Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 06, 2016, 01:50:32 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
94395 Posts in 2307 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Martel
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 67 68 [69] 70 71 ... 107
3401  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / A great moment it is but the rest is show designed for the ONE on: May 04, 2011, 09:50:51 AM
It really was a "no brainer".

First of all he didn't just decide.

The powers to be had TEN yrs to figure these moments out.

OK look at the choice:

Bomb the smithireens out of a compound and not know who is killed hurt or maimed.  Not know for sure if he is there, if he is killed and have no evidence or proof of anything vs the ground mission which could risk the lives of the Seals, backfire or fail.  But then one could get proof OBL is there and captured or killed.  As to the relations with Pakistan nothing different either way.

Isn't the choice really a no brainer?  If it isn't enough, the liberal media is making this out to be the great commander in chief decision of the new millineum - which it isn't - they are now:

1) this dispells all doubt that he is relentless about the war on terror and is a great commander in chief
2) he was right all along to pursue OBL wherein Bush is replayed to say it is not a top priority  (as thought the hunt of OBL started when he "directed Panetta to make this a priority" which by the way wasn't that well past the start of his reign as king?
3) of course if he is right about this he is right about the rest of his policies
4)  O'Donnel was shamelessly saying Bush put us all through this for "ten years" by not getting OBL at Tora Tora  - he conveninetly left out the next logical conclusion (since he is going that route) is that Clinton put us through 911 by not letting Sudan turn over OBL to us in the 90's when he had the chance. (BTW O'Donnel is definitely the new Oberman.)
5) shopping around those convenient pictures showing the tense Bamster biting his nails etc as something to behold.  I don't recall the immediate release ever before of such pictures of a President.
6) To prove the greatness of the one he will now speak at ground zero?  At least Bush has the class to decline cashing in on this and has gracefully declined to be present.  Probably because he knows it will be a set up.  Him sitting in the front row while the king towers above him on the podium.  We all know what that means - remember Trump, Ryan, Supreme Court.

Now they say he is up several percent in the polls.  Well as Lincoln pointed out - you can fool all of the people some of the time.  Clinton certainly proved that with one speech.

Now all that said Bamster deserves some credit but lets not turn this into a success akin to WW2 invasion of Europe.
Except for the military the planned and carried out the operation.
3402  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: May 03, 2011, 01:34:36 PM
"They was no political gain for compromising or selling out on principles."

Great post and on this point you are exactly correct.  I though compromise was a good idea vis avis Bush W and Rove etc.

But I now realize that there is no compromise with the left.  It is never enough.  Every compromise will be met with more of a fanatic progressive agenda.   There is no end to their agenda until they have destroyed the USA as we know it.  One world government, no carbon fuels, one class, no personal responsibility, complete control.

Compromise from the right is met with being taken advantage of and being one step closer toward their vision of nirvana.

I say no more compromise.
3403  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left on: May 03, 2011, 11:21:18 AM
“What distinguishes Obama particularly is the depth and carefulness of his thinking...” said Jonathan Haidt, a professor of social psychology at the University of Virginia. “He is a brilliant social and political analyst, which makes it harder for him to play hardball or to bluff.”  Obama’s strengths and weaknesses come from his high degree of “integrative complexity” — his ability to keep multiple variables and trade-offs in mind simultaneously."

Well this social psychologist needs his own head examined.

The BS is truly mind boggling and frustrating too.
3404  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: May 03, 2011, 11:16:06 AM
"Will Obama seize the advantage and press the war with the treasure trove of intel we now have?"

I dunno.  But he is already playing the lets use this moment to all get along card.  Like he did with Gabby.

Which is code for do what I want or you are not compromising.

A Bamster is a Bamster is a Bamster.

Did anyone notice the similarity of Bamster mocking Trump at the Press dinner (which is in itself and elitist joke) to how he had the Supreme Coutr Justices, and Ryan sitting in front of him will he towers on the podium and mock them.

Mock and belittle your oponents.  Isn't that the strategy when logic no longer works?
3405  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: May 03, 2011, 09:45:52 AM
"This will give Obama a short term pop in the polls."

Well no bounce short term grin

Comparing Bamster's "leadership" to WH Bushes as some liberal media are wont to do, is like comparing  Joe Biden to Winston Chruchill.

****Tuesday, May 03, 2011 The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Thirty-six percent (36%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -10 (see trends).

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook

Overall, 49% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty percent (50%) disapprove.

Daily updates are based upon nightly telephone interviews and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. As a result, two-thirds of the interviews for today’s update were conducted before news was released about the death of Osama bin Laden. Thursday will be the first update based entirely upon interviews conducted after that event. Results from the single night of data collected on Monday shows a modest improvement in the president’s Approval Index rating. However, there was no improvement in the president’s overall approval rating. Caution should always be used when interpreting a single night sample from a tracking poll.

The president’s job approval ratings have been remarkably stable over the past year-and-a-half when viewed on a month-by-month basis.

During the month of April, the number of voters unaffiliated with either major party grew for the fourth straight month.

Republicans continue to hold a modest advantage on the Generic Congressional Ballot.

The Rasmussen Employment Index gained some ground last month but is still down from the start of 2011. Nineteen percent (19%) of workers report that the employers are hiring while 24% still see lay-offs. It has been nearly three years since the number reporting hiring topped the number with lay-offs.

Rasmussen Reports is pleased to announce that we now have more than 100,000 Twitter followers. Sign up at

(More Below)


A Wall Street Journal   profile called Scott "America's Insurgent Pollster." The Washington Post calls him "a driving force in American politics." If you'd like Scott to speak at your conference or event, contact Premiere Speakers Bureau. Follow Scott on Facebook.

In a book released last year, Scott observed that, "The gap between Americans who want to govern themselves and politicians who want to rule over them may be as big today as the gap between the colonies and England during the 18th  century." He added that "The American people don't want to be governed from the left, the right, or the center. They want to govern themselves." In Search of Self-Governance  is available at

MAD AS HELL: How the Tea Party Movement is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System,   by Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen, can be ordered, Barnes and Noble, Borders and other outlets. It's also available in bookstores everywhere.

It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama's numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That's because some of the president's most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote. It is also important to check the details of question wording when comparing approval ratings from different firms.*****

3406  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / some thoughts on: May 02, 2011, 12:39:27 PM
"You talking about Bush 41, 43 or both?"

Oops.  I said W but I meant HW (41).

My take was the read my lips no new taxes pledge was more a rallying point from the left than a real reason he lost.

Sort of like Dukakis lost because he was ambushed by the guy he released from prison who went out and commited another rape.
The MSM went out of their way to turn it into a racial thing by highlighting the guy was Black.  Most of us didn't know or care otherwise.  It was a rally cry from the liberal media more than a real issue.

Or that Kerry was "swift boated" aka a dirty low down Republican trick.  Another figment of the liberal media to deamonize the right.

As for 1991-2 -

My opinion is we were in a recession during the end of HW tenure and he just ignored it.  If only he showed he was paying attention to it and at least trying to fix it.  I think he would have won in '92. 

Then again in those days it was believed that the economy was more out of the President's control and it would right itself with the usual ebbs and flows of the economic cycle.  HW appeared to believe this and thought a laissez faire approach made sense, I guess.

I kind of think that was the beginning of the trend towards it is the job of the President to respond to every single crises and fix it immediately and if he doesn't respond to polls he is no good.

Now we have polls on everything several times a day and constant barrage of the politicians to respond immediately.
3407  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / W dropped the ball big time on: May 02, 2011, 11:03:34 AM
"But he didn't do anything at all"

That is exactly right.  The economy was faltering and he said, and did nothing ( some words about just giving it sometime.)

If he had just done anything at all.  At least made some effort as though he even cared.  Hhe would have won.  The silence was deafening, maddening and indeed at the time - astounding!  I recall thinking why doesn't this guy say something.  Anything.  It was like he was in la la land and his lose finally woke him up to reality.  But by then it was too late.

3408  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: May 02, 2011, 10:58:31 AM
Here it comes.  He is now the greatest leader of all time and all questions about his commitment to America as we knew it are suddenly not valid.  I thought the mention that he instructed Panetta to make the getting of Osama a top priority  was rather shameless.  As though it wasn't already a top priority?  Narcissist aside, it is a great day for America.  BTW it is no coincidence it was announced the same day as Hitler's death.

***US President Barack Obama announces the death of Osama Bin Laden at The White ouse in Washington DC on … By Slate slate – Mon May 2, 6:21 am ET
By John Dickerson

At approximately 11:30 p.m. Sunday, President Obama announced to the nation that on his orders U.S forces had killed Osama Bin Laden. His reputation for lawyerly inaction may never recover.

Obama's critics have said that he is a weak leader in general and in particular does not understand what must be done to combat terrorism. "They are very much giving up that center of attention and focus that's required," said former Vice President Dick Cheney in March 2009, in a typical remark. Yet what emerges from the details of Bin Laden's killing (offered, like the heroic accounts of the Bush years, entirely by officials who work for the sitting president) is that from early in his administration Obama was focused on killing Osama Bin Laden and that he was involved in the process throughout.

In June 2009, Obama directed his CIA director to "provide me within 30 days a detailed operation plan for locating and bringing to justice" Osama Bin Laden. By August 2010 intelligence officials had identified the suspicious compound where Osama lived. Thirty-five minutes outside Islamabad, the walls were up to 18 feet high and topped with barbed wire. The largest structure, a three-story building, had very few windows. Though the house was valued at $1 million, it had no Internet or phone service. Its residents, unlike their neighbors, burned their trash.

Detainees being held at Guantanamo provided some of the strongest information about those who were trusted by Bin Laden. They identified a courier and his brother who lived inAbbottabad, Pakistan, an affluent suburb where a lot of retired Pakistani military officers live.

[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]

The final phase of the painstaking process started in mid-February. Intelligence officials started to get good information on the compound. A series of meetings were held in the White House to develop aggressive intelligence gathering operations. A family lived at the compound that matched the description of the Bin Laden family. By mid-March the president was chairing the national security meetings on the operation. (In all he would chair five such meetings, including the ones on the day the operation took place.)

(Commentary and analysis on killing Osama bin Laden)

Early Friday morning before departing to view tornado damage in Alabama, the president gave the order to initiate the operation to kill Bin Laden. On Sunday, he met throughout the day in the Situation Room, making final preparations and receiving updates.

The assault team arrived by helicopter. Administration officials were vague about what happened next. Bin Laden "did resist the assault force" and he was killed in a firefight, which leaves plenty of room for details to come out in the screenplay. Bin Laden's oldest son and the two couriers were also killed. One woman, whom a senior administration official said was used as a shield by one of the men, was killed. Two other women were injured.

At about 4 p.m., the president received first word that his orders had very likely led to the successful assassination of the architect of the greatest attack ever on America.

No other country, including Pakistan, knew of the attack, but the president in his remarks was clear that the operation couldn't have taken place without the help of the Pakistani government. "Our counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to Bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding."

The president went to sleep to the sound of cheering outside the White House. At Ground Zero in New York and towns across the country, people gathered to sing the national anthem and chant "USA! USA!" It was a flicker of the post-9/11 unity that the president had referenced in his remarks earlier in the evening.

In his remarks announcing the operation, the president sought to rekindle that feeling, but he went further. He made the latest in a series of paeans to the American spirit. Under assault from conservatives who say he does not believe in the idea of American exceptionalism, Obama took the opportunity to reiterate his belief in the unique qualities of his countrymen:

Today's achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people. … Tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history, whether it's the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place. Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but because of who we are: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thus did the president both answer his conservative critics and rise above them. Yes, he was saying, I do believe in American exceptionalism—and so should any terrorist who would wish America ill. All in all, it was a good night to be president.***

3409  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: April 30, 2011, 09:50:45 AM
Well interesting a San Fran newspaper is saying this.  Most of us see he is a serial liar.
Consistent with his narc personality disorder.

They ARE liars and manipulators and arrogant, self absorbed and with tememdous self love and resistant and incapable of being objective in the face of any criticism.

The anger response we see from the phoney One is a typical it is 'you' who are wrong, not (never) 'me".  Yet they can often continue to lie, lie in the face of being exposed, continue to try to charm and manipulate and get everyone on board to adulate them.
We are dealing with a real personality disorder.  The guy is 'f' up.  The MSM still predominantly has the wagons circled around him though.  Perhaps this will be the start of a break from the lib media though I do not hold my breath.
3410  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / fire with stronger fire on: April 29, 2011, 02:20:50 PM

I think one could counter this by pointing out government unions wipe their behinds with taxpayer monies.

Could some highly visible person start a campaign that all taxpayers should avoid any business that is intimidated by unions or shows union solidarity in a public way?
3411  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: April 29, 2011, 10:09:23 AM
""The Economist" here has been often referenced, recommended and maligned on this site."

The mag does have some interesting world wide articles though after reading it for a few years now it also does have a left bias and as Crafty described an elitist know it all kind of bent that usually leaks through in most of the articles.

Most if not all the writers are obviously liberals who seem to have a hard time being totally objective.  Perhaps if I were liberal I would welcome and not be offended by the bias.

After much thought I decided to renew my subscription because the value was greater then the (to me ) offensive nature of the information.

Perhaps this explains the reason why I have been posting the articles with different thoughts, pro and con, on this site.

3412  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: April 27, 2011, 11:44:32 AM
ONe of the talk radio heads, Smirkonish, I believe had a theory that Bamster was waiting for a debate wherein he would sucker a Repubic into asking him where is the long form at which point he would pull it out and say, "it is right here" in an attempt to embarras him/her.

In any case this should point out the One's *lack of judgement*, and as Crafty eluded to (the "unifier") how he does more to divide us than unify us by being the pompous guy he is.

The anchor gals on CNN who are flaming liberals were outright relieved this AM with obvious giddiness.
I do commend Anderson Cooper for repeatedly asking (the last few days only) why Obama rama just doesn't release the form while very single guest was dreaming every single argument why he doesn't and shouldn't.
3413  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Usual leftist game: racism on: April 27, 2011, 10:12:08 AM
First, secure and maintain the Black vote.  Make it about racism.  White man is coming to get you if you don't support the One:
3414  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: April 27, 2011, 09:39:55 AM
We need what we have not seen so far.  Someone with the persuasive ability of Trump but the more trustworthiness, and gravitas (if you will) of a Santorum, Ryan, etc.

I don't know if one would call what Trump has as charisma per se, rather than just interesting and showmanship, but whatever it is it works.

I love what he says.  He really sounds like he will fight to keep America numero uno.

Next to Trump, Boehner sounds like a total loser - even a joke.  He is the House leadership?
He sounds wishy washy fitting for the crier of the House.
I don't want a nice sweet man.  I want a dog fighter!
3415  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: April 27, 2011, 09:33:19 AM
I am satisfied with the birth certificate.

I wonder why the ONE refused to release it till now though.

Hats off to Trump!  I agree wholeheartedly that he accomplished what no one else could/would do and I absoulety maintain a position that it was absolutely necessary.

As for the school records or how he got into columbia and harvard I personally care less.  Affirmative action or not what's the difference?

I would like to know more about the One's political activities and positions while a political science major at Columbia.
One can only imagine the radical America, European, possibly white, capatilism, hating stuff he surrounded himself with.

If not true than why is it kept so secret?

3416  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 38% of Americans think the One definitely born in USA on: April 26, 2011, 09:41:08 AM
Crying, not laughing out loud at the obnoxiousness of the journolist media, who still cover for Bamster.  Why just this morning we have some pundit on saying that Obama's issue of being born in the USA is "put to rest".  Oh really?!

Last night Anderson Cooper kept asking his guys including the liberal Harvard law guy (I can't think of his name) why doesn't Bamster just show his long certificate.  Again and again we hear every tangled legal reason why he need not do it, he doesn't have to, he shouldn't, it would take "hours" to locate, and every single twisted excuse except *THE REASON WHY HE DOESN'T JUST SHOW IT".  Every single fangled argument to avoid answering why doesn't he just show it.  What IS he hiding?  I guess the public does have enough savvy to see through the liberal media's persistance in doing everything possible to cover this up and to try to move things along.

This is not even a political issue or Republican issue.  This is an issue voters do have a right to know.  Many liberals think it great that we have a right to know every single detail about what our military is doing even if it risks lives yet they suddenly do not think these questions about the covering up of Bamster's history important.

Doug, Your right, whatever happened to bamseter at his birth is one thing but the cover up of the events surrounding his birth, employment records and school records and siliencing everyone who ever seemed to know anything about him certainly IS his fault:

****The real estate developer and reality TV star, who scores at the top in polls of the GOP field these days, falls to fourth when Republicans are asked to rate who among the contenders would be a “good” or “great” president in office.

Fifty percent of Americans, including 31% of Republicans, say Trump would make a “poor” or “terrible” president.

STORY: Donald Trump on faith and worship
MORE: Despite Barbour's exit, GOP field open for president
STORY: GOP's gamble on the budget pays off, so far
“Trump is filling a huge void in the Republican Party right now, and he’s gathering a protest vote: protest against the way Washington works; protest with the establishment Republicans,” says Scott Reed, manager for Bob Dole’s 1996 presidential campaign. “The jury is still out whether Trump can translate that into a real candidacy for president.”

His possible bid faces broad resistance: 63% of Americans, including 46% of Republicans, say they definitely will not vote for Trump for president. In comparison, 46% of Americans say they definitely will not vote for President Obama — significantly lower but itself a hurdle to winning the 2012 election.

Though Trump initially got attention by expressing doubts whether Obama was born in the USA, that issue is not driving his support. Among those who say they definitely or might vote for Trump, only about a third question whether the president was born in the USA.

Support from the “birthers” is stronger for Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. The issue has persisted even though Hawaii has released an official Certificate of Live Birth showing Obama was born there, a fact confirmed in non-partisan investigations by and others.

Still, in the USA TODAY poll, only 38% of Americans say Obama definitely was born in the USA, and 18% say he probably was. Fifteen percent say he probably was born in another country, and 9% say he definitely was born elsewhere.

USA TODAY/Gallup Poll
Views already are polarized about President Obama and some major Republican candidates for 2012.****
3417  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / government employee revolt; its about time on: April 25, 2011, 04:59:44 PM
I had a postal worker in the office some time ago.  The person came in for the third time after hurting his back.  I gave him a note to take a week off the first time and then another two weeks off during the second visit.   He comes back again and now states his back is better.  (Frankly I thought he was better the second time but I gave him the benefit of the doubt.)  So, I ask, if your back is better than why are you here?  You want even more time off?  He replied yes, he was thinking another week or two.   I asked, why if your back is better?  He said well, I have lots of sick time and I am going to retire in a few months (patient is age 59).  I stated I don't do this and will not write a false note.  I said I don't get it.   You know the Post Office is going borke and is billions in the red.  He says no it isn't.   It has plenty of money.  Some postal workers were laid off at other locations not mine.   In fact I just got a raise.

To make the rest of the story short, I refused the note.

The attitude, the sense of entitlement, the abuse of the system....  Taxpayers like me are finally waking up:

****California voters want public employees to help ease state's financial troubles
A cap on pensions and a later retirement age — even for current public employees — are supported by the poll's respondents.

By Shane Goldmacher, Los Angeles Times
April 24, 2011, 4:23 p.m.
Reporting from Sacramento— California voters want government employees to give up some retirement benefits to help ease the state's financial problems, favoring a cap on pensions and a later age for collecting them, according to a new poll.

Voter support for rolling back benefits available to few outside the public sector comes as Gov. Jerry Brown and Republicans in the Legislature haggle over changes to the pension system as part of state budget negotiations. Such benefits have been a flashpoint of national debate this year, and the poll shows that Californians are among those who perceive public retirement plans to be too costly.

Voters appear ready to embrace changes not just for future hires but also for current employees who have been promised the benefits under contract.

Seventy percent of respondents said they supported a cap on pensions for current and future public employees. Nearly as many, 68%, approved of raising the amount of money government workers should be required to contribute to their retirement. Increasing the age at which government employees may collect pensions was favored by 52%.

Although pension costs today account for just a fraction of the state budget, they are putting local governments under considerable financial strain, and analysts say effects on the state may not be far off.

"It's pretty clear that there's broad support for making changes in the area of pensions," said Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who co-directed the bipartisan poll for The Times and the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.

Many public safety officers can retire at 50 with a pension equal to 3% of their final salary for each year worked — for example, 60% of salary after 20 years on the job. Many other state employees can retire at 55, with 2.5% of salary for each year worked. And tens of thousands of public workers may also purchase "air time" — credit for years they do not actually work — to boost their retirement income.

Guaranteed pensions have faded from corporate America in recent decades, replaced largely by 401(k) accounts that workers pay into and that rise and fall based on the fluctuations of financial markets. Voters back an integration of such plans into the government retirement system, with 66% supporting a blend of the traditional pension and a 401(k).

"It's just gotten way out of hand," said Beverly Marcelja, a 67-year old Democrat and retiree living in Tracy, in the Central Valley.

David Martinez, 59, a nonpartisan voter who lives in Rowland Heights, said existing retirement plans reflect a time when private-sector workers were afforded the same pensions.

"It's come to the point where the government is paying much more than private industry is," he said. "It should be equal."

The public sentiment is a cause for concern for organized labor. Public employee unions that spent millions of dollars helping to elect Brown are working aggressively to keep their pensions intact. But the governor has made clear that he believes they must make concessions as the state struggles.

Art Pulaski, executive secretary-treasurer of the California Labor Federation, said the public is trapped in a "moment of envy" over benefits that he maintains are far from lavish.

His union's position is that every worker should be entitled to a pension, not an unsecured retirement reliant on Wall Street earnings. Policy makers should focus on winning back a stable retirement for private-sector workers rather than demonize public employees, he said.

Some state and local public employee unions have already agreed to some changes, such as a delay in the retirement age for new hires.

"It's one thing for Republican governors in Wisconsin and Indiana to support these types of changes, but seeing this type of support from California voters, even California Democrats, is really remarkable," said Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC and a former GOP strategist.

Among Democratic respondents, 71% supported increasing retirement contributions for future hires and 66% backed a pension cap for both current and future workers. However, fewer than half of the Democrats surveyed favored cutting benefits and raising the retirement age for current employees.

Majorities of Republican and nonpartisan voters favored every potential money-saving pension change they were asked about.

Linda DiVall, a Republican pollster who co-directed the poll, said the results show that on the subject of retirement benefits, the public believes it is "unfair what the state employees have going for them."

Although Republicans have crusaded for years against what they view as bloated government pensions, California voters are not confident that they are best suited to tackle the issue. Only 29% said Republicans would best handle a revamping of the pension system, whereas 43% would prefer that an overhaul be left in the hands of Brown and his fellow Democrats.

And although voters strongly supported downsizing parts of the pension system, they were divided on whether most public employees were compensated appropriately. Forty-three percent said wages and benefits were too high; 33% said they were about right; 12% said they were too low.

The Times/USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences poll surveyed 1,503 registered voters from April 7 to 17. It was conducted by a bipartisan team of polling companies based in the Washington, D.C., area: Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, a Democratic firm, and American Viewpoint, a Republican firm.

The margin of error is plus or minus 2.53 percentage points. Some pension questions were posed to half the respondents and have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.58 percentage points.
Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times****

3418  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: April 25, 2011, 03:40:22 PM
"Meanwhile unemployment is 12% in Calif, gas unaffordable, drilling outlawed, states bankrupt, debt downgraded, dollar imploding, economy stagnated, health care costs worse than ever with choices disappearing and waivers exploding, wars breaking out, etc."

Everything a radical like Obama has dreamed for.  How better to transform this nation then to encourage it to implode first.

Well Soros is getting richer by the minute while he Gates, and Buffet and little facebook and google squirts, all chime in about how the rich should pay more taxes.

We live in such illogical times.
3419  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Doug, you're too nice on: April 25, 2011, 01:47:33 PM
"No.  He needs to be defeated straight on for his record and for the direction he still wants to lead the nation.  But the media lack of curiosity and lack of follow up is deplorable."

His personal likability (for whatever reason is still good) so we do need the politics of personal destruction (if we 'pardon' this phrase made famous by BJ bill jefferson Clinton), as well as beating him on the issues. 

We don't need to make anything the phoney one him up. It is all there, just being hidden.  We need to dig and dig and dig.  The more this guy gets exposed as a serial liar the better.

Nothing can be left to chance, no stone unturned in defeating this guy before he destroys this country.  The Obama rama drama must end on January 20, 2013.  BTW, say it does - mark my words - illegals will be pardoned on January 19th!!!

And not a damn thing anyone can do to stop it.

3420  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Jornolisters circled the wagon around Obama on: April 25, 2011, 11:29:41 AM
Aaron Klein noted how Stephenapolous made a "fool" out Michelle Bachman who backtracked about Bama's birth record.
I tend to conclude she made a fool out of herself.

And Mark Levin thinks she is great?

The journolist media is out in full force going after anyone who  questions why Obama is not revealling all his records.

It is really a sight to behold how they have circled the wagons around him defending him tooth and nail.

The pattern we keep seeing from the MSM:

If someone says all he has to do is show the long form the answer would be:

"are you suggesting he was not born here?"

I don't know why not just show the long form?

"so you are saying he was not born here?  Despite this certificate posted online that the State Department accepts and two contemperaneous newspaper announcements?"

Well why does he not just show the "long form"?

"SO you believe he was not born here and are part of the radical, fringe crazy stupid right?"

You continue to NOT answer the question as to why he doesn't simply show the long form?

"The Hawaii governor states he remembers his birth.  We have an official in Hawaii who has attested to have seen the form."

What is Obama hiding? Why not just show the form?  He is obviously hiding something?

Do you think the Republican party can win chasing the "birther" issue?

etc etc etc.

3421  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: california on: April 25, 2011, 11:17:09 AM
"now usual mix of perceptive comments and pompous elitist commentary."

Beautifully and correctly stated.

"California has been stupid"

Well, I am not sure it is only California.  Thanks to Clinton governing by the polls which in effect is akin to a direct Demcracy is now a high art form and standard procedure.

We are bombarded with polls every single day.
3422  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / DickMorris:IMF our new financial masters on: April 23, 2011, 11:07:09 AM
3423  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / So just show us the F' long form! on: April 23, 2011, 10:55:30 AM
So just show us the long form.  Where is it.  Something is being hidden.  It is remarkable why the MSM continues to avoid an answer to this question.  Only Chris Matthews earlier came out and asked the obvious glaring question.  Why not just show us the long form?  Of course he was hushed up.   

Trump is the ONLY one who will ask this question.  Anyone with a quarter of a brain can see something is being hidden from the public.

****HONOLULU (AP) -- Lost in the renewed scrutiny into President Barack Obama's birth records is the fact that anyone can walk into a Hawaii vital records office, wait in line behind couples getting marriage licenses and open a baby-blue government binder containing basic information about his birth.

Highlighted in yellow on page 1,218 of the thick binder is the computer-generated listing for a boy named Barack Hussein Obama II born in Hawaii, surrounded by the alphabetized last names of all other children born in-state between 1960 and 1964. This is the only government birth information, called "index data," available to the public.

So far this month, only The Associated Press and one other person had looked at the binder, according to a sign-in sheet viewed Wednesday in the state Department of Health building. The sheet showed about 25 names of people who have seen the document since March 2010, when the sign-in sheet begins.

Those documents complement newspaper birth announcements published soon after Obama's Aug. 4, 1961 birth and a "certification of live birth" released by the Obama campaign three years ago, the only type of birth certificate the state issues.

So-called "birthers" claim there's no proof Obama was born in the United States, and he is therefore ineligible to be president. Many of the skeptics suggest he was actually born in Kenya, his father's home country, or Indonesia where he spent a few years of his childhood.

Possible Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has repeatedly stoked the birther fires recently, and last month called on Obama to "show his birth certificate." Trump said he has investigators in Hawaii searching for more information.

"Nobody has come in and said they're investigating for Donald Trump," said Department of Health spokeswoman Janice Okubo, who acknowledged they could've come in without identifying themselves as representing Trump.

What the would-be sleuths won't find is Obama's "long-form birth certificate," a confidential one-page document containing his original birth records kept on file in the first floor of the Department of Health.

Those original birth records typically include additional birth details, such as the hospital and delivering doctor, said Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the state's former health director who twice looked at and publicly confirmed Obama's original long-form birth records.

But those documents are state government property that can't be released to anyone, even the president himself, said Joshua Wisch, special assistant to the state attorney general. Obama would be able to inspect his birth records if he visited the Health Department in person, but original records of live birth are never released, he said.

Fukino, who served as the state's health director until late last year under former Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, said in an interview with The Associated Press she's convinced the long-form document is authentic. She issued public statements in 2008 and 2009 saying she had seen the original records.

"It is absolutely clear to me that he was born here in Hawaii," Fukino told the AP. "It should not be an issue, and I think people need to focus on the other bad things going on in our country and in our state and figure out what we're going to do about those things."

Before Obama's campaign released his certification of live birth in 2008, he or someone with a tangible interest had to make a written request and pay a $10 fee to receive it, Okubo said. Wisch also said Obama obtained a copy of his own certification of live birth and publicly released it.

State privacy laws prevent a certification of live birth from being released to anyone except those with a tangible interest, such as the person named by the birth record or a close family member.

The document is generated by computer, based on original birth records on file with the state, Fukino said.

New Health Director Loretta Fuddy, a Democratic appointee, declined to comment.

Last week, Republican Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a bill that would have required presidential candidates to prove their U.S. citizenship before their names could appear on the state's ballot - which was widely viewed as targeting Obama - calling it a "bridge too far."

But the birther conspiracy theory refuses to go away. The latest New York Times-CBS News poll found that 45 percent of adult Republicans said they believe Obama was born in another country, and 22 percent said they don't know. Only one-third of Republicans said they believe the president is native born. The same poll a year ago found that a plurality of Republicans believed the president was born in the U.S.

Obama said in an interview with ABC News this month that Republicans sowing doubts about whether he's American-born may gain politically in the short term by playing to their constituencies, but will have trouble when the general election rolls around.

"Just want to be clear - I was born in Hawaii," the president said at a fundraiser in his hometown of Chicago.

Newspaper birth announcements appeared in both The Honolulu Advertiser and The Honolulu Star-Bulletin in the weeks after he was born.

The Aug. 13, 1961 announcement in the Advertiser appears on page B-6 of the Sunday edition, next to classified ads for carpentry work and house repair.

It says, "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., son, Aug. 4." The address belonged to the parents of Ann Dunham, Obama's mother.

A similar announcement appeared the following day on page 24 of the Star-Bulletin.



© 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.****
3424  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Is Economist opinion correct or just more media bias? on: April 23, 2011, 10:20:38 AM
A couple of articles about the fiscal problems facing California and implications for the world.  The Econimist writers imply that California's main problem is "extreme Democracy" as they call it.  That California's bent for ballot initiatives wherein voters have too much control over the purse strings (legislatures control only 30% of budget.)   I find the Economist seems to miss the entire point about a welfare social state as being the main cause of the budget problems in California.  And that is why the Economist is always suspect as a liberal rag to me.

They claim the issue is ignorant misinformed or uninformed voters are making huge mistakes and essentially do not know what is best for them.  I claim this is misleading and progressive propaganda.  The real issue is too many people and their bribed officials voting too much spending on themselves.  In any case:

***Lessons from California
The perils of extreme democracy
California offers a warning to voters all over the world
Apr 20th 2011 | from the print edition
CALIFORNIA is once again nearing the end of its fiscal year with a huge budget hole and no hope of a deal to plug it, as its constitution requires. Other American states also have problems, thanks to the struggling economy. But California cannot pass timely budgets even in good years, which is one reason why its credit rating has, in one generation, fallen from one of the best to the absolute worst among the 50 states. How can a place which has so much going for it—from its diversity and natural beauty to its unsurpassed talent clusters in Silicon Valley and Hollywood—be so poorly governed?

It is tempting to accuse those doing the governing. The legislators, hyperpartisan and usually deadlocked, are a pretty rum bunch. The governor, Jerry Brown, who also led the state between 1975 and 1983, has (like his predecessors) struggled to make the executive branch work. But as our special report this week argues, the main culprit has been direct democracy: recalls, in which Californians fire elected officials in mid-term; referendums, in which they can reject acts of their legislature; and especially initiatives, in which the voters write their own rules. Since 1978, when Proposition 13 lowered property-tax rates, hundreds of initiatives have been approved on subjects from education to the regulation of chicken coops.

This citizen legislature has caused chaos. Many initiatives have either limited taxes or mandated spending, making it even harder to balance the budget. Some are so ill-thought-out that they achieve the opposite of their intent: for all its small-government pretensions, Proposition 13 ended up centralising California’s finances, shifting them from local to state government. Rather than being the curb on elites that they were supposed to be, ballot initiatives have become a tool of special interests, with lobbyists and extremists bankrolling laws that are often bewildering in their complexity and obscure in their ramifications. And they have impoverished the state’s representative government. Who would want to sit in a legislature where 70-90% of the budget has already been allocated?

Related items
The people's will
Apr 20th 2011
Direct democracy: Vox populi or hoi polloi?
Apr 20th 2011


Related topics
United States
Elections and voting
Government and politics
They paved paradise and put up a voting booth

This has been a tragedy for California, but it matters far beyond the state’s borders. Around half of America’s states and an increasing number of countries have direct democracy in some form (article). Next month Britain will have its first referendum for years (on whether to change its voting system), and there is talk of voter recalls for aberrant MPs. The European Union has just introduced the first supranational initiative process. With technology making it ever easier to hold referendums and Western voters ever more angry with their politicians, direct democracy could be on the march.

And why not? There is, after all, a successful model: in Switzerland direct democracy goes back to the Middle Ages at the local level and to the 19th century at the federal. This mixture of direct and representative democracy seems to work well. Surely it is just a case of California (which explicitly borrowed the Swiss model) executing a good idea poorly?

Not entirely. Very few people, least of all this newspaper, want to ban direct democracy. Indeed, in some cases referendums are good things: they are a way of holding a legislature to account. In California reforms to curb gerrymandering and non-partisan primaries, both improvements, have recently been introduced by initiatives; and they were pushed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, a governor elected through the recall process. But there is a strong case for proceeding with caution, especially when it comes to allowing people to circumvent a legislature with citizen-made legislation.

The debate about the merits of representative and direct democracy goes back to ancient times. To simplify a little, the Athenians favoured pure democracy (“people rule”, though in fact oligarchs often had the last word); the Romans chose a republic, as a “public thing”, where representatives could make trade-offs for the common good and were accountable for the sum of their achievements. America’s Founding Fathers, especially James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, backed the Romans. Indeed, in their guise of “Publius” in the “Federalist Papers”, Madison and Hamilton warn against the dangerous “passions” of the mob and the threat of “minority factions” (ie, special interests) seizing the democratic process.

Proper democracy is far more than a perpetual ballot process. It must include deliberation, mature institutions and checks and balances such as those in the American constitution. Ironically, California imported direct democracy almost a century ago as a “safety valve” in case government should become corrupt. The process began to malfunction only relatively recently. With Proposition 13, it stopped being a valve and instead became almost the entire engine.

You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone

All this provides both a hope and a worry. The hope is that California can right itself. Already there is talk of reform—though ironically the best hope of it may be through initiatives, since the push for a constitutional convention died last year for lack of money. There is talk, too, of restoring power and credibility to the legislature, the heart of any representative democracy. That could be done by increasing its unusually small numbers, and making term limits less onerous.

More important, direct democracy must revert to being a safety valve, not the engine. Initiatives should be far harder to introduce. They should be shorter and simpler, so that voters can actually understand them. They should state what they cost, and where that money is to come from. And, if successful, initiatives must be subject to amendment by the legislature. Those would be good principles to apply to referendums, too.

The worry is that the Western world is slowly drifting in the opposite direction. Concern over globalisation means government is unpopular and populism is on the rise. Europeans may snigger at the bizarre mess those crazy Californians have voted themselves into. But how many voters in Europe would resist the lure of a ballot initiative against immigration? Or against mosque-building? Or lower taxes? What has gone wrong in California could all too easily go wrong elsewhere.

from the print edition | Leaders
3425  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: April 22, 2011, 12:27:18 PM
If Huckabee is the Rep candidate I might just stay at home.

I don't know why he is on Fox so much.

He is the biggest bore on TV>

3426  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / hate crime on: April 22, 2011, 11:10:16 AM
Two Black females beating a white female reason unknown in MCD's.  Now let's see the ACLU pick this case up as hate crime.  The other night on Smirkonish radio he was discussing the absolutely absurdity of "hate" crime legislation.  A crime is a crime.  The idea that kid in Rutgers is under federal prosecution for hate crimes because he humiliated a gay who commited suicide.  If the guy where not gay than it is not as bad?  SMirkonish gave the answer well hate crimes apply to everyone but white males. The caller said, well yes.  Well this case is a white girl.  So does she qualify?  On the other hand she is attacked by girls so I guess not.
3427  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: April 22, 2011, 10:31:26 AM
"Championing liberty begins at the local level."

The problem with this is eminent domain is usually a local issue.

There are no  more politics that are corrupt as those on the local, state level which is all nepotism, who you know, and totally corrupt deal making.

As for Trump, there was something on cable one time wherein a whole bunch of investors lost a ton investing with Trump in Mexico.

They lost their money and he was literally no where to be found.

3428  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tax Policy on: April 21, 2011, 02:45:52 PM
Doug,  I think I am close to making my position clear and perhaps you, GM, and others can see how I think restructuring the Repubs/tea party message can help gain voter "market share".

"I hear you when you complain about rich having disproportionate power with certain things.  The only solution I know is to simply move the system away from being for sale and negotiable toward dispensing special favors, and toward a system of equal protection where all private enterprises in all industries are treated evenly by a limited government.  We aren't exactly headed in that direction."

The Tea Party is emphasizing limited government.  But they are not emphasizing the system for sale, special favors, equal protection.
And that in a nutshell IS the problem as I see it.

"Where I don't follow you and where you don't follow the left and won't vote with them is that there is no way prevent obscene amounts of income and obscene uses of wealth at the top without messing up the system, the incentives and mechanisms for producing wealth."

I am not against obscene amounts of wealth.  As Reagan said (and was derided by the libs for saying) one of the great things about America is one CAN get rich!  I agree with this.  I do not begrudge those who are a success.  Good for them - if they obtain it honestly.  I cannot quite begrudge them for gaming the system.  What I do begrudge is that the system can be gamed.  That politicians cannot it seems stop this so the wealthy make their wealth honestly and reasonable fairly and not by cheating, lying, stealing, tricking, bribing, extorting, etc.

I am convinced if we can get a candidate to address this philosophy - we can drive Bamster and his crazy backers out of town.

I guess one analogy is every election cycle we here about the candidate who is the outsider who is going to clean up Washington.
Yet we all know it never happens.  I was impressed by Newt speaking about the bankers and the bail out government pols and beaurocrats needing to be investigated.  I as equally impressed by hearing Spitzer (who as those on this board know I generally have a distaste for) discuss how Goldman Sachs ripped everyone off during the financial crises and how the evidence is really quite compelling and convicning but he admits the JD will not go near them because of their wealth and political influence.

If this kind of crap could at least be addressed, and a real man (Schwartenegger), or real girl (Palin) would run on this promise I really think those getting squeezed in the middle (most of us) would jump on board. 

The suspicion is still the cans are the party for the rich and the crats are the party of poo'.  Just speaking about free markets but not admitting or recognizing they are not totally free is met with disbelief and a grimace to those of us who are old enough to know better. 
3429  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tax Policy on: April 21, 2011, 12:21:19 PM
"What of the idea of adopting Hong Kong's tax system? 200 pages vs. our tax laws and rules that no one can agree on interpreting correctly."


Yes, absolutely!  I think it is doable if everyone can see they would be better off.

I admit the mortage deduction and charitable deductions would be tough sell. 

But even these should be done away with.

Why are taxpayers indirectly subsidizing the charitable contributions of others?

If tax rates are lowered enough I think this could be "sold".

3430  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / "As one who has been a victim of a private taking," on: April 21, 2011, 12:15:50 PM
I remember going to Resort International.  The first Jersey casino that opened in the 70s.  The firist legal csino outside Nevada.  I  remember seeing this tiny house in the middle of all these giant buildings.  Someone told me it was some little old lady who refused to leave/sell her house so the big shots built towers all around her house leaving her with just tiny strip of land and driveway.

The message?  You don't want to sell.  So screw you.  We'll just build it all up around you and drive you out.

It was sickening to look at.  I guess it was better than today where the city can force someone to leave their home for the "public" good. 

3431  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tax Policy on: April 21, 2011, 12:09:11 PM

Your examples are somewhat hard for me to understand in real terms.  Please don't misundertand me.  I am for growth.  I am for laying off the successful.  I do not want to increase taxes in anyway for the successful.  I do want the lower end to pay something.  Even if $100 a year. 

I want to stop the endless doles and nanny state stuff now.

Your arguments whether correct or not are not going to be understood or believed by those in the middle.  Even I here on this board find the numbers mindboggling and convoluted.

I want what you want.  GM and Republicans in general.  But the game at the top is rigged.  Not fair.  But rigged.  It always will be.  Money can buy anything and anybody.  I learned and watched this first hand.  Our leaders have to raise phenomenal amounts of cash.  Of course they can all be bribed.  And most probably are.  This will never change.  But we need regulations that exist to be *enforced* to everyone equally.  And I do not believe they are.  No one on Main street does.  A Republican with a real mouthpiece with a vision of real justice and opportunity for all with minimal but necessary regulatory oversight (that is not does not get rigged) and free markets, low taxation - this is a winner strategy.

If we cut taxes for all at the top, middle and limit or eliminate all deductions, so that people wind up paying less net taxes I think is a winner.  For those free loaders (I know this is a totally politically incorrect description - some are truly needy but many ARE free loaders) at the bottom they either don't vote or will always vote for the Dem0crats so make them pay a nominal sum to the treasury like the rest of us.  They cannot just sit there and vote for others to pay up while they take home cash.

I hope this helps explain my vision.  I hear my middle class, many blue collar class patients come in every day.  It is a mixed bag of opinions but I really think many are not for bigger government but they don't want to be taken advantage of by the rich.  And if anyone does not think the rich are taking advantage of us then I think they are  niave (which I know you are not).

I am really worried as are all Republicans that Bamster could carry the day again in 2012.  I know it is early.  But I don not know if any in the field on the right have a message that will pick up "market share" from those who are always the ones who decide elections - the independents.   That is what I am trying to do.  Tailor the message to appeal to those in the middle as well as to those on the right.

The fact that Bamster is even still in the game in the polls tells me we need a better message.  This guy should be at rock bottom in the polls.  He is showing us the door to ruin. 

3432  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: April 21, 2011, 11:37:28 AM
"They act like they don't know eachother and one of them convinces you that you can make some big bucks off the other guy with just a small investment but in the end they're splitting your money and you are left holding a empty bag."

Can you explain a little more what you mean?  I think this is my point. The republicans are making a big mistake again.  They will have trouble gaining market share with the present message that voting for them is going to help the average Joe more than voting crat.

The people left in the middle wind up endlessly going back from one side to the other picking the least of two evils.  Tax steal and transfer wealth for votes just ruins our country.  On the other hand letting the wealthy make their own rules to allow them to get filthy rich with the sales pitch they will bring us all along for the ride, I can assure you is NOT SELLING with with middle class America or with Independents.

I agree with Newt for example who was on radio yesterday saying we need an investigation of where all the bailout monies went from the Treasury to bankers.  We also need to hold bankers who rigged the system, bribed extorted all over the place and many of whom certainly did steal monies.  We need to hold rich AND the dole class accountable.  Not one side or the other.  We need to get rid of all deductions and make taxation truly fair.  I am for cutting taxes big.  But everone from the guy on the street to the big shots all must pay a fair share.

I hope this explains what I am saying.  I know this is a winner strategy at least for middle or independents.  The rich will always want the system rigged.  And the growing class on the bottom will always wnat handouts and others to pay up .  But this has got to stop on both ends.
3433  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: April 20, 2011, 01:14:52 PM
"As the rich get richer, they bring the rest of us along with them"

Well recent stats if true show the rich are 399% richer since around 1980 and the rest of us around 15%.

The above statement is exactly what is wrong with the Republicans and why they have trouble fighting off class warfare accusations from liberals.  I am not a liberal.  I am not for social welfare.  I am not for taking more from the rich.  I don't know why you seem to not see my points.  What I am proposing is an excellent answer to the problems repubs have getting "market share" WITHOUT" compromising their general principles. 

It seems only JDN understands what I am saying.
3434  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: April 20, 2011, 11:55:02 AM
"Socialism always fails and we are running out of other people's money"

My point is the rich have unfair advantages.  If you want people to vote Republican because they believe in the party and not just because they hate Bamster more you have to get the middle calls to buy in.

The reason Bamster still has the support of many in the middle, still, is because they know the deck is stacked agianst them.

What do you think people think when they see 400 top earners in the US pay 16% income tax?

You think that is fair?

I pay more than that.  I am outraged at the loopholes.  Why am I paying more?  I am also outrage 47 pay nothing.

Both ends are taking advantage of the middle.  A Republican who addresses this WILL WIN.  And win easily.  Otherwise it is a screaming match.

3435  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Must take the class warfare argument away from the Dems on: April 20, 2011, 10:50:20 AM
And this can be done.  The Repubics don't have the balls or are not girl enough to do it though.

I have it figured out.   I don't see most Republicans saying anything but the same misleading message.  Again they may lose.  Again it is the same screaming match back and forth.

Selling trickle down economics alone will not win over the middle.  Most people don't buy this simplistic solution anymore.  The rich ARE richer and the middle are stagnating.

If Republicans want to win they need to repackage the brand.  The need to take away the class warefare argument from the dems.  There IS ONLY ONE way they can do that and stay true to their principles.  Otherwise we will continue to see the right appealing only to the right and the sell outs like the Bushes and Roves giving in.  But there is a way out. 

Reduce government, reduce regulation, reduce taxes but make the system truly fair for everyone and stop allowing the wealthy to reap the benefits only they can take advantage of.

Otherwise we will have class warfare and the same screaming matches that we have had for 30 years now going back and forth with no end.
3436  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tax Policy on: April 18, 2011, 12:10:18 PM
A caller pointed out on a cable show Obama says the rich don't pay their fair share.  Yet 50% who pay no taxes are not either.  Why the 400 highest payers are paying only 16%, much lower than me is something I am FINALLY hearing some Republicans discussing.  If The repubics want to really get the attention and support of the middle roaders they could really go after fixing the tax code.  Make it simpler and truly fair.  Getting the bribery out of politics, making oportunity really fair in the US and not tilted to those with the power and money is never going to happen.  But at least having a Repubic address these issues would be incredibly refreshing.  I am not holding my breath:
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press – Sun Apr 17, 4:02 pm ET
WASHINGTON – As millions of procrastinators scramble to meet Monday's tax filing deadline, ponder this: The super rich pay a lot less taxes than they did a couple of decades ago, and nearly half of U.S. households pay no income taxes at all.

The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992.

Over the same period, the average federal income tax rate for all taxpayers declined to 9.3 percent from 9.9 percent.

The top income tax rate is 35 percent, so how can people who make so much pay so little in taxes? The nation's tax laws are packed with breaks for people at every income level. There are breaks for having children, paying a mortgage, going to college, and even for paying other taxes. Plus, the top rate on capital gains is only 15 percent.

There are so many breaks that 45 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income tax for 2010, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

"It's the fact that we are using the tax code both to collect revenue, which is its primary purpose, and to deliver these spending benefits that we run into the situation where so many people are paying no taxes," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the center, which generated the estimate of people who pay no income taxes.

The sheer volume of credits, deductions and exemptions has both Democrats and Republicans calling for tax laws to be overhauled. House Republicans want to eliminate breaks to pay for lower overall rates, reducing the top tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. Republicans oppose raising taxes, but they argue that a more efficient tax code would increase economic activity, generating additional tax revenue.

President Barack Obama said last week he wants to do away with tax breaks to lower the rates and to reduce government borrowing. Obama's proposal would result in $1 trillion in tax increases over the next 12 years. Neither proposal included many details, putting off hard choices about which tax breaks to eliminate.

In all, the tax code is filled with a total of $1.1 trillion in credits, deductions and exemptions, an average of about $8,000 per taxpayer, according to an analysis by the National Taxpayer Advocate, an independent watchdog within the IRS.

More than half of the nation's tax revenue came from the top 10 percent of earners in 2007. More than 44 percent came from the top 5 percent. Still, the wealthy have access to much more lucrative tax breaks than people with lower incomes.

Obama wants the wealthy to pay so "the amount of taxes you pay isn't determined by what kind of accountant you can afford."

Eric Schoenberg says to sign him up for paying higher taxes. Schoenberg, who inherited money and has a healthy portfolio from his days as an investment banker, has joined a group of other wealthy Americans called United for a Fair Economy. Their goal: Raise taxes on rich people like themselves.

Shoenberg, who now teaches a business class at Columbia University, said his income is usually "north of half a million a year." But 2009 was a bad year for investments, so his income dropped to a little over $200,000. His federal income tax bill was a little more than $2,000.

"I simply point out to people, `Do you think this is reasonable, that somebody in my circumstances should only be paying 1 percent of their income in tax?'" Schoenberg said.

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said he has a solution for rich people who want to pay more in taxes: Write a check to the IRS. There's nothing stopping you.

"There's still time before the filing deadline for them to give Uncle Sam some more money," Hatch said.

Schoenberg said Hatch's suggestion misses the point.

"This voluntary idea clearly represents a mindset that basically pretends there's no such things as collective goods that we produce," Schoenberg said. "Are you going to let people volunteer to build the road system? Are you going to let them volunteer to pay for education?"

The law is packed with tax breaks that help narrow special interests. But many of the biggest tax breaks benefit millions of American families at just about every income level, making them difficult for politicians to touch.

The vast majority of those who escape federal income taxes have low and medium incomes, and most of them pay other taxes, including Social Security and Medicare taxes, property taxes and retail sales taxes.

The share of people paying no federal income tax has dropped slightly the past two years. It was 47 percent for 2009. The main difference for 2010 was the expiration of a tax break that exempted the first $2,400 of unemployment benefits from taxation, Williams said.

In 2009, nearly 35 million taxpayers got a tax break for paying interest on their home mortgages, and nearly 36 million taxpayers took the $1,000-per-child tax credit. About 41 million households reduced their federal income taxes by deducting state and local income and sales taxes from their taxable income.

About 36 million families cut their taxes by nearly $35 billion by deducting charitable donations, and 28 million taxpayers saved a total of $24 billion because their income from Social Security and railroad pensions was untaxed.

"As a matter of policy, there would be a lot of ways to save money and actually make these things work better," said Leonard Burman, a public affairs professor at Syracuse University. "As a matter of politics, it's really, really difficult."



Tax Policy Center:

National Taxpayer Advocate:

United for a Fair Economy:

Follow Yahoo! News on Twitter, become a fan on FacebookShareretweetEmailPrintExplore Related ContentGo to page 1Go to page 2Go to page 3Previous PageNext Page45% of households owe no federal …
- The fastest way to make the tax-averse incensed is to tell them that nearly … Full Story
New IRS Rules to Expand Whistleblow …
- As the annual deadline for filing state and federal income tax returns has … Full Story Business Wire
 Article: "Yes Men" claim hoax GE tax press release … federal income tax rate Reuters 
Photo in Slideshow: Mitch McConnell, Orrin Hatch … Sen. Orrin Hatch Common tax breaks for families, …
- U.S. tax laws are filled with a total of $1.1 trillion in deductions, credits … Full Story AP
'Highest Income' Title Surprising …
- COMMENTARY | According to a report in the Washington Examiner, Illinois has … Full Story ContributorNetwork
. Play Video Video: Hatch on Shutdown: 'This Is A Matter of … Sen. Orrin Hatch Income taxes, by the numbers …
- As Americans prepare to file individual income taxes in April, millions of people … Full Story ContributorNetwork
How to Relieve the Stress of Tax …
- Federal income taxes aren’t due until April 18 this year, but the extra three … Full Story
WA Dems want tax breaks ended to …
- Washington state Democrats have proposed several bills to end tax exemptions … Full Story AP
Senator Orrin G. Hatch Headlines …
- WASHINGTON, DC--(Marketwire - 04/14/11) - The American Research & Policy … Full Story Marketwire
. Play Video Video: Was Obamacare Worth the Price? … Sen. Orrin Hatch
Editor's PicksMore Slideshows »

Vicious storms strike the Deep South
Rare Civil War photos: Life between battles
Japanese risk radiation to rescue stranded dogs
Coachella music festival
More on Taxes & Tax Season
Super rich see federal taxes drop dramatically AP IRS offers tips to avoid mistakes on deadline day Reuters Moscow tax official's $39 million fortune revealed AP More »
Video: Wackiest Tax Write-Offs ABC News Video: Tax Payers Get Extra Days To File KHBS Fayetteville Video: Tax Firms Under Investigation ABC News
12,340 CommentsShow:  Newest FirstOldest FirstHighest RatedMost Replied    Post a Comment Comments 1 - 10 of 12340FirstPrevNextLast2501 users liked this comment Please sign in to rate this comment up. Please sign in to rate this comment down. 100 users disliked this commentGlenn Sun Apr 17, 2011 02:57 am PDT Report Abuse It seems most of our 'tax loopholes' are written/passed by our congress-people at the urgence of lobbiest (Who pays for the lobby and helps put a 'spin' on these laws to try to make them palatable?) Of course the same congressionals are benefitted at the same time. Why is it that reelection is more important than helping to save our nation? The answer is our human nature toward greed! If for some unknown reason you think someone in Washington is there to help you. . .God help you!
Replies (60)
2353 users liked this comment Please sign in to rate this comment up. Please sign in to rate this comment down. 94 users disliked this commentBobby Sun Apr 17, 2011 09:10 am PDT Report Abuse Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and
then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are
against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation
and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on
appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme
Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are
directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the
domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that
problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its
Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally
chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.
They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator,
a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't
care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The
politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the
lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine
how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that
what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con
regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive
amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker,
who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The
President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to
accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole
responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and
approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House?
John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow
House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If
the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot
replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of
incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic
problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you
fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the
federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they
want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they
want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ....

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement
plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.
3437  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: April 18, 2011, 10:10:48 AM
Well it is amazing that this celebrity would garner 34% of likely voters.  As noted Obama still is not over 50%.  Trump was on the other day and said he wants to consider a run because he loves this country and is concerned about what is happening to it.  I admit this is one time I didn't find him convincing about his convictions.

***Obama 49%, Trump 34%
Monday, April 18, 2011
 President Obama leads Donald Trump by 15 percentage points in a hypothetical 2012 match-up, but the president is unable to top the 50% level of support even against an opponent some are deriding as a joke.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that the president earns support from 49% of Likely Voters nationwide, while Trump attracts the vote from 34%. Given that choice, 12% would vote for some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided.  (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Only 65% of Republican voters would vote for Trump over Obama. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, 48% prefer Obama, 25% Trump, and 20% would opt for some other candidate.

Regardless of what Republican is matched against the president, Obama earns between 42% and 49% support.  Trump doesn't run as well against the president as the top tier of GOP candidates, but he does pick up more support than insider favorites Mitch Daniels and Jon Huntsman and entrepreneur Herman Cain.

Unlike several potential Republican candidates, Trump does not suffer from a lack of name recognition. Instead, he suffers from high unfavorable ratings. Most voters (53%) offer an unfavorable opinion of the reality TV star and businessman, including 29% with a Very Unfavorable view of him. Only 39% offer a favorable assessment, with 10% Very Favorable.   

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters nationwide was conducted on April 15-16, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted byPulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Trump's numbers have changed little from a May 2007 survey when 33% viewed him favorably while 54% had an unfavorable opinion. 

Because of his wealth, Trump has indicated that he could finance his own presidential campaign if necessary and not have to be beholden to special interest contributors. Just over half (54%) of voters say a candidate's ability to finance his own campaign is at least somewhat important to how they will vote for president, with 22% who say it is Very Important. Forty-two percent (42%) say an ability to self-finance a presidential campaign is unimportant to them, including 12% who say it's Not At All Important.

Republicans value this ability more than Democrats and unaffiliated voters.

But then 61% of GOP voters have a favorable view of Trump. Seventy-one percent (71%) of Democrats and 58% of unaffiliateds regard him unfavorably.

3438  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Rove on: April 16, 2011, 01:03:57 PM
So today I see Rove called Trump a joke.  Marc Levin states Trump is not the real deal or a serious candidate.

I tend to agree.  Trump is a bit of a loose cannon and it is likely just a matter of time he says something that will cause his spiral down.

Plus he is a great salesman who sounds like he knows how to straighten out the country but he is short on details or real policy if you ask me.

Yet I think he serves a great purpose by putting the phoney ONE on the defensive.

I don't know if Bamster was born here or not.  I don't know it it says Muslim or not.

The point is the guy is hiding something.  I would really rather see what is in his thesis and his records from school.  I suspect the one was a militant anti American.  He hates capitalism, white eurocentric democracy as has been the custom for 200 years.  I speculate he congregated with the radical hate America Columbia crowd.

He is definitely hiding past issues that we have a right to know.  Again I don't know how he has gotten away with it.  And I applaud Trump for having the courage to take him on these issues.

As for Rove I don't know what to say.  I really don't understand how he has so much credibility with the *establishment* as it appears.  He has done much to hurt the party and his strategies have been proven failures.   Why is anyone listening to him with more than a grain of salt?  Everytime I see him I think Bushes.  Whatever anyone thinks of H or W they are over and past tense.  Time to clean house and move on.  As for Jeb Bush the guy is a sell out. 
3439  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: April 16, 2011, 12:10:52 PM
"Presidential address, in a partisan rant, without getting his facts correct"

but Doug, MSNBC called his speech a home run??? rolleyes
3440  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: April 16, 2011, 11:18:23 AM

"If you want, lower the rates and eliminate the deductions for everyone IMO."

Yes.  The only deductions should be business expenses.  Nothing else. 

 I disagree.

"Eliminating the charitable deduction at these rates will eliminate plenty of charities, making government even more in charge of our every need, just what they want."

Charitable deductions help the rich by far at the cost to the rest of taxpayers.  IF the rich are so wonderful than just donate to charity. 

We are broke.

Politically I admit the nannies will not let this happen anyway.
3441  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / JDN - bingo! on: April 15, 2011, 04:39:57 PM
Thank you for your thoughts and reply.  

Since you identify yourself as an independent I appreciate your thoughts even more.  The crats understand the need to reach out to the "shrinking" middle class and try to sell them the concept that what they need is big government to help them.  The Republicans really don't understand this the way the crats do.  
I want the Republicans to fight for this group.  To prove to this group, to win over that the Republican vision is the better choice for them and America.  As of yet I have not heard that other than indirectly - trickle down stuff etc.

JDN, it sounds like you would agree with me that the republicans need to do a  better job reaching out to this group.  Not with handouts the Dems offer but real opportunity.  And real *fairness*.  They need to sell the concept the answer is not to soak and steal more from the rich.  But to stop the rich from getting away with "murder".   For example, with loopholes like you wisely point out the rest of us don't enjoy.  

Like Bon Jovi paying 1/50 of my NJ mortgage tax for a property that must be 100 times the size because he raises bees on his property.  He probably saves at least 100K a year at least for NJ property taxes.  Same for Sprinsteen (according to Stossel).

"Show that you are "fair", then find someone who can articulate your position, has some family values and the Republicans should win.  I'ld vote for the guy.  And so will a lot of other Americans."

Yes, thank you JDN.  This is what I am talking about. grin
3442  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: April 15, 2011, 03:42:49 PM
"Please be careful about mentioning new taxes out loud"

In general I am not for tax increases.  Yet I am not for 50% of America not paying any Federal taxes and the rest of us supporting them.  (except for active military personel I think they do pay tax but I would be in favor they don't pay a cent).

It is a problem if we have so many people who don't pay Fed income tax.  Thus they do not have any financial incentives to keep from spending other people's monies.

Every American has to be in this.

I got a laugh when the cable nanny network pointed out those "cheating" the gov. out of taxes are guess who?  Predominantly "the rich".  Are they suggesting that millions are not taking cash on the side and not reporting it?  I digress.

"Remember we don't need to persuade every militant free loader"

True.  But we have to address this sense of entitlement and the free loading to begin with.  I really enjoyed Dennis Miller the other night on O'Reilly when he said time is up for free loaders and losers.  He pointed out he didn't mind helping the really needy but those who are just plain screw ups and lazy ass types who abuse the system - it is time to stop the handouts.  Thank God someone *finally* said it.  Mazoltov!!!  Since he is not Jewish perhaps I should say God bless him.

As far as I know he is the first to publically say what those of us who work hard are thinking.

3443  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / What is he hiding? on: April 15, 2011, 02:54:27 PM
Again.  No answer about where is the birth certificate.  No answer as to why he is suppressing it.  He is obviously covering up something.  Some think it specifies he was born a Muslim.  Personally if that is the issue then I don't see the big deal at this point.  Even Chris Matthews, "why not just show it"?

***Obama jokes about 'birther' controversy egged on by Trump and Palin

Arizona Legislature gives final approval to controversial 'birther bill'

While campaigning in Chicago yesterday President Obama startled audiences when he cracked wise about the ‘birther’ controversy, finally addressing the issue that is again sweeping across the media.

The President jabbed at claims made by celebrities and conservatives, making a joke of their challenges to where he was actually born.

‘Birthers,’ such as potential 2012 GOP candidates Sarah Palin and Donald Trump, have publicly questioned whether Obama was born in Hawaii or in Kenya.
 Hometown hero: Obama wore a Chicago Bulls cap at a fundraising kickoff event for the Democratic National Convention and his 2012 re-election campaign at Navy Pier in Chicago, Illinois
‘I wasn't born here,’ Mr Obama said, before the crowd of 2300 that quickly fell into a pregnant pause.

‘Just want to be clear, I was born in Hawaii.’
 More...Now it IS regime change: Cameron, Obama and Sarkozy promise to keep bombing Libya until Gaddafi is gone
In her father's footsteps: Gaddafi's daughter Aisha whips crowds into a frenzy as she calls on West to 'leave our skies'
Horror of the bakery queue: Women and children among 16 killed in rocket blitz by Gaddafi's troops

His joke came as the Arizona legislature approved a final proposal requiring presidential candidates to prove they are U.S. citizens before their names can appear on the state's ballot.

It would become the first state to require such proof if Governor Jan Brewer signs the measure into law.
  Chi-town: Obama talked up his old friend and colleague Rahm Emanuel at the Chicago event while the crowd went wild for their home town hero

Speaking with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos yesterday, Obama surprised again by at last directly addressing the issue that he has brushed off in the past.

‘Most people feel pretty confident the President was born where he says he was, in Hawaii. He doesn’t have horns ... we’re not really worrying about conspiracy theories or birth certificates,’ he said.***
3444  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Krauthammer tax reform on: April 15, 2011, 01:26:45 PM
Yes.  this is more what I am talking about.  Getting a bit warmer:

  Jewish World Review April 15, 2011
The grand compromise

By Charles Krauthammer | The most serious charge against Rep. Paul Ryan's budget is not the risible claim, made most prominently by President Obama in his George Washington University address, that it would "sacrifice the America we believe in." The serious charge is that the Ryan plan fails by its own standards: Because it only cuts spending without raising taxes, it accumulates trillions in debt and doesn't balance the budget until the 2030s. If the debt is such a national emergency, the critics say, Ryan never really gets you there from here.

But they miss the point. You can't get there from here without Ryan's plan. It's the essential element. Of course Ryan is not going to propose tax increases. You don't need Republicans for that. That's what Democrats do. The president's speech was a prose poem to higher taxes - with every allusion to spending cuts guarded by a phalanx of impenetrable caveats.

Ryan reduces federal spending by $6 trillion over 10 years - from the current 24 percent of gross domestic product to the historical post-World War II average of about 20 percent.

Now, the historical average for revenue over the past 40 years is between 18 percent and 19 percent of GDP. As we return to that level with the economic recovery (we're now at about 15 percent), Ryan would still leave us with an annual deficit in 2021 of 1.6 percent of GDP.

The critics are right to focus on that gap. But it is bridgeable. And the mechanism for doing so is in plain sight: tax reform.

Real tax reform strips out exclusions, deductions, credits and the innumerable loopholes that have accumulated since the last tax reform of 1986. The Simpson-Bowles commission, for example, identifies $1.1 trillion of such revenue-robbers. In one scenario, it strips them all out and thus is able to lower rates for everyone to three brackets of 8 percent, 14 percent and 23 percent.

The commission does recommend that, on average, about $100 billion annually of that $1.1 trillion be kept by the Treasury (rather than going back to the taxpayer) to reduce the deficit. This is a slight deviation from revenue neutrality, but it still yields a major cut for the top rate from the current 35 percent to 23 percent. The overall result is so reasonable and multiply beneficial that it rightly gained the concurrence of even the impeccably conservative (commission member) Sen. Tom Coburn.

That's the beauty of tax reform: It is both transparent and flexible. That flexibility and transparency can be applied to the Ryan plan. If you need a bit more deficit reduction to bridge the 1.6 percent GDP gap that remains after 10 years, you can get there by slightly raising the final rates.

Ryan's tax reform envisions a top rate of 25 percent. There's nothing sacred about that number. In principle, you could raise all the rates slightly with the top rate going to, say, 28 percent - the top rate that came out of Ronald Reagan's 1986 tax reform. You're still much lower than the current 35 percent. And yet that final boost could bring you closer to a fully balanced federal budget at roughly 20 percent of GDP.

Nor would any great conservative principle be violated. The historical average of revenue - 18 percent to 19 percent of GDP - could be raised one point or so on the perfectly reasonable grounds that we are a slightly older society, and that we wish to avail ourselves of the extraordinary but expensive medical technology that can increase both the quality and length of life.

This one concession would yield a fully balanced budget more quickly than Ryan's plan and would reduce the debt/GDP ratio even more steeply (because GDP would be growing, while debt would not). The effect on America's financial standing in the world would be dramatic: Restored confidence in U.S. fiscal health would reduce interest rates, which would lower the overall debt burden, which could allow lower taxes, which could stimulate yet more economic growth. A virtuous circle.

That's the finish line. But it starts with spending cuts. Serious cuts, as Ryan suggests - not the smoke and mirrors the Obama speech shamelessly presented as a plan.

Given the Democrats' instinctive resort to granny-in-the-snow demagoguery, the Republicans are right not to budge on taxes until serious spending cuts are in place. At which point, the grand compromise awaits. And grand it would be. Saving the welfare state from insolvency is no small achievement.
3445  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: April 15, 2011, 12:27:54 PM
Doug, great reply.  Now you are talking.  How can we tie such ideas of tax reform so the average Joe will "buy" in??

We need more radical ideas not just the right shouting tax and spending cuts and those on the left tax increases.  Otherwise I/we am going top go crazy listening the the idiots scream the same old tired non starter ideas back and forth forever.  I can't take it anymore.  I can't stand a bunch of rich white boys speaking ideology anymore than I can stand a bunch of angry blacks, gays female nannie statists, liberals downing everything white male, eurocentric, capitalistic, successful, corportate.

I am sick and tired of being ripped of by wall street Goldman Sachs, and sick and tired of the entitlement classes even more.  We need a truly fair system for all, as well as individual responsibility.  Where is the vision???


The only reason I brought up the national sales tax idea was to get the freeloaders to start to contribute.  I don't give a rats ass if you are out on the street.  I want everyone to start paying up!  Something.  Even if only a few bucks a month.

3446  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / penny short - still on: April 15, 2011, 10:58:32 AM
Well the crats keep pointing out the Bamster panel on debt concluded we will not solve our problems with spending cuts alone we need tax increases.

so most people want someone else to  pay for it.  Like the teacchers in Jersey who want the "rich" to pay for all their benes.

It is always the rich should pay.

For Gods sakes can't we have real bold action?

GM I appreciate your responses but this is still a penny short.  Ain't going to work.

I want my side to answer these questions.  I don't want to sit through a year and a half of hearing the same tired old arguments screamed back and forth between the left and right.  We need some real answers.  We need mouth pieces.  People who make sense.  Not political rhetoric.

3447  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: April 15, 2011, 10:36:39 AM

The debt is a big if not thee main issue.

The fault lines are on how to deal with the debt.

FWIW the polls are showing most people want the "rich" to pay.

Majority do want sending down too.

The crats are already out in force that "revenues" need to increase.  That means only one thing tax increases.
Since 50% pay no Fed tax (absurd) what do they give a hoot if taxes go up.

Since a majority of middle of the roaders don't want to pay up anymore they are also delighted to let the "rich" pay more.

So how do Repuks deal with that?  I am still waiting for an answer that is not a penny short.

All I see or hear is this question/issue keeps getting ignored, the run around, talked around, avoided, confused answers, redirected, nonanswers but lots of proclamations, double speak, beautiful ideological solutions that ignore the REAL everyday world most people live in.

The cans will have a real battle if they can't address this.
3448  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Get rid of Rove on: April 15, 2011, 09:58:52 AM
"Defeating Obama if it means (not aimed at you or any moderate candidate in particular) getting a spineless, uncommitted, unpredictable, unprincipled, poll following centrist"

And that is exactly what we will get if the "establishment" repukians keep listening to Karl Rove.

I say let's listen to Dick Morris.

I also have to reiterate to probably ad nauseum that the cans still have not answered questions and concerns that independents will have like I keep pointing out:

What about the middle class seeing their livelihoods slip into oblivion while Wall Street dances into princely kingdoms?

What about making it fair for all and not just the rich?

I do not want to tax the rich more at all.  They already pay the lion share.

But we have to change the tax code.

No more loop holes.

No more deductions (inclucing charitable schemes set up so they can avoid millions in taxes), No more offshore shit.

We should have a national sales tax - even those who are poor will have to contribute to the Fed treasury.  Either a flat tax for all except maybe those in poverty.

Get rid of the ridiculous cottage industry of tax lawyers and accountants who basically are siphoning off billions just because the tax codes are absurdly complicated, corrupt, and too much with the social engineering crap.

In other words the rich should not be taxed more but they and corporations do need to pay up something.  On the other hand a national sales tax will force the 50% of the free loading crowd to start contributing too.

Simple quotes from Reagan, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, growth, free markets yadda yadda yadda just don't cut it anymore. 

The repukians still don't get it.  Get rid of Rove.  He is a genius.  Got a totally inarticulate guy elected twice.  But now we will lose it all if we keep listening to him.

The crats and their jornolisters are out in force doing exactly what I have tried to ask here on this board what will be the answer to the middle class falling behind, the widening disparities of the rich vs. middle class.  Of course they were just waiting and praying for the cans to say anything about the social security medicare debt problems.
That dispicable guy spitzer was for weeks now going after every Republican guest - "where are you going to cut spending? Where Where Where?  What about the big programs meidcare social security etc?"  He was drooling waiting for someone to say it then he could jornolist the white house, Reid and the rest of the liberal media....

In any case the cans still *don't have a clue* about how to deal with this that I have heard.

3449  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Is pharma 'BS'ing us? on: April 14, 2011, 07:19:55 PM
Interesting article BBG.  Perhaps it IS an industry generated myth that drugs are 1 billion dollars to get to market.

I agree most "new" drugs are not much more than variations of existing ones and probably do not cost nearly that much to bring to market.

As for truly new advances in drug I guess we really have no clue what it costs:

It would certainly not be far fetched to hear the drug industry publically inflating the costs.  Not unlike our politicians playing fast and loose with the financial numbers being flung around over trillions of dollars.  Sums so vast no one can really have any idea what is really going on.
3450  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, budget process on: April 13, 2011, 02:14:14 PM
Good arguments.

Now if we can only get some decent mouthpieces to convince just enough of the 50% who pay no Fed income tax to go along with this and throw the "bums out" before we crash.
Pages: 1 ... 67 68 [69] 70 71 ... 107
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!