Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 25, 2016, 12:32:03 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
94846 Posts in 2311 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Martel
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 69 70 [71] 72 73 ... 109
3501  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.
3502  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / DickMorris:IMF our new financial masters on: April 23, 2011, 11:07:09 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFJLkoEUMY8
3503  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.

---

Online:

http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

© 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.****
 
 
3504  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
California
United States
Elections and voting
Government and politics
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
3505  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>

3506  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. 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ec0_1303444048
3507  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.

3508  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. 
3509  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."

GM,

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".

3510  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. 



3511  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tax Policy on: April 21, 2011, 12:09:11 PM
Doug,

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. 

3512  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.
3513  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.
3514  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.

3515  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.
3516  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."

___

Online:

Tax Policy Center: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org

National Taxpayer Advocate: http://www.irs.gov/advocate

United for a Fair Economy: http://www.faireconomy.org

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 CNNMoney.com
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 LiveScience.com
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 »
 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
to.

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.
3517  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.


3518  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. 
3519  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
3520  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: April 16, 2011, 11:18:23 AM
Doug,

"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.
3521  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / JDN - bingo! on: April 15, 2011, 04:39:57 PM
JDN,
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
3522  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.

3523  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.***
3524  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

 http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | 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.
3525  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???

BTW,

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.

3526  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.

3527  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: April 15, 2011, 10:36:39 AM
GM,

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.
3528  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.


3529  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:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/81465/col-drugcosts-new-study.pdf

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.
3530  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.
3531  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / another gov. program for the public unions holding me hostage on: April 13, 2011, 12:32:12 PM
Half the population pays no Federal taxes?  I have people left and right claiming disability, all entitled to retire at 50 or 60.  All the while Katherine and I stalked.  Had someone in my yard a few days ago looking at a small water problem then get a solicit text a few minutes later from out of state telling me they can help me if I have any flooding problems.  Done by those robbing us just to torture us and remind me they are watching.  Not a thing I can do about it.  Not a thing law enforcement will do about it.  Even if they tried they would be bribed.  (Hey you want back stage passes to see Toby Keith or Trace Adkins?).  I see people singing her stolen lyrics standing right up there with President, President candidates.  Claiming how nice they are for the troops, children etc.

I just got my tax bill.  I work probably close to half the year to pay taxes have little left over to pay bills and then read this:

****NJ Wastes Millions on Clothing Allowances for State Workers: Report Wednesday, Apr 13, 2011 | Updated 12:57 PM EDT 5

By Beth DeFalco
New Jersey spent more than $3 million this fiscal year on clothing allowances for white-collar workers who aren't required to wear uniforms, according to a new report from the state comptroller.

Under collective bargaining agreements, New Jersey provides an annual clothing allowance for uniforms to certain employees of $700 a year for full-time workers and $350 for part-time workers. The allowance is a flat amount included in payroll checks and doesn't require that employees provide a receipt.

Overall, the state spends more than $22 million a year on clothing allowances, with more than 20 percent going to white-collar workers, such as day care counselors, computer technicians and teaching assistants. About half of them don't wear uniforms, the report said.

"It's absurd," said state comptroller Matthew Boxer. "The state spends millions of dollars every year to cover the cost of uniforms for state employees who don't actually wear uniforms."

advertisement The report said that interviews with administrators at five different New Jersey state departments showed allowances were provided to department employees who are not required to wear uniforms or special clothing.

In one example, 888 white-collar Transportation Department employees received the allowances in the 2011 fiscal year, yet only 49 were required to wear uniforms.

Boxer's office has recommended that the state eliminate the clothing payments for employees who are not required to wear uniforms or other identifiable clothing, but did not recommend whether that be done through legislation or collective bargaining.

According to Boxer's office, New Jersey's clothing allowance is far more generous than other states. New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Maryland, Connecticut and California don't provide clothing allowances greater than $175, according to collective bargaining agreements, and California will reimburse its employees up to $450 a year if the employee shows a receipt.

Boxer's office said the investigation was the result of an anonymous call made to a tip line.****

3532  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: April 13, 2011, 11:53:44 AM
"If I was a Republican I would be disappointed in my choices..."

Republicans have not had a good candidate since 1988.  In retrospect I am not sure how good he was.  He led to Clinton.  He led to international coalitions.  He led to his son who got elected despite not being able to string two sentences together.

A few weeks ago Ann Coulter was telling us if Romney is the choice for the Rep. party we *will* lose.

A few days ago when discussing the prospect of Trump and trashing him up and down she changed her tune and said, Romney "could" win.

Bamster may very well win by default just as Clinton did in '96.  That would be the definite end of the US as we know it.  Can anyone imagine Bamster appointing more Supreme Court Justices?  That would be the final nail in our coffins.  I am glad I am older rather than younger.  I don't give much of a shit anymore.

We have Cain, West, and Rubio and a few other up and comers but no one clearly there yet. 

I don't understand the R "establishment's" calling for Cristie to run for President.  They really think he is more ready then any of the others?



3533  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Health Thread (nutrition, medical, longevity, etc) on: April 13, 2011, 10:12:46 AM
INteresting article.  The scrutiny of the pharmaceutical, mainstream medical "industry" if vast. 

Scrutiny of chiropractic, alternative, or natural "medicine" is nill.

We see all day long law firms advertising for anyone injured by any drug whatsover, even if rare, that went through a billion dollars of testing to get approved and get to market.  Yet not a peep about "homeopathic" substances being sold to us by mostly non medical doctors all day long on radio, cable, internet etc.

As for chiropracters once in awhile I have a patient who states they made their pain worse.  I have never heard or seen any serious injury and have read as alluded in this article that serious injuries are guite rare.  More often I do hear patients tell me they feel better after manipulation.  How much is placebo affect and real is often hard to sort out. 

One study years ago comparing treatment from a primary docotr, vs orthopedic doctor, vs a chiropractor doctor for low back pain should no differences in outcomes three months out suggesting that no matter what any of us do the outcomes are the same.  Most times the person simply just gets better.

Indeed, the chiropractic group even did a little better.  At three months out everyone felt about the same level of improvement though earlier on those with manipulation felt better sooner.
3534  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / "brick wall of socialism" on: April 12, 2011, 02:03:16 PM
Good phrase.

The US version of socialism is:

*the legalized theft of of people's monies used to bribe some voters to keep in  power a few hypocritcal benefactors*.
3535  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / wikipedia - Civil War photographers on: April 12, 2011, 01:58:04 PM
So many civil war photos were lost to history, fires, used as panes for windows only to be damaged by the sun, deliberately destroyed.  Yet it is noted here the US Civil  War was still the most photographed war of the 19th century:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographers_of_the_American_Civil_War
3536  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: california on: April 12, 2011, 11:07:38 AM
GM,

What California needs is more spending on social programs, education, drug treatment, medical care, food stamps, medicaid, unemployment support, illegals, liberal celebrities, support for single mothers, deadbeat dads, and hollywood celebration of criminals, out of wedlock children, and a culture of dependency.  You guys need more Crats, more spending, and more taxation. rolleyes

Plain and simple. wink
3537  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / California Republicans: dead or resting? The Economist on: April 12, 2011, 10:35:50 AM
Probably dead:

****California's Republicans
Dead, or just resting?
The threat of demography
Apr 7th 2011 | LOS ANGELES | from the print edition
 THE Republican Party in California is “already dead. We’re talking about whether it can be revived,” says Allan Hoffenblum, who was a Republican official and consultant for four decades and now produces non-partisan electoral analysis. He is among a growing number of mainly old-fashioned Republicans who think that their party has got on the wrong side of a huge demographic trend, the growth of Latinos and Asians.

This shift forms the backdrop as Republicans and Democrats play chicken with the state budget in Sacramento, rather as their national counterparts are doing with the federal budget in Washington, DC. In both places, all involved are hoping the other side gets more blame when budget negotiations fail.

But Washington’s Republicans are still testing the power they won in November. Sacramento’s, by contrast, are fighting for survival after a season of epic reverses. All eight statewide offices went to Democrats in the last election. And after falling for decades, the percentage of Californian voters who are registered Republican is now less than 31%, far below the 44% who are Democrats and not far above the 20% who decline to state a preference.

Related topics
Sacramento, California
Social and behavioral science
Science and technology
Demography
World politics
Duf Sundheim, chairman of California’s Republican Party between 2003 and 2006, says that the main trend behind these numbers is the disenchantment with both parties, reflected in the rise of unaffiliated voters. But the damage has not been symmetrical. For although the Democrats have their crazies—largely of the green or unionised sort—they have also picked up most of the rising Latino and Asian political talent. And they tend to be moderate, or even conservative. This may help explain why independent voters in California lean Democratic in elections.

Mr Hoffenblum minces no words about what caused this loss for Republicans. It is the “shrillness” of their rhetoric against illegal immigrants, which has “totally turned off Latinos and Asians in this state,” even those who are citizens or legal immigrants. In effect, he says, the Republicans have made themselves “the white man’s party” and “alienated the fastest growing voting block.”

Ahead of the nation in the demographic shift from white to brown, California may thus be a warning for Republicans elsewhere. Already, places like Orange County that used to be very white and reliably Republican are becoming less so as they grow more ethnically diverse. The biggest change is occurring in inland regions such as the Central Valley. After the 2000 census, when both parties shamelessly gerrymandered legislative districts, the Republicans carved out several safe, white rural districts. Since then, the population has grown fast in these areas, but that growth has been among Latinos. So Republicans might actually lose from the trends that have favoured their regions.

So far, they show no sign of acknowledging this. At a recent party convention, the main topic was not how to reach out to independents or Latinos but how to get around new rules for non-partisan primaries that might favour moderates, and how to discipline “traitors” who dared negotiate with the Democratic governor. Mr Sundheim says it’s time to get the board in the water in time for the wave.****

3538  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Time to make the "wealthy" pay up say most Americans on: April 12, 2011, 09:49:28 AM
Doug,
Thanks for the reply.
I hear you and don't disagree.  Yet most Americans might.

Your argument (standard Republican) does not address this.  If anyone wonders why Cans always have to fight and fight and fight to win a majority this is why plain and simple:
Cut With Entitlements Secured
By Heidi Przybyla and Mike Dorning - Dec 10, 2010

Former Comptroller General David Walker said, “The idea that we can solve our structural-deficit problems merely by asking more of the well-off is totally unrealistic.”  
The one place Americans are willing to see sacrifice is in the wallets of the wealthy and Wall Street. Photographer: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg
Americans want Congress to bring down a federal budget deficit that many believe is “dangerously out of control,” only under two conditions: minimize the pain and make the rich pay.

The public wants Congress to keep its hands off entitlements such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, a Bloomberg National Poll shows. They oppose cuts in most other major domestic programs and defense. They want to maintain subsidies for farmers and tax breaks like the mortgage-interest deduction. And they’re against an increase in the gasoline tax.

That aversion to sacrifice is at odds with a spate of recent studies, including one by President Barack Obama’s debt panel, that say reductions in Medicare, Social Security, military and other spending are necessary to curb a deficit that totaled $1.29 trillion in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, or 9 percent of the gross domestic product.

“The idea that we can solve our structural-deficit problems merely by asking more of the well-off is totally unrealistic,” said David Walker, who was U.S. comptroller general from 1998 to 2008 and now leads a group advocating against deficits. “The math simply doesn’t work.”

According to the Dec. 4-7 poll, taken days after Obama’s commission sounded an alarm over the nation’s “unsustainable fiscal path,” the public still believes it’s more important to “minimize sacrifice” than to take “bold and fast” action to pare the $13.7 trillion national debt.

‘Deficit Cutting Hurts’
If anything, the poll shows that public concern over the deficit has ebbed: Forty-eight percent of Americans say the budget shortfall is “dangerously out of control,” down from 53 percent who said that in an October survey.

“The reality is deficit cutting hurts, and the American public is in no mood for further hurt than the slow economy and high unemployment is delivering,” J. Ann Selzer, president of Selzer & Co., a Des Moines, Iowa-based firm that conducted the nationwide survey.

Investors are worried about a widening of the budget gap. Treasuries tumbled for two days after Obama announced a plan to extend Bush-era tax cuts and reduce payroll taxes, stoking concern over more borrowing. The 10-year yield rose 35 basis points in its biggest back-to-back increase in more than two years. Treasuries rebounded yesterday on uncertainty over the prospects for the tax cuts. The 10-year Treasury yield slipped five basis points to 3.22 percent at 4 p.m. in New York.

Sacrificing the Rich
The one place Americans are willing to see sacrifice is in the wallets of the wealthy and Wall Street.

While they say they strongly support balancing the budget over the next 20 years, when offered a list of more than a dozen possible spending cuts or tax increases, majorities opposed every one of them except imposing a bigger burden on the rich.

A majority backs raising the cap on earnings covered by the tax on the Social Security retirement program above the current limit of $107,000. Two-thirds would means test Social Security and Medicare benefits. Six of 10 would end tax cuts for the highest-earning Americans. And 7 of 10 favor a tax on Wall Street profits.

“We give billions of dollars to these corporations, and in my eyes they pretty much just put it in their pocket,” said Donald Froemming, a 57-year-old independent voter and unemployed diesel gas mechanic from Moose Lake, Minnesota.

Divided on Taxes
While Republican congressional leaders have opposed increases in taxes paid by high-income families, sentiment among the party’s rank and file is mixed. Republicans are divided on eliminating the tax cuts for the wealthy, with 50 percent opposing and 47 percent supporting. An increase in the cap on earnings subject to Social Security taxes splits Republicans almost evenly.

The poll shows there’s little appetite across all parties and demographic groups for changes to entitlements.

Eighty-two percent of respondents opposed benefit cuts to the Medicare health-insurance system for the elderly, with about half of Republicans wanting to see both the current Medicare and Social Security systems preserved. Just 35 percent of all respondents back a system in which government vouchers would help people pay for their own health insurance.

“Nobody wants to fail to take care of children who need medicine or the elderly,” said Tea Party supporter Randy Thorman, 45, a high school social studies teacher in Pryor, Oklahoma. “We don’t want to throw people out without some type of help.”

Backing Social Security
Support for keeping the current structure of the Social Security program is strong, at 55 percent. Lower-earning Americans are especially averse to any big changes.

Cathy Freeman, a 64-year-old Republican and retired bookkeeper from Waco, Texas, said the deficit should be addressed by ending tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations, not slashing the entitlement programs her family relies on.

“We need to look at that before you start hurting the little guys,” Freeman said. “Let’s look at some things that aren’t fair in our system.”

A majority of 72 percent also opposes reducing benefits for the Medicaid health program for the poor. This is true even of Tea Party supporters who have built a movement around smaller government, with 66 percent against reducing Medicaid benefits. Seventy-two percent of those earning $100,000 or more also are opposed.

Raise the Cap
In Social Security, the only areas for change that have support are raising the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax and reducing benefits for the wealthy. The wealthy themselves are willing to sacrifice. Those making $100,000 or more are most supportive of raising the cap, at 59 percent. That compares with 45 percent of those making $25,000 or less.

Overall, 67 percent of Americans want means-testing and 51 percent think the payroll tax cap should be raised. Just 31 percent want to see cost-of-living increases trimmed and 37 percent say the government should gradually raise the age of Social Security eligibility to 69.

Partisan differences over the deficit are strong, with Republicans more than twice as likely as Democrats to see the fiscal situation as imperiled. Still, the shortfall is also a potential source of conflict within each party’s coalitions.

Tea Party supporters, who played a key role in Republican victories in the midterm elections, are more likely to back strong action than are rank-and-file Republicans; a 49 percent plurality favors a dramatic overhaul of Social Security, compared with 41 percent of Republicans. Tea Party backers want a Medicare overhaul by 52 percent to 43 percent, while Republicans narrowly prefer to keep the current system.

Splitting the Coalition
The deficit also divides the coalition Obama assembled to win the 2008 election. Political independents, whom he carried then, consider the deficit a more immediate threat than do Obama’s fellow Democrats. Fifty percent of independents said the deficit is “dangerously out of control” versus 29 percent of Democrats.

The poll suggests a possible opening for a new sales tax. Americans are split on a 6.5 percent national sales tax to bring down the deficit, with 46 percent in favor and 49 percent opposed.

Still, three-quarters of the country opposes a 15-cent gasoline tax across party lines. Even among those who want bold action, 7 out of 10 oppose a higher gas tax.

A freeze on nondefense discretionary spending, which some Republican congressional leaders have proposed, is opposed by 53 percent against 43 percent in favor. Cuts in defense spending are opposed by 51 percent versus 45 percent in favor.

The Bloomberg National survey of 1,000 U.S. adults has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

To contact the reporters on this story: Heidi Przybyla in Washington at hprzybyla@bloomberg.net; Mike Dorning in Washington at morning@bloomberg.net

3539  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: How to cut government spending on: April 11, 2011, 11:14:13 AM
Crafty,
I believe these arguments are a penny short -

"Opportunity
Savings/Investment"

Tell that to a crowd that is forever struggling to pay bills, working harder while not keeping up with inflation, Wall Street bailed out, Banks doing better, and more and more wondering if ain't just easier to go on disabilty if they can get a doctor to write for it.

Plain ideals just don't cut it for more and more Americans.
I still don't hear why people should think they are better off without government benefits when 50% rely on them or are ripping the rest of us off taking the free lunch.

Simple Reagan theories ares not enough of a compreshensive argument anymore.  Not when you have 60% getting more than they pay in.  To them it is let the "rich" pay.
3540  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: How to cut government spending on: April 11, 2011, 10:31:49 AM
Here it comes.  Bamster's vision for reducing deficits.  Rob successful people to pay down debt.
No surprise.

Well I have yet to hear Republicans successfully counter this other than with indirect deflecting answers,
"trickle down"
"job creation"
"stimulate growth"
They have to be more specific.  I don't want to see the same demogougery against them about the poor, those "who need it most", hurting women etc etc.

They look like the heartless white boys everytime.

When will they learn?

Just capitulating ala Rove doesn't work.

I am not sure a ram it through despite being painted as heartless ala Morris is quite the answer either.

They have got to come up with better talking points that counter the usual charges against them.
3541  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: How to cut government spending on: April 11, 2011, 10:17:43 AM
""The multiplication of public offices, increase of expense beyond income, growth and entailment of a public debt, are indications soliciting the employment of the pruning knife." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to Spencer Roane, 1821"

That's beautiful talk but until republicans can answer the concerns of the middle class and the growing dipsarity of wealth it is a perpetual uphill fight.

A township can't give Walmart a property tax break that they do not offer to anyone else.

If Walmart comes in buys up a lot of land, and builds a big center that no one else can afford or risk the investment that is fine.  But we cannot have governments offering breaks to some and not others.

That is discrimination and unfair.
3542  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Narcissist personality disorder breakdown on: April 11, 2011, 10:13:48 AM
He is used to adulation, being the one, everyone listening and bowing to him in awe.  Now his bluff is called he has no where to turn.

The Chosen One is now the Phoney One.  Even the MSM can't cover for him now.  So what's in his thesis???  I want to know.  I demand to know.  We the American people have a RIGHT to know.  Keep it up Trump.

****WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama wants you to know that he is not a golf addict.

He spends so much time unwinding on the links because security restrictions mean he can't go out for long walks or go to the carwash or the grocery store.

The president's comments came during a session with editors and publishers from Hearst Magazines in which he described life behind the scenes in the White House.

The president said he loves his life in the White House but doesn't enjoy some of the ways of Washington, such as the "kabuki dance" among political partisans before serious policy discussions begin. He also regrets his loss of personal privacy.

"I just miss - I miss being anonymous," he said at the meeting in the White House. "I miss Saturday morning, rolling out of bed, not shaving, getting into my car with my girls, driving to the supermarket, squeezing the fruit, getting my car washed, taking walks. I can't take a walk."

He says he enjoys golf but is not the fanatic that some have portrayed.

"It's the only excuse I have to get outside for four hours at a stretch," he said.

His impossible dream: "I just want to go through Central Park (in New York) and watch folks passing by ... spend the day watching people. I miss that."****

3543  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: April 10, 2011, 04:07:59 PM
In addition it has been pointed out by Doug and others that Bamster has now spent 2 mill suppressing his records.

Including college, Columbia, Harvard and a thesis.  One can only imagine the thesis this extreme leftist political science major must have written.

It most certainly must have diatribes against America, perhaps whites, Jews, Christains, who knows.

If one thinks that Michelle's shame of America was news one can only speculate what is being covered up by liberals about Obama's past and real true core beliefs.

Otherwise, it is simple to say there are no other reasons these facts are being hidden from public view.

Only a leftist media would have let this guy get away with this.  Trump is a God send IMHO.

Could anyone imagine that a thesis by a sitting President cannot be reviewed by the public?Huh
3544  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: April 10, 2011, 04:01:50 PM
I was listening to radioman Michael Smerkonish who stated that Bamster wrote in his book Dreams that he found a newspaper article along with his birth certificate and that this incidental mention was evidence he has a certificate and had it in his possession.  Smerkonish than goes on to say that this is signifcant because it was "before" Bamster ran for office.  Yet his premise is obviously worng.  Bmaster's book is obviously a political document.  Certainly he (Ayers) only wrote this book because he intended to run for office.  Why else would a ~34 y.o. write such a book?   

In any case even his own book raises questions about what Bamster is obviously hiding about his birth:

****January 17, 2011
What Obama Has Said about His Own Birth
By Jack Cashill
While Democrat Congressman Frank Pallone read the "natural born Citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution on the House floor last Thursday, a spirited female in the audience shouted out, "Except Obama!  Except Obama!  Help us, Jesus!"


Later that day, NBC's Brian Williams improbably chose to assign blame for the woman's outburst on newly elected House speaker John Boehner.  "How much responsibility do you feel?" Williams asked pointedly. 


"The state of Hawaii has said Obama was born there," said Boehner, who is no more intimate with the "Birther" movement than Williams himself.  "That was good enough for me."


The person Williams should have been asking about "responsibility" is the president.  Obama's conspicuous fabrications over the years have caused even the sober among us to doubt his origins story. 


In September 2009, President Obama addressed the nation's schoolchildren writ large, an innovation that struck many on the right as a wee bit too Big-Brotherly.  In the talk, Obama asked America's students to take personal responsibility.  That was all well enough. 


Missed in the media hubbub, however, was his take on why this could be difficult for some students. "I get it," he told the kiddies.  "I know what that's like.  My father left my family when I was two years old, and I was raised by a single mother." 


In his 1995 memoir Dreams from My Father, Obama made the same claim.  "He had left Hawaii back in 1963," he wrote of Obama Sr., "when I was only two years old." 


When Obama wrote this in Dreams, he may have been relating what he had himself been told.  By 2009, he knew better, but so vested was he in the story, and so useful had it been in his rise, that he continued to dissemble, even before millions of schoolchildren.


There are clues in Dreams, however, which suggest that Obama was creating a fiction for future use that he already knew to be untrue.  He tells of coming across an article from the Honolulu Advertiser celebrating Barack Obama, Sr.'s planned grand tour of mainland universities on his triumphant way to Harvard. 


Obama writes ruefully in Dreams, "No mention is made of my mother or me, and I'm left to wonder whether the omission was intentional on my father's part, in anticipation of his long departure."  What Obama does not mention is that the article was dated June 22, 1962.


Obama was reportedly born on August 4, 1961.  He was not yet a year old at the time Obama Sr. left Hawaii for good.  More to the point, Obama fails to mention that he and his mother, Ann Dunham, were living in Seattle at the time and had been since at least August 19, 1961, the day she enrolled at the University of Washington. 


In short, the family never lived together.  There was no Obama family.  The Obama camp surely knew this by the time he ran for president, but Obama kept dissembling about his origins nonetheless.


Although Obama's African relatives seem to have accepted the president as one of their own, there is even less clarity on the Kenyan side.  According to Dreams, Obama Sr. had children with at least four different women, two of them American, and he occasionally circled back to the first of the four, Kezia. 


Ruth Nidesand, a white American, had two children by Obama Sr., Mark and David, the latter of whom died young in a motorcycle accident.  She was also forced to raise Kezia's two oldest children, just as the woman Obama knows as "Granny," the family storyteller, was forced to raise Obama Sr. as her own.  In another time and place, the Obamas would have had their own reality TV show.


Questions linger about the paternity of many of these offspring.  In Dreams, Obama's cryptic and contrarian Aunt Sarah would tell her presumed nephew, " ... the children who claim to be Obama's are not Obama's."  Obama must have wondered whether she was referring to him. 


Curiously, when Obama found the article about Obama Sr.'s departure, he found it "folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms."  Later in Dreams, in a passage heretofore overlooked, Obama unwittingly reveals that there may have been problems with that birth certificate.


On the occasion of his father's death in 1982, lawyers contacted anyone who might have claim to the estate.  "Unlike my mum," Obama tells his half-sister Auma in Dreams, "Ruth has all the documents needed to prove who Mark's father was." 


Ruth obviously could produce a marriage license and a birth certificate for her son Mark.  Ann Dunham apparently could not do the same for her son Barack, at least not one that could tie him to Obama Sr. -- not even with a potential payoff on the table.


The long form birth certificate could pose a number of problems other than country of origin, including the date of Obama's birth, the state of his birth, and the identity of his father.  Any one of these revelations could unravel the yarn that Obama has been spinning.


These problems derive from the fact that Ann Dunham enrolled at university on August 19, 1961 and returned to Hawaii only after Obama Sr. had left Hawaii for good.  Both of these facts are more firmly established than President Obama's Honolulu birth on August 4, 1961.  In my forthcoming book, Deconstructing Obama, I review these possibilities in some detail. 


The failure of the mainstream media to even address the inconsistencies in Obama's story is downright shameful.  That failure has created a windstorm of curiosity that is becoming increasingly difficult for the media to ignore.  The final responsibility for the outburst in Congress last week is theirs.


Jack Cashill's new book, Deconstructing Obama, can be pre-ordered here, with a special offer for American Thinker readers.****

3545  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: April 10, 2011, 03:50:01 PM
"impose a no-fly zone over Gaza"


Will this include Palestinian rockets??
3546  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / economist - some good news! on: April 10, 2011, 03:48:27 PM
For the first time ever the Economist (since I have subscribed) has praised a Republican.  Of course a little grudgingly, and with caveats, like these:

"Too much of the gain goes to the rich, and too much of the pain is felt by the poor."

and

"Some of his figures are deeply suspect"

Yet this is a landmark for this magazine which is definitely left leaning.  They even criticize the One and don't tend to support him anymore.  The road ahead is becoming clearer.  The Crats will be coming out with their deficit cutting plan.  Included will be increase taxes and revenues with the all out assault on attcking the "rich" the "corporation", "protecting women", "the poor" "the minorities", "middle class rights", and all the rest of their mantra.

I am not sure if Bamster will follow his cowardly pattern of letting Reid com out with a plan and then play like he is above it all and the great compromiser etc. or if he will come out with his plan.  But the left is going to HAVE to counter the Ryan plan.  Then Americans will have to choose which one they will want.   But the deficits cannot be ignored anymore.


 ****The Republican budget
Praising Congressman Ryan
At long last somebody is trying to grapple with America’s fiscal troubles
Apr 7th 2011 | from the print edition
Tweet BARACK OBAMA, as we unhappily noted when he produced his budget in February, has no credible plan for getting America’s runaway budget deficit under control. Up to now the Republicans have been just as useless; they have confined themselves to provoking a probable government shutdown in pursuit of a fantasy war against the non-security discretionary expenditures that make up only an eighth of the total budget, rather than tackling the long-term problem posed by the escalating costs of entitlements. The only people with the guts to talk about such things have been various independent commissions which the two parties have ignored.

Now that has changed. On April 5th Paul Ryan, the young chairman of the House Budget Committee, laid out a brave counter-proposal for next year’s budget and beyond (see article)—brave both in identifying the scope of the problem and in proposing the kind of deeply unpopular medicine that will be needed to cope with it. It is far from perfect; but it is the first sign of courage from someone with actual power over the budget.

Unlike Mr Obama, Mr Ryan puts fiscal responsibility at the centre of his plan: it aims to bring the budget into primary balance as early as 2015 and federal government spending down to below 20% of GDP in 2018. He also outlines a simplification of America’s mad tax code, bringing the top rate for both individuals and businesses down to 25% by eliminating loopholes. Above all, he aims at the core of the problem, the ever-rising cost of health care for the elderly.
At the moment, retirees in America are entitled to Medicare, an all-you-can-eat buffet of care provided by the private sector but paid for by government-run insurance. Under Mr Ryan’s scheme, future retirees would have to take out private insurance plans, helped by a government subsidy. The effect would be a bit like changing from a defined-benefit pension to a defined-contribution one. The savings come because the subsidy would not cover everything that is currently provided: people will either end up with less lavish care or have to pay more. Mr Ryan also wants to turn Medicaid, government-financed health care for the poor, over to the states in the form of “block grants”. This would force them to manage their budgets more responsibly than they have needed to when they have been able to send much of the tab to Washington.

Let the debate begin

There is plenty wrong with Mr Ryan’s plan. Too much of the gain goes to the rich, and too much of the pain is felt by the poor. Some of his figures are deeply suspect. Mr Ryan should not have ruled out any revenue gain from broadening the tax base. He says nothing substantive about Social Security. He would cancel Obamacare, which though flawed addresses one of America’s great problems. And there are practical difficulties: his proposals are far too radical to engender the sort of compromise needed in Washington. Even if the plan passes the Republican-controlled House (by no means certain), it will fail in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

Yet at least Mr Ryan accepts that the present system is unaffordable and destined to collapse. Everyone else, including Mr Obama, is pretending that it isn’t. Mr Ryan’s willingness to confront the scale of the problem has set a standard by which other proposals will now have to be judged. And there might even be political mileage in telling the truth. Two years ago, when Britain’s prime minister, Gordon Brown was unable to mention the word “cuts”, George Osborne, the Tories’ shadow chancellor, made a speech saying they were inevitable. It changed the political debate. Mr Brown’s protestations looked increasingly ridiculous. Mr Obama should take note.****
3547  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Dick Morris agrees - a sell out on: April 10, 2011, 03:22:46 PM
Washington "insiders" should listen more to Morris than Rove IMO:

IT’S NO DEAL, IT’S A SELLOUT
By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann 04.9.2011 Share this article
     
John Boehner has just given away the Republican victory of 2010 at the bargaining table. Like the proverbial Uncle Sam who always wins the war but loses the peace, he has unilaterally disarmed the Republican Party by showing that he will not shut down the government and will, instead, willingly give way on even the most modest of cuts in order to avoid it. He now has no arrows left in his quiver.

Having failed to stand firm for just $61 billion in cuts in a budget of $3.7 trillion, how can we expect him to stand firm over the debt limit extension or the 2012 budget? We can’t. The excellent budget proposals of Paul Ryan are no more than a pipe dream now. Boehner has He sold us out now and he’ll sell us out again.


It is the duty of every Republican Congressman to vote no on this terrible deal. It violates our campaign promises to the American people. We promised $100 billion of cuts and we delivered $38 billion ($62 billion on a twelve month basis). In the Republican House’s first real test out of the box it has broken the promise over which it was elected. Only in Meat Loaf’s music is “two out of three not bad.”

This concession makes it clear that:

* Obamacare will not be defunded.
* The EPA will not be blocked from regulating carbon.
* The NLRB will not be stopped from forcing an end to secret ballots in union contests.
* Medicaid will not be block granted and turned over to the states.
* Welfare spending will not be cut nor work requirements imposed.
* The FCC will not be stopped from regulating talk radio.

In short, we have accomplished nothing by our hard work in 2010.

Except we have learned a lesson.

And the lesson is this: We need to purify our party and purge it of the likes of John Boehner and all those Congressmen who vote for the budget sellout. The Tea Party must take the lead in this purifying fire. We must not let the RINOs win!

DickMorris.com will post prominently (and permanently) the names of all GOP freshmen who vote for this rotten deal. It will be in a column headed: THESE ARE THE SELLOUTS. Check it out and back their primary opponents!

3548  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / How not to cut gov. spending on: April 09, 2011, 12:09:54 PM
I'll be interested to hear Dick's take about the 37 bill. deal. Here is his take prior to this "great dea". (Drudge is calling this a big win for cans???):

*** NO SURRENDER ON BUDGET CUTSA BUDGET DEAL: REPUBLICAN SUICIDE
By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann 04.8.2011
     
We all watched in amazement and horror as the Democratic Party led its minions off the cliff and made them vote to jam through Obama’s health care law. We knew it was mass suicide, but we watched with incredulity as they bravely stepped up to drink the Kool-Aid. Now it is the turn of the Republicans freshmen — the very people who inherited the seats of those who walked the plank — to march off a cliff of their own.


The electorate that impelled the GOP triumph in 2010 will not tolerate a breaking of the Republican promise to cut $100 billion from the budget. They will accept, of course, the pro-rated share of the advertised total — $61 billion over seven months — but not anything less. It is a simple matter of keeping one’s campaign promises.

Any freshman who votes for a budget deal below $61 billion will face a primary and likely defeat either for the nomination of in the general election. That is just the fact of political life.

The Tea Party supporters and the aroused Republican electorate will not stand for it. The myopia which obscures Boehner’s and Cantor’s view of this reality is as blinding as that which made Pelosi, Obama, and Reid sacrifice their majority over health care.

If Boehner comes to a deal below $61 billion, he will face the massive defection of his own party. A fundamental split between Tea Party and establishment Republicans will have opened up and will not heal for the balance of the session. If Boehner needs to cross the aisle to borrow Democratic voters to pass the deal, he will become a coalition speaker — a coalition of donkeys and RINOs. The real Republican conservatives will be in the minority. But they will have with them the vast bulk of the GOP electorate, a re-alignment which will become painfully clear in 2012′s primaries.

If senior Republicans back a deal of less than $61 billion, they need to pay heed to the fates of Utah Senator Bennett, Delaware Congressman Mike Castle, and Florida Governor Charlie Crist. And they need to note as well the legion of senior Democrats from seemingly invulnerable districts who lost their seats in 2010. That may well be their fate.

And why are Boehner and Cantor marching off the cliff? The Republican Party will win a government shutdown. It will be the defining event of the 2011-2012 cycle. Faced with a choice between more spending and less spending, the American people will back less spending. The lessons of 1995-1996 do not apply. Clinton won that shutdown (in which I was instrumental) because the fight was about Medicare. Had the battle been merely quantitative — as this fight would be — the Republicans would easily have prevailed.

When John Boehner and Eric Cantor sit down to decide whether to take a deal or not, here are the stakes:

If they take a deal below $61 billion, they will split their party, alienated their supporters, trigger a mass of primary fights, lose their ability to strike deals over the debt limit or the 2012 budget, and terminate the revolution of 2010. And Obama will be re-elected.

If they reject such a deal and shut down the government, they will galvanize their supporters, paint Obama into a liberal corner, force the Democrats to accede to their budget cuts, and win the fights over the debt limit, Obamacare repeal, EPA, NLRB, and the 2012 budget because the Democrats will be too petrified to weather another shut down. And Obama will be defeated.

Those are the stakes for the leaders.

For the members, the decision as to whether to follow their leaders off a cliff is simple: Do you value your seat in Congress you worked so hard to win?
3549  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: April 09, 2011, 11:46:27 AM
GM,

Do you remember when Bush senior didn't know what a bar code was on groceries and how the msm railed against him using this as an example of how out of touch he was with "average" "folks"?

Can you imagine if a Republican had said what bamster said in your example above?

The hypocracy and double standard is truly infuriating.

3550  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Foreign Policy on: April 09, 2011, 10:35:34 AM
"I still don't understand why we just don't stay home and solve our own domestic problems rather than trying to solve everyone else's."

I agree JDN. 

INjecting Soros into this -

He blames Bush for policies around the world and stating Bush is why people hate Jews? (I presume he is alluding to Wolfowitz).  Yet at the same time this mixed up joker states we should be fighting for democracy against autocratic regimes and let peoples all over decide their own leadership.  Well if the second sentence is his wish than he should be praising Bush for leading the charge for Demcracy around the world. 

Yet the party hack this clown is just won't do it.

Israel is in big trouble thanks to the likes of him.  I digress....
Pages: 1 ... 69 70 [71] 72 73 ... 109
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!