalness. Leave the "morality" out of it entirely and leave that for the states to deal with should they so choose, ie abortion, gay marriage. I oppose neither, just for the record. BUT ALSO leave out the "morality" that says there should be equal outcome without equal effort, that some people need to be badly disadvantaged to advantage someone else, and that the money a person earns is subject to confiscation at a rate determined by the government to achieve "social justice". Reasonable safety nets that aren't allowed to become hammocks, reasonable regulations that aren't allowed to do more harm than good. Err on the side of caution, proceed with caution.

Who in Washington represents that type of - and clearly this is MY opinion to which I AM entitled - reasonable moderation? I'm drawing a blank.

Rtyp06 -

The specific issues the Republicans had with the health care bill include the mandate WITHOUT forcing national competition. There was NO tort reform, which would have saved $54 to $80 billion in health care alone, and billions more by ending other frivolous lawsuits. Tort law in this country is an utter mess, written to advantage the plaintiff which simply isn't fair. Their biggest issues were the subsidies, because of the cost and the budget gimmickry of six years of "service" but 10 years of costs.

I happen to agree with them on those objections. I think it's becoming apparent that the bill was simply too damn big, and that was another thing the Republicans AND many Democrats wanted to do, as I said - break it down into smaller, more incremental pieces that could be understood better.

Discretion is often the better part of valor. The Democrats showed no discretion with that bill at all, and now it's too late.

BTW, Sybersean? Awesome stuff.

The Bush White House published a study on the actual taxes paid by various income levels as a percentage of their incomes.

This is not some hypothetical amount, or something based solely on income tax rates, but the actual amounts paid in a given year.

If you make a middle-class income of around $80,000 per year you pay about 34% of that income in taxes.

If you make an income in excess of $300,000 per year, you pay an average of 17% of that income in taxes.

These numbers come from the Bush White House, not some liberal think tank.

That's the whole problem with Conservatism, it only works in theory. Theoretically less regulation allows the market to fix all problems. Theoretically elimination of a hand up through the government equals more freedom. Theoretically every time you reduce taxes there's an explosion of economic activity. Theoretically the market will always cause sellers to set a fair price and employers to pay a fair wage. Theoretically buyers and sellers are always fully informed and rational. Theoretically Christian Conservatives dictating morality and law doesn't interfere with anyone else's freedom in any meaningful fasion. Theoretically we all achieve to our natural level no matter where we start in life and no matter what challenges are set in our way.

Thus we get the excuse that Conservatism only fails because it's never been done right, or people who claim to be Conservatives really aren't, or because someone interfered before events ran their natural course.

There's always an excuse why Conservatism doesn't work. All you need to know is that Conservatism doesn't work.

Of course you have to drag the hated CHRISTIANS into it. Typical liberal, prog nozzle fail - try to make this about something it's not to deflect from the failure of your argument, which is nothing but hyperbole.

I try to have a rational discussion with you, and EVERY SINGLE TIME you turn it into an ideological bullcrap session.

How about this, why don't you give me an example of SOCIALISM that's worked? Or Communism? Or Marxism?

Or I suppose you would prefer "social democracies" like all those wise Europeans with a fraction of our population and and even smaller fraction of our geography, but multiples of our tax rates, have? Look into that, see what they're doing.

They're running away from the nanny state bullcrap as fast as they can. Why? BECAUSE IT'S NOT SUSTAINABLE, even when they tax their entire population - while meanwhile you want to support the same nonsense here with only 53% of the workforce footing the bill? Yea, that'll work REAL well. /sarcasm.

I'm reading Paul Krugman's latest book, you should check it out, if you can stand reality for that long.

Utopia does not, nor will it ever, exist, John. Hate to be the one to break it to you. If you have not picked up on it, I'm not interested in high brow bloviating but in actual discussions about the real world.

"There's always an excuse why Conservatism doesn't work. All you need to know is that Conservatism doesn't work."

And socialism does?

Why are we discussing these two extremes as if anyone believes in the purest form of either? There's clearly a middle ground, and clearly there are disagreements as to where that is. But can we stop attacking the parties as one or the other? Neither label properly fits either party, though you can see which side they lean to.

Dear right wingers: when you start out with a false premise, like Obama is a "socialist" you make the rest of your point moot. Do learn that.

Navy, i believe that the Obama administration has sold this country out when he was elected. Many don't believe he provided the "hope and change" they desired.

so•cial•ism
–noun[soh-shuh-liz-uhm]

3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

col•lec•tiv•ism
noun \kÉ-Ëlek-ti-Ëvi-zÉm\
Definition of COLLECTIVISM

2: emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity

Socialism is an economic system whereas communism is a governmental system. That is why you can have a communist government in China that embraces capitalism and a democratic government in Sweden that embraces socialism.

Navy, are you really Chuckie Todd in drag? Your posts have that Todd flavor.

Joe in Albany

You forgot this part in your report...

Friday's report is expected to show overall nonfarm payrolls were unchanged in September, based on a Reuters poll of analysts. Private payrolls, however, are expected to increase by 75,000.

Economists often refer to the ADP report to fine-tune their expectations for the payrolls numbers, though it is not always accurate in predicting the outcome.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6952MA20101006

That's why reading from beginning to end should be fundamentally essential for TBs and righties.

LOL indeed, Joe.

Pass my stimulus and unemployment won't go beyond 8.0 uh 8.5 uh 9.0 uh 9.5 uh hurry pass that Bill so we can see what's in it

Do you know why Obama has more jobs created than Bush? Everyone was working when Bush was President. There was no need to create government jobs!!!

November cant come soon enough. This country will be taken back from these socialistists in power.

Grinchie,

You forget about the last quarter of 2008 - when the economy fell off the cliff... Corporations starting laying off people in the first quarter of 2009, something I would hardly say is the fault of an incoming President...

I just cant wait to see what all the righties are going to say if they win the mid terms and things get worse that what they are now(which they undoubtedly will)...who are they going to blame besides themselves?

Joe in Albany:

You are not asserting that the "government should create job are you??

How's this for a reality check...

Assuming the Republicans take back the Congress in November, the minute they try to "take away" anything that the Democrats and President Obama have given to the taxpayers you will hear howling all across the land.

Can you say one term and out for the Republicans if they...

Repeal Health Care Reform

Repeal Financial Reform

Priviatize Social Security

Touch Medicare in any way

Eliminate the Department of Interior

Eliminate the Department of Energy

Eliminate the Department of Education

Eliminate Unemployment Insurance

You get the picture. One and done!

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." – Dwight D. Eisenhower, to Edgar Newton Eisenhower, November 8, 1954

Unfortunately, their numbers aren't negligible any more...and they can pour hundreds of millions of dollars into campaigns. Citibank is right...this country is no longer a democracy, but a plutocracy.

Sheila,

Are you kidding me? Don't you know that there is about an 80-90% re-election rate among your congressmen, only in times of peril or stupidity do they change drastically. This might be one of those times.

A Democratic party that has destroyed the economy of this nation, more agencies and regulations than ever before. A health care bill that includes stuff we don't know about, including a 7 page form that we have to fill out if we buy gold. Why would something like that be in a health care bill. Oh because it is the government's way of keeping up with everything so they can take it away. Liberal Democrats.

Why do we need the department of energy, they don't seem to make good decisions--check out the Gulf oil spill.

What is wrong with reforming, maybe not privatizing, social security. Maybe it is time that people started saving on their own instead of expecting the government to take care of them.

Cuts across the board in government are needed, except for those who wear the uniform of the United States of America. They need to better paid to begin with.

I am hoping that we say goodbye to liberalism, spending, and stupidity in this election. Maybe we can get rid of saving Pelosi Marsh Mouse in California and start giving the country back to the people.

Pat, I'm as big a baseball fan as they come, and Doc's stunner was marvelous to watch. However, something far more important happened yesterday:

A Federal judge in New York gutted the government's case against a terrorist in the first civilian trial brought by Obama's DoJ, thus exposing the folly of treating war criminals as common thieves.

I, personally, find that to be more important. Obviously, neither you nor MSNBC agree, since there is no coverage on this site. Is it not news?

Yoo hoo, da nod, where in First Read is there coverage? Did it rate a mention in First Thoughts? Any mention by today's early posters?

Right.

I, personally find that the MSM NOT covering foreign dollars being funneled to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in an attempt to influence American elections much more disturbing than another one of your 'conspiricy' theories...

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/06/chamber-response-funding/

"Obviously, neither you nor MSNBC agree, since there is no coverage on this site. Is it not news?"

Shout out to DaNoid! Notice the nice pivot & spin from NJNB? lmao...

Yoo hoo, da nod, where in First Read is there coverage? Did it rate a mention in First Thoughts? Any mention by today's early posters?

Well, gee, it seems to me a couple of days ago when the story of Faisal Shahzad's sentencing was reported on this blog those of your ilk suggested that stories about fighting terror and terrorism trials should not be reported here or handled as any kind of political story.

(This is a blog about politics, after all.)

So, gee, it seems the editors granted your wish by not reporting the story here.

Have a nice day!

Noid, you may have noticed that I have been gone for a few day, so I had no posts on the article you mention.

Those of my 'ilk'? You mean people who don't believe in unicorns? Who knew that trying war criminals in civil court was a sure way to turn them loose to kill again? That 'ilk'?

47per cent of the electorate knew that Obama had no clue how to protect this country, and that number has grown since his election. I wish with all my heart that we had been wrong. The dwindling numbers who remain in his cult still do not get it, but the majority now understand what a terrible price we are paying for having elected someone who has no concept of reality.

Whatever explanation makes you feel better.

47per cent of the electorate knew that Obama had no clue how to protect this country, and that number has grown since his election.

Yeah, but 53% of the electorate knew that President Obama was a step in the right direction.

Care to try again?

Hey No Joe----is there always a rain cloud over your head or only when you post at FR?. You may or may not have posted something interesting/relevant/noteworthy about the judge's decision but did you really have to post it after Pat's celebratory note about Halladay's game? Really?? You couldn't have started your own thread on this?

Pietro, about half of them have (too late) seen the error of their ways. They weren't voting for Obama in the first place, they were voting AGAINST McCain.

Here's just one article on the subject, by a writer at the Washington Post - hardly a bastion of conservatism. Google it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2010/07/08/democrats_chase_fleeing_independents_237252.html

And Feisty? That's probably not being reported on because there is only conjecture to back it up. Don't let that stop you guys from believing it, though, since I suppose you also support doing away with that boring old saw that prevents level headed people from taking the word of a biased web site as gospel truth, "innocent until PROVEN guilty".

I can agree that this should be looked into, thoroughly, on BOTH SIDES. Can you agree that deciding the Chamber is guilty of something based on speculation and conjecture is premature?

PIETRO----- Yep but a majority, yet to be determined, has realized the error of their ways.

The inept lying quasi socialist in the white house will be a lame duck, in less than three months.

The inept lying quasi socialist in the white house will be a lame duck, in less than three months.

Really? Last I checked, even if the Republicans win back majorities in both houses (and with the flawed batch of Senate candidates put forth it seems unlikely) the President still has veto power.

What did you think...President Obama is just supposed to sit in a corner and sulk for 2 years if it's a GOP majority in both houses?

PIETRO----- Yep but a majority, yet to be determined, has realized the error of their ways.

BGOODE67 - a majority yet to be determined?

It seems to me that a MAJORITY is ALREADY determined!

Is this the best you can do? You sound desparate in your posts PROJECTING what you HOPE will be a majority and that is really unbecoming you.

The inept lying quasi socialist in the white house will be a lame duck, in less than three months.

Is that so? How is President Obama going to be a LAME DUCK in 3 months? The last I heard, the Presidental election is not until 2012!!

Spewing untruths, are we?

Now the CONGRESSIONAL election is on November 2nd, and we will have a LAME DUCK CONGRESS after november 2nd.

Too bad you didn't know the difference.

And we are supposed to believe YOUR interpretation? Why would we? I guess you needed me to call you out.

OK, you got it.

You have been called out for the troll that you are. Don't take my word for it - look at this post. This is a prime example of ignorance at work.

Please make sure you vote on November 2nd.

Pietro, about half of them have (too late) seen the error of their ways. They weren't voting for Obama in the first place, they were voting AGAINST McCain.

Pragmatic, looking at the above snippet of your post, how can you know - FOR SURE - that what you are saying is correct?

You can only SPECULATE that was the case. NO ONE has pure definitive proof that people were voting AGAINST Sen. McCain. Even with the article you've sourced, they cannot for SURE state that this is the case.

What you've stated CANNOT be validated.

If you have proof that it can be, then let's see it.

"Really? Last I checked, even if the Republicans win back majorities in both houses (and with the flawed batch of Senate candidates put forth it seems unlikely) the President still has veto power."

Funny thing if he was a republican you'd probably call that "Obstructionism".... Go figure?

I really wish American voters would study the very serious problems we face together as a nation, and the positions of the candidates they like on these issues. Voting for someone simply because you like them or you like where they stand on issues doesn't solve any problems. American voters should demand that all candidates running for any political office have research-based solutions to our problems, or they should not get our votes. In order for this to happen, we have to do a little work and research of our own to discover whether the solutions they are proposing will do what they're promising that they will.

We already have politicians in Congress who have promised voters that, if they vote for them and others like them again, their policies will work. Well, the evidence doesn't support these claims, yet, millions of Americans are willing to vote for them, AGAIN. This makes no sense. Had tax cuts and deregulation of business been surefire winners in creating jobs and bringing about economic prosperity, we wouldn't be in this deep recession; we wouldn't have such a high unemployment rate; we wouldn't have millions of people losing their homes; we wouldn't have the largest income gap in history since before the Great Depression.

I think there's something seriously wrong with a politician who continues to push policies that had 10 years to work and have had extremely negative effects on our country, and on us. I think it's time for these politicians and for many American voters to act like the adults they are. Nothing burns me more than having a politician treat voters as if they we're stupid and incapable of facing the facts about the situation we are in.

None of us who are running our own households avoid the facts about the financial stability of our households. We know that doing away with the rules we have established for our kids and allowing them to do whatever they want to do would lead to their downfall. They'd run wild and ignore anything warnings we gave to them. We also know that most of us have a set amount of money coming into the household each month, and that if we give half of that away, we won't be able to pay our bills and save for the future. If we know these things don't work in our own households, why would any of us allow any politician to lead us to believe they will work at a national level. Each of us runs own little economy in our household everyday. We only need to take some of our personal economic savvy and apply it to what some politicians are proposing to determine whether their proposals will work or not.

The larger debate is not about socialism, fascism, Nazism, or any of the other isms. These are only distractions meant to keep voters from understanding the larger issues here: We have serious problems to deal with. These problems affect all of us. We need problem solvers in government. We need to recognize that solutions to these problems can come from either political party or from a private citizen. We need to stop paying $174,00/year to politicians who produce nothing except criticism. It's not fiscally responsible behavior, especially if one says one is as concerned about government spending and the national deficit as one says he/she is. Not one of us would continue to keep an employee on our own payroll who does nothing except criticize whatever idea we propose that has a chance of increasing the company's financial stability.

no joe, no bo, nj

Those of my 'ilk'? You mean people who don't believe in unicorns? Who knew that trying war criminals in civil court was a sure way to turn them loose to kill again? That 'ilk'?

47per cent of the electorate knew that Obama had no clue how to protect this country, and that number has grown since his election. I wish with all my heart that we had been wrong. The dwindling numbers who remain in his cult still do not get it, but the majority now understand what a terrible price we are paying for having elected someone who has no concept of reality.

No Jo, Dear please tell me how you have come to the conclusion that he has no clue to protect us, please. lets remember that his national security advisers make policy, just like Bushs did and every president before. gates was Bushs sec of defense, he now works for president Obama. so let be straight this post is YOUR personal opinion and you OPINION of the president is not how EVERY BODY feels. i don't see our allies complaining, pulling troops from Afgan.

Now i want to say this, for some one like you who's policy would have been to do nothing when you took office in jan 2009 Mrs. President, allowing banks and the car industry to fail, leading to a crisis that would have lead to millions being out of work for good, as well as our lending powers all goan in the name of nothing is better than anything.

Now your criticising his decision regarding terrorist, based upon your previous policy of Nothing is Better than anything. i would like to know your policy Mrs President regarding terrorist. Now remember just like before your the president No Jo. please tell us what you would be doing now. again i don't want to here about Bush, or Obama, and this time please don't mention Reagan.

this time i hope you don't tell me to keep things they way they were under the Bush administration. where hundreds were held indefinely with out being charges or tried. or do nothing.

Jeff, you are wasting your breath. She is NOT going to answer your questions. She is just going to continue spewing her bitter hatred for President Obama with no citations and no proof of anything she spews.

Sorry, Jeff.

Pietro, Columbus, Ohio

Jeff, you are wasting your breath. She is NOT going to answer your questions. She is just going to continue spewing her bitter hatred for President Obama with no citations and no proof of anything she spews.

Last week i asked her to tell me what her policy would have been if she were president and took office jan 09. i told her that she was the president and had 300 million people depending on here as well as the free world,

she told me that she would have done nothing. the same policy that Hoover had back in 1929 when depression hit and as we read our history books, his policy made the depression even worse than it should have been, she said that nothing is better than anything. saying that what Obama did was anything. so now she is critisizing him again, so i put here in his postion and i want a answer. see i don't sit here and blog that i have all the answers and my opinion is what the main stream of society thinks like she does.

everytime she critizises him I'm going to ask her the same question,

What would you do Mrs President ??????

when i put here in his spot she does not answer, because its easy to criticise but its hard to put your self where he is. i question things he does, No one is prefect, but to No Jo, she sounds like she could do it better and i want to know how?????

Peitro, do you ALWAYS demand rock-solid proof of something, or only when you don't agree with it? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out, when you consider how universally unpopular Palin was and is with independents and how weak of a running mate she was regardless of her popularity,

More important were the personal differences between the two: an old man, long in the tooth, with decades of insider experience and speech patterns that lead people to believe he had a mouth full of marbles, OR a young, bright "outsider" with a silver tongue preaching change.

Then you can consider the fact independents have a HIGHER disapproval rating of Obama than the gereral population, in context with the fact that it was THEIR votes that won him the election. Independents are not, by definition, Democrats nor are they Republicans, nor did they turn into Democrats after voting for Obama.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141131/Obama-Job-Approval-Rating-Down-Among-Independents.aspx

Given that independents aren't Repblicans either, and Bush's job approval was around 30% when he left office - do YOU think they were chomping at the bit to vote in another clone of Bush?

Do you think they're HAPPY that they ended up getting a younger, more charismatic clone of Bush in far too many ways?

Pragmatic wrote: Pietro, about half of them have (too late) seen the error of their ways. They weren't voting for Obama in the first place, they were voting AGAINST McCain.

Pietro responded: You can only SPECULATE that was the case. NO ONE has pure definitive proof that people were voting AGAINST Sen. McCain. Even with the article you've sourced, they cannot for SURE state that this is the case.

What you've stated CANNOT be validated.

Pragmatic, usually you have some salient points that make me re-evaluate what was being said. In this particular case, I completely disagree with you. What I stated is that you CANNOT know - without looking into the mind of all of the independent voters, which I know you haven't - to know that they were voting AGAINST McCain.

I stand by that point.

Then you can consider the fact independents have a HIGHER disapproval rating of Obama than the gereral population, in context with the fact that it was THEIR votes that won him the election. Independents are not, by definition, Democrats nor are they Republicans, nor did they turn into Democrats after voting for Obama.

Here is where you get into trouble, Pragmatic - you cannot use President Obama's CURRENT disapproval rating to RETROACTIVELY explain how people voted.

It doesn't work. It doesn't fly. It is impossible to state that as FACT, at least not in this case.

That is why I called you on it.

Now if you had said that Independents voted for President Obama and now we are seeing a larger proportion of them wanting to vote Republican based on his [current] approval rating, then yeah, I can see that, and I can argue that point.

You CANNOT use CURRENT ratings and figures and extrapolate those figures into what YOU think WAS the case when people voted.

If you can, the show it.

Pietro -

Obviously, NO ONE can get inside the head of every single independent voter, and nowhere did I claim I - or anyone - did. I said, half of them have changed their minds on Obama, and polls back that up - his approval rating is down to 38%. I said, many of them voted not FOR Obama but against McCain, and various analysis from now and back in '08 back that up. I said them both in the same paragraph but if I implied causality, then I was unclear - my bad. Upon rereading my posts, it WAS unclear. I wasn't attempting to draw causality so much as clarify my position on those two separate claims.

However, since you seem to want data to back up my conclusions, here is some of the information I've read over the past couple of years - linking it all would be impossible.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107671/General-Election-Shaping-Change-vs-Experience.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/17785/Election-2008.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113611/Gallupcom-Year-Review.aspx

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html#news

Based on that reading, and a whole lot more, I've come to the conclusion - and I'm far from alone in this if you listen to the talking heads - that there were a lot of votes especially from independents cast for Obama that were a rejection of the percieved "old way" represented by McCain versus an embrace of Obama. Those independents are now very unimpressed with Obama. Perhaps if I would have put the sentences in that order in the first post, the confusion would have been avoided. Again, my bad.

If you still disagree with my analysis, tell me why, and we can discuss it.

Time for some Indy clarification. I actually voted against having Palin one heart attack away from being pres. If McCain had picked a Romney or a Leiberman as his VP, I would have voted 3rd party like I usually do.

Pragmatic - you provided some backing of your claim. Fair enough. Let's take a look at what you have presented:

Obviously, NO ONE can get inside the head of every single independent voter, and nowhere did I claim I - or anyone - did.

In my post, I stated the following: "What I stated is that you CANNOT know - without looking into the mind of all of the independent voters, which I know you haven't - to know that they were voting AGAINST McCain."

I still stand by that post, but let's look further into what you have provided.

I said, half of them have changed their minds on Obama, and polls back that up - his approval rating is down to 38%. I said, many of them voted not FOR Obama but against McCain, and various analysis from now and back in '08 back that up.

Again, I see this as a suppostion, and you are using TODAY's numbers (since you didn't specify otherwse) to make your premise. But let's continue on:

I said them both in the same paragraph but if I implied causality, then I was unclear - my bad. Upon rereading my posts, it WAS unclear. I wasn't attempting to draw causality so much as clarify my position on those two separate claims.

Fair enough. That is your premise, and you have backed that premise up with posts from Gallup.

However -

Even with all of the polls that you have provided, and even with all of the 'talking heads' that support your point, NO ONE can really know - FOR SURE as a FACT - that Independents were voting AGAINST McCain and NOT for President Obama as you have stated.

As I eluded to before, you have some statistics that BEAR WITNESS to your theory that Independents were voting against McCain, and I would say that those statistics do show a TENDENCY that is supported by your documents, but like any poll, we can only garner a snapshot of what the feelings were at the time of the poll.

We CANNOT state this as undeniable FACT that your theory is correct. How can you? To prove it as a FACT, we should be able to have a verifiable method to count - sort of like ballots - to arrive at the SAME conclusion every time. You CAN say that at the time of the election in 2008, Independents were tending/leaning towards voting against John McCain by 28% of 38% or whatever the number was.

I would not have had a problem with that statement. I might have even agreed with you.

The other thing is that you are doing - which threw me a bit - was using what the poll numbers are NOW to explain what happened during the election. You probably saw a correlation between the numbers then and now, and there is nothing wrong with seeing trends that MAY explain something.

A little more research SHOULD have brought up some questions - is this a coincidence, or is this a TREND that I am seeing here? How did you answer those questions? DID you answer those questions or just ASSUME that you had something that you could use to bash people like me over the head with?

Your logic, as it was posted, states that because the Independents are not polling that they support the President NOW, supported by your poll number, that THEN in 2008 the Independents were not really voting for the President, they were really voting AGAINST John McCain.

I STILL say you cannot know that for SURE.

You cannot prove your case. You CAN say that your polling indicates that at least 25-35% of the people polled wanted something new and different. You also do NOT know what kind of polling data was used to make that determination. You do not know what - or where - the sample of people were taken from. All of these variables need to be presented and VERIFIED for you to state what you did as FACT.

Again, I am OK with you making the SUPPOSITION that during the election that 25-25% of the SAMPLED electorate voted against McCain, and we can argue that one way or the other.

It's where you made it a FACT that I had a problem with it.

I'll even provide the opening salvo for a new argument. There were NO ballots marked 'NOT FOR McCAIN' that we can tangibly look at. If we had ballots like that, THEN I would have no argument (or means to argue) against what you are saying.

My new argument is weak, but I am sure you will exploit that in another post on another day. Merry Christmas and you are welcome.

The bottom line is this - your figures and suppositions can help you formulate your OPINION, and that is exactly what happened here. On another note, I do find the material you've provided quite interesting and I can see how you may be led to the conclusion(s) you are making. I am OK with that.

Nice argument, Pragmatic, but no sale on this as a FACT.

Nice try Pietro, but like your foil, Pragmatic, you are dancing around but missing the truth. As an Independent Progressive, I could never vote for John McCain, but I respect the hell out of the man because of his service to our country and would never vote against him. However, when he chose an obviously unqualified person as his running mate, that changed everything.

By choosing Palin, that drew lots of votes to Obama from folks that would normally never support a centrist dem. Ironically, when the Obama administration chooses to slam progressives, they are slamming a lot of folks who would normally vote 3rd party anyway, not their base as many claim.

The point is that a lot of votes Obama received from the far left were not actually support for him and also not necessarily votes against McCain, but a recognition that we could not potentially place the future of our country into the hands of an unqualified failed Alaskan governor.

Okay, Pietro, whatever. You're putting a lot of effort into this, and I'm not sure why since all that's been determined is that my opinion is logically reached, and I'm entitled to it. I thought that was a forgone conclusion, here on a newsvine blog.

I would just be interested to see you put some of the wilder claims made by pro-Obama liberals on these boards to the same scrutiny, since you're pretty thorough.

Has that happened, and I've missed it? I don't read "First Read" that often.

Gee, Pragmatic, why the hostility? Just because what you see as a FACT and what you presented looks to me like an OPINION doesn't mean you have to go off in a huff.

I even gave you some ammo to use in a different argument against me! If that is not extending an olive branch, then I don't know what is.

Now, Indy Lib, you posted this:

The point is that a lot of votes Obama received from the far left were not actually support for him and also not necessarily votes against McCain, but a recognition that we could not potentially place the future of our country into the hands of an unqualified failed Alaskan governor.

Now, if you had said THIS (posted above), Pragmatic, and then pulled out your polls and figures, then I would be more apt to agree with you. Notice the wording which is much more succinct than mine (so I hope IndyLib doesn't mind me using it here):

"... also not necessarily votes against McCain, but a recognition that we could not potentially place the future of our country into the hands of an unqualified failed Alaskan governor."

Although this cannot be proven as a fact, I can see this - in my OPINION - as why people voted against Sen. McCain. Your numbers COULD be used to back up this opinion (actually, they lend themselves nicely to THIS premise).

Thank you IndyLib, for providing your post. it was very helpful.

Pragmatic, I am sure we will cross swords again some other time. I do, when I have some time, post articles and MY OPINION on here that others can critique. I actually did that a couple of days ago concerning the homeowner in Tennessee whose house burned down because he didn't pay a $75 fee.

Until then - thank you both, Pragmatic and IndyLib, for a great discussion.

No hostility, Pietro.

We were going around in circles, I simply didn't want to continue although I agree it was an interesting discussion.

Perhaps another time, it's late (for me).

Pat Boston;

I like your post. I am watching the Run Down and Chuck is talking about Colorado. The candidates (rep & dem) spent about 5 -6 million, outside interest groups totaled 10 Million for the Republican Candidate and 6 Million for the Democrat.

Thanks to Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, elections are now being bought by those that have the most money. It is no longer in the hands of the people in those states. We also are seeing more and more reports that the US Chamber of Commerce is using foreign contributions to help Republican Candidates. Now we have China, India, Egypt and others calling the shots as well.

We are being hosed over people and we better wake up, and do it soon.

The United States of America has a "Country for Sale" sign on the front lawn of the Nations Capital. This country is going to be sold to the highest bidder(s), unless we get our butts on the road and vote.

Ah yes, the world famous cry of liberals, "if only the dummies understood"

they would know that we are much smarter than them and should be

greatful. for our sagacious counsel.

Stock up on booze, the few years are going to be traumatic for the enablers.

Hello genius's the country was sold a long time ago when we let all the foreign countries buy up all our debt. Pat are you serious saying the GOP owns the media and if you think foreign money only supports the GOP your delusional. Both parties are corrupt and to think otherwise your only fooling yourselfs.

The GOP does not own the media. Most media outlets are to the left of the American people. NBC made an announcement this week that they would be more progressive. CNN has gone left in the last 3-6 months. Even journalists who I used to think were fair like John King have slanted the news. Wake -up America

"Absolutely. It's so hard to get voters to understand what's going on. We need more of this from the media, but since the GOP own most of it, it's going to be difficult."

GOP owning the media? Fox yes, but the rest of anything remotely mainstream is basically a mouthpiece for the left. What other mainstream news is right-wing? ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN - all of those are either openly left (MSNBC finally announced it) or at BEST - left leaning.

I dont trust media to be honest. Ill come to MSNBC to get the left's view, then read Fox to get the Right's view - then assume the truth is somewhere in between.

I thought journalists and news organizations are suppose to report the facts and then the readers/viewers were to then make their own decision? I guess that is wishfull thinking.

I don't know that they even work up enough emotion to call it hate. My view is that they think of the people who make up their base like their staff---they throw them some platitudes about conservativism, make up lies about President Obama and the Democrats and then they show up and vote as directed. What I really don't understand is why the people fall for this all the time?

DA NOID-------- Please post your home address, I just nominated you for inane post of the week, they will need to know where to send your plaque.

They DO hate Americans. It's the same reason they hate Jews, African-Americans, Latinos, etc. They want the good old days back. All white neighborhoods, country clubs, etc. They think they are better. They spend so much money to spread their filth and the people allow themselves to be brainwashed so easily. They claim to be the "Real" Americans and to be Christian, but their behavior and attitudes are far from that.

Interesting, isn't Feisty? What is even more interesting is that our right wing buddies, who constantly attack us and the Democratic Party have not seen fit to post on this. Which brings me back to one of two questions I asked yesterday: Dear "teabaggers"; do you have some animus toward the Chamber of Commerce accepting such funds and using them in OUR election? Or is it situational ethics and if you get the results you want, it works for you? Since the Chamber is funding the right wingers, that question is still germane.

Right on Feisty and Navy: America is now for sale...thanks to the Supreme Court! Never in my lifetime did I think that China, India, and Saudi Arabia could dump money in American elections. Since the money goes to support Republicans. They sit quietly on the sidelines; allowing it to happen.

Feisty;

There is now a "Country for Sale" sign sitting on the front lawn of the Nations Capital.

China, India, Egypt, Russia etc all now have a say in our political elections. Thank you Supreme Court, hope Alito is hiding under a rock somewhere, President Obama nailed him good.

Now we know why the Republicans blocked the Disclosure Bill and the American Jobs Bill. They had to pay the Foreign contributors back by hiding who they are and sending them jobs that should stay here.

And they have the nerve to call themselves the United States Chamber of Commerce - When did we add those countries as States???

I listened to several of my customers yesterday go ballistic on this report, they are Chamber Members and some NFIB as well.

NDD & Ron - Oh... THEY know exactly what's going on... and are doing NOTHING but *winking & smiling* all the WAY to the freakin BANK!

Think about it... how many people out there who don't follow politics like WE do know who the Koch Brothers are? Or that Karl Rove is behind Crossroads GPS?

But WAIT... there's MORE...

From Think Progress:

Yesterday, ThinkProgress reported an exclusive story on how the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — the big business lobbying juggernaut running an unprecedented $75 million dollar attack campaign against Democrats in midterms this year — is actively fundraising from foreign corporations and foreign nationals, and depositing the money in the same 501(c)(6) account used to run its campaign advertisements. Dues from foreign corporations have flowed into the Chamber’s coffers, including from government-run companies like the State Bank of India and the Bahrain Petroleum Company. ThinkProgress has reported at least $300,000 in foreign money to the Chamber from Bahrain and India alone.

Following ThinkProgress’ report, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) wrote to the FEC — a federal agency that has ironically “been rendered toothless by its Republican members” — asking it to launch an investigation and to insist that foreign companies prove whether their funds had been used in campaign activities. Today, outside of a fundraiser for Nevada’s GOP U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle at the National Republican Campaign Committee, ThinkProgress asked Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), a candidate for U.S. Senate in Missouri, if he would comment on the story. After hearing the question, Blunt quickly turned and began walking away briskly towards the Union Station building. He initially simply ignored the question, then took out his phone and pressed it against his face. Eventually, Blunt replied, “I have no idea what you’re talking about” and told ThinkProgress to “talk to the Chamber”:

For the entire story:

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/06/blunt-chamber-foreign/

You guys are such hypocrites, are you purposely avoiding the Dem. commercial where your candidate totally distorts what his opposition is saying. This BS about Repub or Dem hating their country and fellow country men is pathetic. I'm pretty sure each party is doing what they think is right whether or not you agree with it. You guys sound like a bunch of kids calling each other names your children must be very proud

Impeach the Bush appointees to the SCOTUS, Starting with Roberts.

phil for what?

defendin the first amendment?

How about just change the 1st amendment?

Well, for some Americans, only certain parts of the First Amendment are useful, the rest are to be ignored. The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment is one of the part of the amendment that many Americans feel should be ignored, especially when it comes to the religious rights of any other group except Christians. I don't think that the founders were thinking of corporations when they crafted the First Amendment since their experiences in dealing with England made them especially focused on protecting the rights of individual citizens.

The Boston Tea Party was a clear rejection by the colonists of the power of government to promote the interests of a corporation, the Dutch East India Company, so it makes no sense for the Supreme Court to destroy something the colonists opposed by siding with corporations against the American citizens in the Citizens United case.

Whether the members of the SCOTUS should be impeached for their roles in the Citizens United decision is another matter. According to the impeachment procedures established in the Constitution, successfully impeaching these SC members would be extremely difficult.

Yep Obam recently entered the Guiness book of world recorsds.

Longest continious campaign, by a canduidate/officeholder.

3 years now and getting longer daily, this record will likely stand in perpetuity.

dangerfield

""Fifty people paid $15,200 per person to hear Obama in the suburban New York home of Michael and Jackie Kempner, raising money for the Democratic National Committee."

What no polls, todays? I know how fond you are of the skewed analyses

Thanks, and I must say that we know who these individuals are who made these contributions to President Obama, but we don't know which individuals or foreign nations are filling the coffers of the Chamber of Commerce and the other rw organizations that are hiding behind the Citizens United SC decision.

Score another one for Bev the attack troll!

You are supposed to comment on the POSTS bevvy, otherwise you get collapsed as a TROLL...

You speak of Christine O'Donnell yet forget to mention our Speaker of the House who said lets hurry and pass this Bill so we can see what's in it, but your right how educated are we, after all we keep re-electing the same people over and over

The Tea Party is getting their buzz with the naked cowboy and witchcraft stories.

Look at the economic metrics in Nevada...start with unemployment and the home foreclosure rate. They're the worst in the nation.

Maybe Nevadans feel that, as crazy as they'd have to be to actually vote for Sharron Angle...they'd be even crazier to vote for Harry Reid.

Wow. Now that is a scary thought Mixed Bag:

Maybe Nevadans feel that, as crazy as they'd have to be to actually vote for Sharron Angle...they'd be even crazier to vote for Harry Reid.

To vote for someone like Angle who does NOT have the our best interests at heart. We really are screwed if clowns like Angle get elected.

dangerfield

Score other one for Bev the attack troll!

You are supposed to comment on the POSTS bevvy, otherwise you get collapsed as a TROLL...

I'm assuming you meant score another one for me. My name is Beverly not bevvy. Did you even read First Thoughts>>>>?

"outside group's 8-to-1 spending advantage" was a topic in the subject matter.

If you did you'd see it was relative rather than having a reflexive hissy fit.

The truth really is difficult for you to see. Democrats are being outspent by enormous proportions. That's what my comment was about.

I do understand when the right wants to hide information that elicits thought provoking subjects; since the want to negate the truth.

Actually, CU...

The NY Times did, astonishingly, publish a major article suggesting that the Obama Administration and BP were in collusion to restrict media coverage of the Gulf oil spill. CNN complained bitterly about this, as did other media outlets.

Of course, you're unlikely to see the Times rehash this with the Democrats facing major losses in next month's midterm elections.

I'd much prefer a president who holds back information on the amount of oil flowing from an oil rig explosion than to have one who holds back information on his reasons for invading a sovereign country. In the first case, no lives were lost, no bodies were maimed, and it didn't lead to spending billions in a foreign nation. In the second, all of what I mentioned that didn't happen in the first case, happened in spades.

Its not at all unusual for any president's administration to withhold information from the public for one reason or another. What is important is whether the information harms the country and its citizens in some way. Anyone who thinks that all presidents don't withhold some information from the public for one reason or another is either extremely naive or is a younger member of this society.

did you hold Bush to the same standard when he lied about the WMD in Iraq? If he didn't lie and trully believed that these weapons existed then he was lied to by his own people. These are your 2 choices. The most powerful president in the world with the most powerful resources has access to this kind of information especially when it comes to a country that is so openly corrupted. There is no information that a small fortune could not be bought for.

So which one is it lier or lied to?

"Name a Democrat who's not botched everything up."

Barack Obama, for starters. Drawing down the troops in Iraq, when McCain was willing to stay there a hundred years, getting a healthcare reform bill that reduces the federal deficit by 1 trillion dollars over the next two decades, turbo charging the development of alternative energy, which is already paying dividends in Maine with our new industry bulding tidal turbines in Bath, focusing on improving education, like nothing we've seen in ten years, saving the American auto industry from bankruptcy and improving our standing across the globe. I think President Obama counts as one Democrat who hasn't "botched things up."

AMY------- Please tell me you don't have children.

bgoode67 - that is funny! Love the healthcare comment as how many statements has the CBO put out now that state now that they have had the time to fully look at healthcare bill it will not save any money and will end up costing much more than thought. Well it's our tax dollars paying for all this anyhow -

Amy - You still drinking the Obama koolaid! Wow, wake up and smell the deficit! Its already showing that healthcare is raising the deficit, not lowering it by 1 trillion as the chosen one claimed. Hows that hope and change workin for ya?

BizProdigy Dave-493008

Quotes, please. Links to reputable sources that back up your claims. If you don't have facts to back up your statements then you are conducting a misinformation campaign.

Well, maybe if the healthcare corporations hadn't shelled out millions to their bought and paid for RNC people the bill would actually have been something that would have made a difference instead of essentially hand delivering an extra 40 million customers to the health care insurers. The fact that the political grandstanding on this by the right is completely uncalled for when the issues with the bill are completely their responsibility. The number of people denied or unable to acquire health care in this country is a disgrace. Instead of accepting a public option which would allow health care users to determine where they went for health care the right forced the bill into another direction. Now we have 40 million people who are going to have to use the existing system for health care when everyone knows the existing system is broken. Health care insurers have divvied up the pot amongst themselves and face no competition. They have no need to actually restrain their expenses or to try to keep health care costs low for the insured. Check the numbers for "administrative costs" in your health care plan. And then realize that "administrative costs" is where your health care insurer is making the money to pay multi million dollar bonuses to their CEO's.

Amy - don't let BGOODE67 or DAVE give you any grief. BGOODE67 doesn't know what a LAME DUCK session is, so we can discount him immediately as a troll who has given this debate no probative value.

As far as DAVE is concerned, I am sure he is a bit jealous because that HOPE and CHANGE is working JUST FINE, thank you. If it wasn't for 'the chosen one', Dave and the rest of us would be standing in soup lines worrying about where our next meal would be coming from because Dave would not have any MONEY once the world economy had crashed. Notice Dave is not saying anything about the BANKS or WALL STREET that perpetrated the economic crash.

Dave is squabbling about a deficit that was run up over 30 years that is not INSTANTANEOUSLY reduced.

Really, Dave?

So yes, Dave, that HOPE and CHANGE is working fine for us, thank you. IT is that HOPE and CHANGE that is allowing you to spew your vitroil here today.

Pietro:

As far as DAVE is concerned, I am sure he is a bit jealous because that HOPE and CHANGE is working JUST FINE, thank you. If it wasn't for 'the chosen one', Dave and the rest of us would be standing in soup lines worrying about where our next meal would be coming from because Dave would not have any MONEY once the world economy had crashed.

My 401K has recovered ALL of the enormous losses it took at the height of Bush's Great Recession at the end of 2008. Moreover, it has increased in value by 12% since April 2008, when the Dow average was at it's maximum of 14,000. If John ("Don't know much about the economy") McCain had stumbled his way into the presidency with his sidekick Sarah, I suspect that by now, we'd be in the midst of the McCain Great Depression rather than merely the inevitable unpleasant aftermath of the Bush Recession.

You'd think even the tea partiers, most of whom have not lost their jobs, would be happy about the recovery of the markets. But evidently, all the angry tea partiers either: (1) don't own any stocks, (2) have savings accounts run by crooks and incompetents, or (3) they have other unstated reasons for hating Obama that have nothing to do with the economy or any other major issue, foreign or domestic. My guess is #3, at least for a lot of them. You can kind of tell the #3's from the comments they leave in this forum.

OK lets talk facts unemployment 9.6 not suppose to go over 8 Health care Bill Dems super majority I'm sure you know what that means. You can blame the Repubs all you want ,but the bottom line is you could of passed anything you wanted please don't let reality get in your way

wlee-950886

You can blame the Repubs all you want ,but the bottom line is you could of passed anything you wanted please don't let reality get in your way

Looks like Wlee is another poor disadvantage person who attended a high school where the teacher didn't teach them about the filibuster and how the minority party in the Senate can use it to block everything the majority wants to pass.

wlee - since when was 8% unemployment a hard and fast number?

You are correct - the Dems SHOULD have been able to pass what they wanted, but that was not the case. Many of the Conservadems (Blue Dogs) objected to, voted against, and insrted legislation that watered down many things that the mre liberal Dems wanted to do. This is the Dem's achilles heel and the Dem's problem.

However, we CAN blame the Republicans in the Senate for holding up 300+ bills. That is a reality that is affecting all of us.

Houston if what you said was true then how did they pass the Bill, yes I actually know what a filibuster is , but unlike you I don't have to resort to childish comments. Pietro,that number came from the Dems. economic team, to say that it is only the repubs are the party of no, you know as well as I do the gate swings both ways. I'm an Independent and open to whichever party actually comes up with a good idea

wlee - as with all economic PROJECTIONS, that number was a PROJECTION. It was NOT a hard and fast number. ANY economic team would have given what they THOUGHT the unemployment MIGHT HAVE BEEN if they were charged with ESTIMATING what the unemployment numbers were to be.

Notice the words and phrases I used here: PROJECTION, ESTIMATING, MIGHT HAVE BEEN.

Using these words, we are APPROXIMATING what the numbers should have been. The Economic team UNDERESTIMATED the number(s). 8% was NOT a 'hard' number, and as we can see, the projection was not correct.

As far as the Republicans being the 'Party of NO', all I need to do is ask why there are 400+ bills that haven't been debated yet in the Senate. Sounds like the Party of 'NO' to me if all of those bills are being held up by REPUBLICANS.

wlee:

Houston if what you said was true then how did they pass the Bill, yes I actually know what a filibuster is

Your previous post provided absolutely no indication that you understand what a filibuster is. Claiming that the Democrats could ever have passed "anything they wanted" is just plain ignorant.

Like Pietro said, it's true that a few conservative Democrats also helped block important legislation, but since the Republicans got their 41st vote, they no longer need their Democratic allies at all.

Buzz = Pawlenty = Barf

Bloomberg an independent??? Be real! He is a lib dem and a Nanny of the first order. I don't care what letter he uses after his name. Another big government tax and spend lib, just what this country needs in Washington!

You are delusional my friend, we would vote for Minnie Mouse if she were running against the inept lying quasi socialist, in the white house.

bgoode67, I would believe it too, since you certainly don't know what the term LAME DUCK means and what it relates to in a politician's term.

Amen, John. I have not been able to understand the extent to which their self-interest exceeds their patriotism. And I truly don't believe people who are progressive/liberal think the same way. For example, in spite of my feelings about George Bush and the wisdom of the Iraq war, I didn't hope we would get mired in it for 8+ years.

I read in my local paper today that Republicans are succeeding in duping "working class" voters. With a heavy assist from Fox Noise, no doubt. We can't ignore this.

"Democrats are more apt to mess with the middle class and take our money," said Lawrence Ramsey, 56, a warehouse manager in Winston-Salem, N.C.

Mess with the middleclass? The Democrats have lowered taxes for the middle class, worked to get them health insurance and help them keep it if they get sick or their employer stops offering it. Democrats have battled the well heeled special intersts to help the middleclass, but the Republicans won the messaging war. How do we get the truth to these voters?

http://www.pressherald.com/news/nationworld/poll-working-class-whites-favor-gop_2010-10-07.html

amy,

what taxes for the middle class have been lowered?

Also if you lower some taxes but yet raise others does it really matter?

OBAMA reform is not making health insurance cheaper for people.

Jorge-2191028 Glad you asked,

Taxes are at their lowest levels in 60 years, according to William Gale, co-director of the Tax Policy Center and director of the Retirement Security Project at the Brookings Institution.

One third of the Recovery Act, passed by Democrats in 2009, was made up of tax credits

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002548-503544.html

The credits included:

• An increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit
• An expansion of the Child Tax Credit
• For those who work, the Making Work Pay tax credit offered $400 per individual and $800 per couple
• For those who lost their job, there was a 65 percent tax credit to help cover the cost of health care. The first $2,400 in unemployment benefits went tax-free
• Up to $2,500 under the American Opportunity Credit for students and parents paying for college tuition
• $8,000 for first-time home buyers
• A deduction of state and local taxes paid on a new car
• Up to $1,500 for home improvements to increase energy efficiency

Even conservative advocacy group Americans for Tax Reform, which advocates for a single, national flat tax rate, found some praise for the Recovery Act -- specifically for provisions allowing small businesses to write off a wider range of business expenses.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002548-503544.html

Amy...you forgot the increase in government jobs and the burden on the American taxpayer to fund all these liberal programs. It all looks good on paper but the unemployment rate continues to climb! Time for change in November 2010 and then again in November 2012.

Captain Hook-1072691 Thanks to the past administration this country is a deep hole. Obama is been in power for a year, You tolerated 8 years a wreckless policies. You like it or not but it will take sometime to recover, and it showing signs of that, I don't think I want the same policies of the past. look a the stats the richer continue to get richer is the only group that very little afected. What are you looking for? You don't give to the richer and you don't created a wellfare state, You have to find a middle ground. the driven force of the Country is the middle icome people.

trunaive

so because GW took no deficit and because of two wars and a recession he was left created a 500 billion dollar defecit its okay for Obama to create a 1.3 trillion dollar defecit?

How long you going to blame Gw?

I dont remember GW blaming CLinton for the Wall street and financial disasters, even though it was CLINTON in 1999 who deregulated Wall street.

Also you forget for the LAST 2 years of GW presidency DEMS controlled all of congress they could have passed anything they wanted....

Captain Hook-1072691

please give examples of "all these liberal programs." One third of the stimulus plan was tax cuts.

PS. Unemployment was at 10% two years after Reagan took office. Tell me, did Regan "own the economy" by then or was it still Jimmy Carter's fault?

Jorge-2191028

I dont remember GW blaming CLinton for the Wall street and financial disasters, even though it was CLINTON in 1999 who deregulated Wall street.

Not even Bush had the gall to blame the catastrophe in which his misgovernance culminated more than 6 years after Clinton left office. But Bush DID blame Clinton for 9/11, even though it was Bush who ignored the dire warnings he was getting from intelligence agencies that an attack was imminent because he didn't want to interrupt his vacation. Republicans are masters at passing the buck. They have to be, given how much they've messed up the country.

houston,

not only are those blatant LIEs, but you are deflecting clintons short-coming onto GW. that's the problem with LIEs, it's hard to keep them straight.

it was clinton that couldn't be interrupted from a round of GOLF , when we had osama in the proverbial "cross-hairs". further, again it was clinton that ignored all the warnings because he hated conflicts AND he wanted to skate out his last year as to not risk his approval rating, SHAMEFUL! i know it's been 11 years, but don't be a revisionist!

OH, also you are wrong about GW blaming clinton, unlike DEMS; he had far too much CLASS, accountability, and dignity for that!

Jorge-

Ever heard of a little thing called the Presidential veto?

No way in hades would GW have allowed the Dems to pass "anything they wanted"

david-1102226:

not only are those blatant LIEs, but you are deflecting clintons short-coming onto GW. that's the problem with LIEs, it's hard to keep them straight.

I guess that's why you can't keep your fact straight. In August, 2001, Bush received a document entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Inside the United States." He told the intelligence official who presented it to him: "Alright, you've covered your a**" and then did nothing. Bush was president at the time, but on vacation as he usually was for much of his presidency. Clinton had been out of office for 8 months and Richard Clarke, a Clinton national security official held over into the Bush administration had also warned Bush that an attack was "imminent." Bush did nothing.

Those are the facts. Deal with it.

I agree with david because what he says is verifiably true. What I get from you houston sounds like hearsay.