In darwin1's world the bridge you're driving over and the people who built it are both welfare recipients. It was built with tax payer dollars...

In RAF's world the bridge you're driving over may or may not hold up. If it doesn't remember it was your choice to cross it.

Thank you very much, Andre and Darius!

Andre~ I would agree with you regarding fool on the hill. That was powerful stuff! Nicely done.

fool_on_the_hill Apr 9, 2009 at 11:05 a.m.
..
Once events on the horizon take place, it appears there may be as many as six areas will have that opportunity
..
…Professor Igor Panarin said in an interview with the respected daily IZVESTIA published on Monday: "The dollar is not secured by anything. The country's foreign debt has grown like an avalanche, even though in the early 1980s there was no debt. By 1998, when I first made my prediction, it had exceeded $2 trillion. Now it is more than 11 trillion. This is a pyramid that can only collapse."…. He predicted that the U.S. will break up into six parts (http://www.drudgereport.com/flashrur.htm...)

Gendalf, thank you for reading and taking the time to understand even though you disagree with me. I think the definition of "traitor" is worth some discussion.

Whenever any government official or member of our military takes the oath, that oath isn't to protect established rulers or bureaucracies. That oath is to defend and protect our Constitution from attackers, both foreign and domestic. My own sense of patriotism for the United States of America has nothing whatsoever to do with the gargantuan behemoth we now call our federal government, or federation. As with the oath taken by our country's leaders and defenders, my allegiance and sense of patriotism is to the ideals and principles outlined in our founding documents.

If the United States was under the rule of a duly elected but despotic regime, would I be considered a traitor for defending the principles of our Constitution against such a domestic attack? Were the Germans who worked to defeat Hitler traitors or were they patriots? In recent years, the biggest threat to our Constitutional freedom has come from the masses of misguided patriots with blind loyalty to political groups whose leaders publicly claim to support one set of principles while privately undermining those very principles for their own personal enrichment. This blind loyalty has enabled a few powerful oligarchs to undermine and destroy the very principles I hold dear.

In theory, we should be able restore adherence to our founding principles via the democratic process. So, how's that been working out? I won't go into detail why democracy is limited in fighting an entrenched oligarchy. Given our available options and their likelihoods for success, I don't consider it one bit traitorous to explore the idea of true patriots and defenders of liberty congregating in one geographical area in the interest of supporting and defending the principles and ideals outlined by our Founding Fathers.

usaret the best thing we can do is just ignore his absurdity.

try reading the posts

Darwin: "Way to go traitors." Just who are you calling traitors?

kiowamohican, you must be embittered about something to lead you to suggest states should secede from the Union. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't really a traitor. Secondly, Europe is hardly destroyed. Perhaps you need to visit places like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and even Portugal to see that for yourself.

fool_on_the_hill, even though I rarely agree with a word you say, I'm surprised that you are seemingly encouraging such a traitorous action as secession. Afterall, the most devastating war in our nation's history was fought over that very issue. You should be ashamed of yourself.

RAF what economy are you living in. What part of lying do you think is ok? So, when elderly people are taken by a con man its their fault? I am not exactly sure what country you were serving but this country believes that lying to make money is fraud.

Yes, you can get your FICO score, however, it clearly is kept mostly opaque so that lenders can lower or raise the bar depending on the temperature of the economy. Lending and borrowing have been going on for a lot longer than you suggest they were just more informal. Remember company stores? Where did you get your degree in economics? In order for ANY market to work there needs to be transparency and currently there is not. You say we have choices but we can't make choices without information.

Destroyed Europe? Really? HMMM. Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Switzerland are all exporting countries. Wow socialism sure destroyed them.

Succession? Way to go traitors.

"The best answer in my opinion is for a few states to simply succeed from the madness. An option that any state has the power to do, despite what Lincoln ever said!"

Intriguing proposition, kiowamohican. There has been discussion within California about succession. Which states would be the best candidates, in your opinion?

No morality, no healthy economic system:
http://orrinwoodward.blogharbor.com/blog...

Sorry folks but this time i've got it:
www.youtube.com/v/ervaMPt4Ha0&autopl...

shdow5:
Great link!
That pretty much says it all. MASSIVE corruption at the highest levels that has left the country broke, and with a debt so massive that it will leave future generations so burdened in debt (and paying the interest just to sustain it)that they will have no hope what so ever of a prosperous life.
.
The same defunct system of governmet that has destroyed most all of Europe; has now infested our country, and it will ultimately destroy all wealth and prosperity as the government grows so massive, that the only ones who get ahead will be the corrupt members who "serve" the people who gave them all the power. Organized crime, in addition to government, will also become a massive growth industry. As the massive taxes, and insane regulation, creates a breeding ground for rampant organized crime.
.
The best answer in my opinion is for a few states to simply succeed from the madness. An option that any state has the power to do, despite what Lincoln ever said!

I'll get it right yet:
www.youtube.com/v/ervMPt4Ha08autoplay=1

link should be:

www.youtube.com/v/esvMPt4ha08autoplay=1

Thank you Andre-linoge; Here is something that I think many people should see.
www.youtube.com/v/esvMPt4Ha08autoplay=1.... I didn't mess this link up, it should help people like JSNTM understand.

"Notice how credit reporting agencies do not release FICO scores or explain how those scores are derived. "
-
You can get a copy of "your" report if you want. FICO is not that difficult if you read how it is done. You also don't mention that FICO is a service the credit companies pay for. They use this service to asses/determine the risk associated with a persons credit worthiness (they research to cover their bottom line). If you don't borrow money FICO is irrelevant. If you don't like how FICO and the lending institutions use it, save first before you purchase; this country operated just fine on that principle for a long period of time. Again you have a choice.

"How can one assess the risk of a certain investment if the company does not fully disclose all the information about its operations."
-
No one makes you invest. If you don't have all the information you want put your money somewhere else.

"If Republicans take responsibility then you must be sending extra money to the treasury to support the war your guy started. Otherwise, you would be a just another hypocrite?"
-
Yes the same money you sent in to pay back for the rest of the wars started under a democrat?...see how stupid that sounds.

RAF, it is that kind of mentality that got us here in the first place. Investors can only make choices based on the information they are given. How can one assess the risk of a certain investment if the company does not fully disclose all the information about its operations. Last time I checked fraud was illegal. Yes? Notice how credit reporting agencies do not release FICO scores or explain how those scores are derived. If they were scientifically based then one assume they would publish their methodologies, but they don't. They are specifically opaque. Obviously, you haven't read Smith's book. If Republicans take responsibility then you must be sending extra money to the treasury to support the war your guy started. Otherwise, you would be a just another hypocrite?

pharm we will have to continue this later. I work night hours and sleep days, so I am off.

"Its your fault they screwed you."
-
Perfect example. The phrase it's your fault they screwed you is only something a none republican would say. A republican would say it's my fault I got screwed. Putting the blame on someone else instead of accepting responsibility is the point I have been making.

“we are getting what we deserve in this crisis. The only ones to blame are ourselves, the business world, government, are totally blameless.”
-
We? Many people did things right, so “we” is incorrect. As I have previously said if a business becomes insolvent, that business and its investors are the ones that should bear the loss not others. Government is to blame for many things, but to toss all this on them is inaccurate. Should they, through GSE’s (Fannie and Freddie) performed better, yes. Should the government not supported companies they deemed to large to fail with tax payer dollars, yes. The whole point of this little test of the way back machine and find the tipping point were this fiasco could have been stopped is were I put it. As is the case with an autopsy of an incident/accident there are tens/hundreds of things that if done different would have kept the incident from happening. In respect of the current mess could a single rule/law/regulation or business practice stopped the culmination of bad paper? With all other things being the same, most important monetary policy, IMHO it would not have made that big a change. Many people missed the boat on the internet bubble and jumped on board for the ride called housing investment wearing short-sided spectacles. Others simply decided with loan policies the way they were it was the perfect time to move up “thinking” the property value would increase enough to help bank role the purchase. As with all investments you should never gamble more than you are willing to lose.

If someone sells you something based on a lie its their fault and it's called fraud. Markets only work when their is honesty and transparency, something corporations and retailers don't like to do. (Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations).

This is the same old Republican sense of responsibility. Its your fault they screwed you.

RetiredAirForce, if we follow your reasoning, we are getting what we deserve in this crisis. The only ones to blame are ourselves, the business world, government, are totally blameless. Then why do we care who they are or what they do? It`s all our fault anyway!

"the businesses involved should have too. Are you just going to blame the consumer"
-
If you go to the fair and purchase a gimmick product sold at a booth from a dude with a headset mouth piece, get home and find out it's a piece of crap, whose fault is it yours or the dude that sold it to you? Same principle applies to a loan agreement. In both cases you were not forced, you decided.

"laws are supposed to be in place, to protect the unwary, the gullible."
-
Laws should protect people from others, not protect you from yourself. You can't put a blanket law or regulation out there to protect everyone all the time. People need to stop looking for others to blame and take a hard look in the mirror.

RetiredAirForce, it comes down to the fact the rules changed, and they were taken advantage of. Yes, they should have been more careful, but the businesses involved should have too. Are you just going to blame the consumer? Just because some people are more savvy than others, that is why laws are supposed to be in place, to protect the unwary, the gullible. Not everyone is as smart as you.

Here is an in your face link He says it like it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixmZak0Xd...
April 15th Area Tea Parties Fort Atkinson & Madison This is for all the people Dem, Rep, Moderates, Independents all free Americans. don't miss it.

"but the lessening of...was the mover in the credit, sub-prime mess."
-
The "mover" was the vast amount of these loans. People wanting to live beyond their means and gambling their purchase (investment) would only increase in value. "Slap", then reality hit them in the face. Now the people that lived responsibly and their children will pay for other peoples personal mistakes.

"when the professionals you are supposed to count on"
-
Lenders of money are not professionals to count on. They are in a business to sell something, just like a car dealer; only they are selling a way for you to finance something. If you believe everything they say and you are not an expert on the topic and failed to get professional legal or financial advice before signing you are at fault. These business practices would not work if people protected themselves with information or proper advice; not advice from the people you are purchasing from.

RetiredAirForce, what you say about personal resposibility has merit, but the lessening of regulations to let mortgage lenders , banks, investment firms, push risky loans and then bundle them into riskier packages, abetted by the rating firms, was the mover in the credit, sub-prime mess. When a consumer is looking for a loan he/she is supposed to ask a professional for advice, and when you get bad advice that is just wrong. I saw on "60 Minutes", an old widow woman, that the mortgage lender came to her, she didn`t ask, they came to her, and re-financed her three times, giving her $20,000 each time. Each time they re-assured her she could make her payments and be fine. Each time they used her DEAD husbands income to secure the loan. She was not the only one this happened to. So yes, personal responsibility, but when the professionals you are supposed to count on are out to line their pockets with no thought to the customers welfare, they have to take the blame also. I personally blame the lenders, investment firms, the government who de-regulated the industry, the ratings firms who said these loan bundles were tripleA, much more than the consumer. If you go to a professional for advice, as you are supposed to, and they give bad, even dishonest advice, that is who I blame more.

In the past one always thought the conspiracy nuts were mostly a cook fringe when they spoke of the "new world order". A phrase that Bush 41 first used in an address to the nation. With recent events (namely the G20), one now has to give the thought serious consideration. Recently, treasury secretary; Geithner was asked about a new "world currency" in which he said he was open to the possibility. The very next day he quickly recanted on that idea, in front of congress. The conspiracy advocates have always said the 1st step in a new world/global regime is a world currency. The way things are starting to play out, makes one kind of go; hmmmmmmmm.

"apologizing is seen as a weakness only to the insecure"
-
If you are talking about a personal introspective view, then maybe. On a world scale a leader apologizing to another is seen as weakness. Many countries across the world do not always see common things the same; food, feet, women. They do understand strength and weakness; this does cross cultural and language barriers.

" Well before the sub-prime, no re-regulation mess."
-
There has always been some form of sub-prime loans (that is where ARM loans started). Regulations (or lack there of) aren't now and never were the problem. Just like gun laws don't stop idiots from shooting others. Regulations will not stop everything. As a consumer if you borrowed money you could not afford---you are the problem. If you let someone talk you into borrowing money you could not afford---you are the problem. Personal responsibility would have stopped all this from happening. If congress passed a regulation saying you could jump off a bridge, would you? People need to stand up and cover their own mistakes and stop wanting to pass their blame onto others. The same goes for business, if they are insolvent it is their doing and them and their investors should bear the brunt of collapse not the people who acted responsibly.

For those who are interested:
There will be a TEA PARTY in Ft Atkinson on 15 April 2009 at 4pm in front of the muncipal building on main street.
There is also one in Madison.

andre, I never said you have to take responsibility for Obama, but he is your president whether you voted for him or not. By the way, apologizing is seen as a weakness only to the insecure. I've got to say that your attitude is as freaky as your Stephen King character namesake from Storm of the Century. Like him, do you always keep repeating "Give me what I want and I'll go away"? Like that character, only children can possibly be attracted to you!

RetiredAirforce, you are right the Republicans were the majority for only 10 and a half of those 12 years. I apologize. In January of 2001, the Dems held power for 17 days. Then from June of 01 to November 02 they were the majority again. Well before the sub-prime, no re-regulation mess.

Obama's Presidency is already unraveling. Pelosi and Reid have been in charge of this country since 2006.
They have all the right ideas. Take our guns, hey that worked for Stalin. Abort all the babies you want. Erase religion from the minds of everyone. Eliminate the definition of marriage. Take from the hard working, and successful to give to the undeserving and lazy. Lie down like a dog and pander to the people who laugh at us. Inflate our economy. Turn our biggest businesses into government controlled pocket stuffers. Cram the "Green" movement down everyone's throats. Tax. Tax. Tax. Hire people who can't even pay their taxes. Let in anyone who wants in. Blame everything on your predecessor.
Sounds like a plan.

“the Republicans…12 years they were in power in the Senate.”
-
What 12 years? Time to look again at who was in charge when in the Senate.

creature, keep throwing ideas out there, you never know!

andre, I hate to remind you, but Obama is your President, too. We should constantly blame Bush and the congressional Republicans for all of the hot, steaming turds they left behind for others to clean-up, at least until they explicitly acknowledge their screw-ups of the near-recent past that have put our nation on the ropes. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with apologizing, and whether the apology is made on domestic or foreign soil matters not a bit. In fact, the failure to apologize for misdeeds is a basic character flaw for a nation as well as an individual. I have to admit, you're pretty good at spewing all of the talking points put forth by Hannity and Limpbrain!

Hi pharm, I understand but just wanted to put the idea out. I'm sure the people who work within the various government organizations could figure a better mousetrap.

andre, they had no power to bring up a bill, not enough votes to pass one, and couldn`t override a veto. What were they to do? I don`t expect people who didn`t vote for Obama to be happy, I know I would not be if McCain had won. I do think our standing in the world view has already risen since Obama took office.

andre, in regards to the AIG bonuses, the part Dodd changed only affects future bonuses, the ones that were paid were OK`ed in the TARP by the Bush treasury. I`d like to have seen them try and deny the bonuses, the courts would have been packed. It should have been in the original TARP to govern the bonuses if they didn`t want them paid.

andre, can you give me an example of what the Democrats did to stop re-regulation? Did they kidnap the Republican leadership so they couldn`t bring it up for a vote? Did they ever vote down a re-regulation bill? What exactly did they do?

creature, the major problem with your plan is that very little funding for education comes from the Federal government, you would be paying back the wrong entity.

My belief is that Education is a right but that it comes with a personal responsibility that requires hard work and planning so the children can achieve a proper education. I would like to see a change in the system that starting in Kindergarten/ 1st grade the parents are told they have a personal responsibility and financial responsibility to make sure the kids are studying and making every attempt to get the most out of their education so they graduate 12 years later ready for either College or the workforce. This requirement would be reinforced every year at the beginning, middle and end with both the parent and student. If after Senior year the child has not completed the work or has graduated with an average below 2.5 they will have to pay back a portion of the money spent on them over the 12 years. Paid back to the Federal Government and this money will be distributed to the States because a family could move many times over the 12 years. This can be taken directly from future earnings like what is done for child support checks from a deadbeat father. The parents will also share some of the burden since they choose not to make the education a priority for the child. Maybe the parents lose the tax deduction starting at some point during the education to begin the cause and effect thinking. Yes this is harsh but it makes a point that the education is free unless you waste the tax payer money. In addition there may be some opportunity for rewards towards those who excelled and graduate with higher averages such as tuition assistance under our current pay to attend system. Unless there is some kind of cause and effect to push the parents into being more active in the kids’ education the system will continue as it is now. If the students knew that someday they would be required to pay back some of the money I would guess they are going to work hard so this never happens. Most people are only motivated when they’re held accountable. Not in all cases but it would be a good start.

I know all this sounds like socialism but it’s really social engineering to the extent of creating a stronger cause and effect relationship for the Parent, Student and Education System. Without checks and balances the systems will fail because left alone there will always be people who try to game the system. Remove the incentives to game the system but allow people to learn and benefit from the advantages offered in our society.

andre, the videos have powerless people talking. They could not bring anything up, but when it came up they overwhelmingly voted yes.How did they block anything? Give me one example of what they actually did, besides talk, to hinder re-regulation. You can`t, because they did not have the power to initiate, bring up, or vote down re-regulation.

andre, the filibuster only works in the Senate, the Republicans never brought up re-regulation in the 12 years they were in power in the Senate. I explained why he voted against it, if you read some of the debate it is very clear they had no problem with the bill, 65 to 5 out of committee, it was one amendment that they voted against. Can`t filibuster what is never brought up. It is clear you don`t want to accept facts, the Republicans had the Congress and the Presidency, they could pass what they wanted, they didn`t even try. Mr. Bush threatened a veto, so the Senate whimpered away, a Republican majority by the way. 60% of the Democrats in the House voted yes, if even 32% of Democrat Senators had been given a chance to vote, it might have passed by a veto proof margin. But, they never tried! so now they can yell all they want about the Dems obstructing, but they never even tried!

How exactly has the military preserved our way of life? By stopping the hijackers on 9/11? By stopping the Japanese at Pearl Harbor? By denying rights to gay people? By denying rights to black people? By fighting wars that serve little purpose than to create more enemies than eliminates. With that kind of protection who needs enemies?

Kristofferson's comments were made to Toby "I'm a cowardly jacka-- who talks tough" Keith. Who is now mad at Eathan Hawke who never mentioned his name because he thinks Eathan Hawke is afraid of him. Saying you don't remember is a polite way of saying you don't want to get involved. You also forgot the part where Kristofferson called Hawke to tell him what a beautiful article it was.

If you think Barney Frank is responsible for the current mess you can try to oust him next election. Right? However, it is easy to whine about someone else's representative whom you don't vote for then to look at your own. Frank's or any other Democrat can lose their seat if the people of their district decide they are no longer trust worthy. Good luck.

andre, the discussion was, the Democrats stopped the Republicans from re-regulating. Using common sense, explain to me how they did it when they were in the minority,the majority picks what bills are brought up,and the president was Republican. Over 60% of the Democrats voted for that bill, and if that one amendment hadn`t been added, it would have been more. The Republicans had enough votes to pass it themselves but the Democrat votes made it veto proof in the House.

justsaynotomath:HAVE YOU KILLED..... ? What has this to do with the topic? Or are you just running out of things to say?

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C.S.Lewis
God in the Dock (Eerdmans)

Raines was booted for accounting error to ensure his and other officals bonuses (some say he cooked the books so much he increased his pay by 90 million). Under Raines Fannie did purchase subprime loans.

Now it is past my bedtime.

RetiredAirForce, the argument was that the Democrats somehow stopped re-regulation of Fannie and Freddie. They did not have the power to do that, not enough votes, they didn`t have a veto. Mr. Bush threatened a veto because he didn`t want the re-regulation, he was pushing low income homeownership. In 2005 Fannie and Freddie were losing market share because they were not heavy into the sub-primes yet because the guy who ran Fannie thought they were unsafe. When he, Raines, was forced out because of bad bookkeeping, Fannie and Freddie hurried to catch up to their competitors, and began with the sub-primes in a big way. If that bill had been passed, they would not have been able to do that.If the Republicans were serious about re-regulation, they had the votes to do it. They weren`t.

Sorry, back again. Frank pulled his sponsorship, and the rest of the Democrats too because the Republicans inserted an amendment that prohibited groups like Catholic charities from sponsoring voting drives. How that was allowed in is beyond me. In the committee, the bill was passed to the floor, with a 60 to 5 vote, then that provision was put in and the debate went haywire. I read some of it, and if that amendment had not been in it, it would have passed by a huge margin instead of the partisan way it ended up. I was misinformed about the extent of Franks support, he was for it until the amendment, as were a majority of Democrats. Still it passed, and the Republican Senate could have passed it, but never brought it up. Just shows that the Dems didn`t have any power. It was brought up in 2007, as HR1427, and Mr. Bush signed it in July 2008.

"Frank voted against it because..."
-
It's Ok that Frank voted against it but a threat of a Veto from Bush (a vote against it) is wrong?

RetiredAirForce, Frank said the amendment had restrictions on the types of non-profits that could receive funding under the bill. Now I`m off to bed.

RetiredAirForce, sorry had to check in again, Frank voted against it because of an amendment having to do with money going someplace he thought it should, or should not. He was the co-sponsor with Oxley.

the Frank/Oxley re-regulation bill is the evidence. They passed it in the House in 2005,
-
It was H.R. 1461, Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005. Approved by the house on October 26, 2005; Barney Frank voted against it. It then went to the Senate and died.

RetiredAirforce, sorry to get you started, but I`m not a nite owl like you, so I have to hit the hay. Bye!

RetiredAirForce, if a simple flat tax could be worked out that did not cause lower, middle income people a tax increase, I would agree with you. But not one has been proposed that includes taxing, interest, dividends, capital gains. That brings up the bottom line for all lower, middle income people.

andre,Barney Frank, on the floor of the House, 2/13/02, 6/27/05, and 7/25/06, talking about rental units instead of ownership. From NEXIS database. 12/20/08, New York Times, Bush insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low income lending." 4/03/07, Reuters article, Barney Frank, "This administration is acting as if the only important program to help people with housing issues is to get them into homeownership. I think that overemphasis has contributed to the subprime crisis. People were put into homeownership who just economically should not have been there." But, it still comes down to the fact that the Democrats did not have control of Congress or the Presidency. They were powerless.

"I don`t really care, I don`t believe any of those people do their own taxes, it`s the accountants and H&R Block that are screwing up...When you make good money your taxes become complicated."
-
It has nothing to do with the 3.4 million words of tax code that cause any of this? A simple flat tax would solve it.

andre, HR1427. Wall Street Journal, Lawrence B Lindsey, former economic advisor to Mr. Bush, " Barney Frank is the only politician I know who has argued that we needed tighter rules that intentionally produce fewer homeowners and more renters." On the floor of the House in 2003 Frank said the same thing. Can you tell me how the Democrats could have stopped the Republicans when they didn`t control anything, and were out voted?

andre, Barney Frank is a Democrat, he was the ranking member of the Republican led Committee, he tried! Also, he was arguing for more rental units, not home ownership for everybody. One of Mr. Bush`s employees said Frank was the only politician pushing for rental, instead of ownership.

andre, the Frank/Oxley re-regulation bill is the evidence. They passed it in the House in 2005, and Mr. Bush said he would veto it. The Republican Senate would not bring it up, the Democrats couldn`t, they weren`t in control. they tried and Mr. Bush told them no!

andre, they did try, Frank and his Republican Chairman tried, BUT THEY DIDN`T HAVE THE VOTES, OR THE PRESIDENT!

andre, refute the facts, did they have the votes, the president, did they do anything? No! Case closed!

andre, as for the tax cheats, I saw a Republican Congressman had to admit to it today. But, I don`t really care, I don`t believe any of those people do their own taxes, it`s the accountants and H&R Block that are screwing up. It was either the Indiana, or Georgia legislature that had 19 representatives turn up with bad taxes right after Geithner did. When you make good money your taxes become complicated.

andre, Clinton can say anything he wants, but the FACTS back up what I am saying. Anytime the Republicans wanted to re-regulate they could have. The Democrats did not have the votes to stop them. They did NOT WANT TO DO IT, or they would have. Tell me I`m wrong, did they have the votes? Yes! Did they have the President? Yes! Did they do anything? NO! They didn`t want to, now they just want to talk about how they were stymied in their efforts! Bullcrap! They are lying! They could have, and chose not to. case closed!

andre, backatcha, baby: where did I say that Obama has foreign policy experience? I've noticed that your narrow-mindedness even prevents you from knowing the correct name of the ruling party in DC. You have nothing in your arsenal of thought to refute anything that I've stated, whether it's categorized as 'evidence', 'example', or 'opinion'.

andre, and your nonsensical gibberish means what?

RAF: Thanks for defending those who serve. Darwin and fool are not worth the effort since no matter what you say, it is way over their heads.
To the individual that stopped supporting the Republican Party because of their smear tactics, please take another look and see who actually are the smear mongers. You might be surprised. Check out "Guilty-Liberal "Victims" and their assault on America", by Ann Coulter. Read it with an open mind and then decide which party is the smear merchant.

"why don't the Republicans pay for the war they started"
-
Why don't you answer your previous smears?

andre, they ran congress for twelve straight years, and had a republican president for six of those. They could hold hearings till the cows come home, and then what did they do?Nothing! Bush pushed home ownership, as he put it he would "use the mighty muscle of the Federal government" to help people, low income people, buy homes. He authorized $200,000,000 a year to help them with downpayments! The video is about Fannie and Freddie fudging the books, not about sub-prime loans, or pushing people to buy. The guy that ran Fannie ended up paying a fine for poor bookkeeping. The Republicans ran the government 12 straight years, if they wanted to re-regulate they could have at any time. To say they couldn`t because of the Democrats is silly. What power did they have? No matter what they say now, they could have passed re-regulation anytime they wanted, but they didn`t even try, except for Oxley/Frank in 2005, and that got shelved by the Republican Senate.

schnckstack-Yes, W2 PAYS for maternity pay, whether or not the person was working.
Why don't you call and check it out yourself.

Comparing Obama and Palin? Really? Obama was an editor and Palin couldn't name a single news source she read. The only experience that is the same as being President is being President. Everyone comes to the office with no experience and that is the point. Clearly, otherwise how would Georgy Boy Bush have gotten elected. I have an idea why don't the Republicans pay for the war they started and be responsible for their actions.

For example, many conservatives complain that the government is becoming socialist because they want to run a company they now own. Isn't ownership one of those Republican mantras? Republicans like corporate ownership. You own it (shareholders) they get to run it into the ground (management) and then they blame you for owning it.

Good luck next elections.

andre, why don't you look-up the meaning of 'smear' by yourself? You're obviously out of your league in this type of discussion. Otherwise, you would at least attempt to make a valid point.

Where's the Tea Party??? I want to come too! Can we dress our politicians in tea costumes and dump them overboard???

andre, the Republicans controlled Congress from 1994 to 2006, and the only time Freddie and Fannie came up to be re-regulated was in 2005 when the Republican Oxley and Democrat Frank got a bill passed in the house to do it. Bush threatened to veto it, and the Republican led Senate never brought it up. It was finally signed in July of last year. Anytime they wanted to ,for 12 years, they could have done something if they wanted to, they didn`t!

andre, I guess your definition of smear is way different than mine. Give an example of the Democratic smears against Palin. As I remember it, conservatives and liberals alike were unconvinced about Palin's qualifications to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. She did herself in with her proven inappropriate actions against her former brother-in-law, her charging per diem expenses to the taxpayers for staying in her own home, her lack of foreign policy issues, and, of course, the ridiculous wardrobe expenses during the campaign. These aren't smears. They really are facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDvexvIP5...

Here's your straight truth!

andre, I said 'evidence' when I should have said 'examples'. My error. If you don't accept my examples, which are well-chronicled elsewhere, then you are conveniently not recognizing the extent of the Republican smear machine.

retired airforce, here's an illustration of why we have such moral decay and clueless people spewing their so called "truth"...
http://webmail.aol.com/42169/aol/en-us/m...

"Great support (sic) for people who have volunteered or had been drafted to support a country where you claim these people are then welfare recipients."

Boohoo, They are the recipients of welfare. I thought they were servicing our country now they "support" our country. I would hope they support their country. How are they supporting their country? Could you please give me examples of something tangible the military has done, other than wasting money on war.

justsaynotomath where have a blamed Obama for anything in these comments? I wear with honor the fact the you don't like me! That does not mean I have to sit quietly and allow you to tell tales of me.

http://www.issuesinperspective.com/2009/...

"The rest of us need to get on with running a country."
-
Please do we are waiting.

Look, if RetiredAirForce wants to defend an unpopular, discredited club, that's his business. The rest of us need to get on with running a country.

Retire, if a man of your intellect cannot connect the dots, then we're in a world of hurt!

still waiting darwin1---"but now cries like a baby if someone else does. Boohoo poor me. Pay your taxes cry babies."
-
Still waiting for you to back your claims...crickets, crickets, crickets, crickets.

"foolonthehill..it is a true story. Be careful who you share it with though.. the professor in the story is Christian! lol"

Truth is truth, Mathew516. Its messenger does not alter that fact. "A" is "A".

"I provided some anecdotal evidence for my statements. You have replied with only empty and meaningless words."
-
You have failed in your attempt to link a tale spread on the internet to a political party (as you claim) and you want evidence to prove it is false? As my anecdotal support stated; the party has suffered from many things a tale on the internet is not one of them. But I guess that is not anecdotal enough for you?

Kleej~
God is a great source to learn from and answer to. Societies have proven how long they can exist when God is taken out of the equation.
Let these intellects worship people like Tom Cruise or Al Bundy and we'll continue on the path that God put us on.

You new age intellects are very entertaining to say the least. So much wisdom and so little action to back it up. Proof is in the pudding. Our society is going to hell and you're in a blog site stating how much you know about it and have all the answers. Talk without action is called, "inaction". Get over yourselves and do something productive with your lives, like perhaps, thinking of other people who are in much worse shape than you are that can use a hand!

andre and Retired, at least I provided some anecdotal evidence for my statements. You have replied with only empty and meaningless words.

gandalf...simply your opinion. Not that it means anything to me either way. I know what character is and choose to live my life with that at the forefront. I know who I am and I know what God expects of me. That's enough for me.

claitas, I understand that! Not saying it's a true story or not, I wouldn't know, however the point is very clear. Just for the record, has "snopes" ever been validated??

Matthew516, you have proven yourself to be anything but what your name implies.

"To suggest that there exists an equal degree of this sort of stuff from both major parties is ridiculous."
-
That is just diffusional.

http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socia...

Sorry Matthew, while the story may help to prove a point it is legend.

Gandalf the party has suffered for many reasons, a tale on the internet is not one of them. But feel free to believe what you want.

andre, of course all parties practice propaganda, but Republican operatives like Karl Rove perfected the art to such a degree that it backfired. To suggest that there exists an equal degree of this sort of stuff from both major parties is ridiculous.

foolonthehill..it is a true story. Be careful who you share it with though.. the professor in the story is Christian! lol

Correction: "Subsidize something --you will get more of it. Tax something --you will get more."

Should have read: "Subsidize something --you will get more of it. Tax something --you will get LESS of it."

(Duh!)

My apologies.

Come-on Retired, don't act dumb about the tried and true right-wing hack tactics and smear machine. You're far better than that. It's the reason I have ceased my support of the Republican Party.

"If your pay is from the government you are the recipient of welfare."
-
Next time you see a police officer tell them this please. I guess our countries President is on welfare than too.

fool_on_the_hill, you should shorten your name to just 'fool' if your believe Matthew's story, which is patently false.

"The Republican Party is in disarray because of this type of crud"
-
The party is in disarray because of a tale told on the web about a class in Texas...?

RAF who are your referring to when you say these two???
-
darwin1 and something or other math

still waiting darwin1---"but now cries like a baby if someone else does. Boohoo poor me. Pay your taxes cry babies."
-
Still waiting for you to back your claims...crickets, crickets, crickets.

One need only look at those economies who export more to know that socialism works. China, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark all export more than we do while the Republicans complain and whine about socialism.

If your pay is from the government you are the recipient of welfare. I don't owe military people anything especially my gratitude. This isn't Nazi Germany or Franco's Spain. The amount of money this country has spent on the military for what we have gotten in return should be a crime against humanity.

Let's see the two times America was attacked:
9/11 The military was busy trying to figure out if it was a simulation or real.

Pearl Harbor, clearly the military did a good job protecting us - NOT.

Great story, matthew516! Is it true? (Just in case I want to repeat it sometime.)

Subsidize something --you will get more of it. Tax something --you will get more.

Being philosophically opposed to all taxation, if we must have it, I am a proponent of taxing consumption (sales, value-added, etc) instead of productivity (income, dividends, capital gains, etc.) Primarily, it places the motivation where it belongs and equalizes the retail price of imported versus domestic goods and services. Not to mention, eliminating a four-foot pile of tax laws, the attendant waste of productivity in compliance and the need for an IRS.

Best of all, a consumption tax would give all U.S. produced goods and services an enormous export advantage by eliminating the tax burden now added at every level.

Retired, I stand by my remark. The Republican Party is in disarray because of this type of crud. I'm not saying that everyone in the Republican Party perpetrates this kind of thing, but the party has definitely suffered from very similar attempts to impugn anyone who disagrees with the party line. This is the legacy of Karl Rove, who has caused more damage to the Republican Party than anyone by conflating Iraq with 9/11 and by spreading other falsehoods (e.g. Obama is really a Muslim; Max Cleland supports Bin Ladenm, etc.). The Sean Hannity's and Rush Limpbrains of the world make careers out of spreading these kind of tales, and the American people suffer because of that.

RAF who are your referring to when you say these two???

"That's why the Republican Party is in such a sorry state today."
-
How does a tale (this one) spread on the internet have a connection to a political party? If you search for the story it is from blogs with no affiliations attached. Yes it appears the story is just that a tale, but no more so than your inferred remark of this tale linking to a party.

bucky and nellie, thank you. The problem people like these two have is they cannot debate based on ideas and then sink to the level they display here.

Matthew, nice story, because that's all it is. First of all, please note that the professor is not named, but the school is. This should make us a bit suspicious, since it lends an air of credibility without being traceable. Secondly, it's absurd to believe the dramatic claim that a teacher who never fails a student individually would actually contrive to fail an entire class. This urban myth has been circulating around the Internet for years, and you should be ashamed of yourself for perpetuating it as fact when it clearly is not. This kind a crud is typical right wing propaganda that used to work, but doesn't fly anymore. That's why the Republican Party is in such a sorry state today.

justsaynotomath, what a horrible thing for you to say to RAF! I did not see him asking anyone to thank him for his service; instead, he was defending himself and other servicemen from an obnoxious claim that he was on welfare when he served in the military.
---
But we do owe these men and women our gratitude. Many of them suffer for years from injury and/or memories of what they've seen during their war service. I know I couldn't do what they did, so I'm grateful they were willing to risk their lives for all of us.

thenk You retiredairforce for your service to this country! You sir DESERVE the benefits you get! You worked for it and put your life on the line for my freedoms!! If anyone deserves them you do!!

Great story matthew! It works that way all over when socialism is in power! People do you think the rich will give up their money so we can all be equal??? I ask Obama to be the first, he makes a lot more money than me!! Aint gonna happen! I come from a family (not me included) that has milked the system for all it was worth and still are!! My parents had us on welfare most of my life, and they were perfectly capable of working, they just didn't have to. I have relatives with child after child so they don't have to work,just sit around, pop out a kid once in awhile and collect their check. It easier than you think, I've seen it firsthand.I know these kind of people and I know they wouldn't lift a finger if they didn't have to. We are fooling ourselves!

"you sir seem to have missed that entire point !"
-
Please explain the post for all then.

"you think we owe you something."
-
On the contrary I have never asked anything of you or others, nor have I went to any government institution asking for help. But feel free to spout your unsupported yarns if that makes you feel better.

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. The class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too, so they studied little.
The second test average was a D. No one was happy.
When the third test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame, and name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else.
To their great surprise, all failed. The professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder it is to succeed the greater the reward, but when a government takes all the reward away, no one will try and no one will succeed...

"but now cries like a baby if someone else does. Boohoo poor me. Pay your taxes cry babies."
-
Still waiting for you to back your claims...crickets, crickets, crickets.

Darwin1, you're way out of line equating being in the armed services with being on welfare. By stating something so stupid, you render any of your subsequent thoughts and words as being utterly meaningless.

"you were in the military you are a recipient of government welfare."
-
Great support (sic) for people who have volunteered or had been drafted to support a country where you claim these people are then welfare recipients. Why don't you walk into any American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, or Disabled American Veterans hall (I am proud members of all three), walk up to any of these proud people and thank them for being welfare recipient. Why not stop at a funeral of a service member and thank the family for their welfare recipients service to your country For the record I am proud of my service for my country, but I am not proud of all the people who have benefited from my service.

To propose the flat-tax as reasonable is the product of extreme shallow thinking. Our ancestors put this issue to bed a longtime ago by agreeing on the 'ability to pay' basis for taxing income. The average taxpayer looks to society to protect hearth and home while the wealth taxpayer additionally looks to society to protect their sources of wealth. Therefore, the wealthy should pay a higher tax rate. In short, the flat-tax is very un-American. At least on this matter, our ancestors were much more intelligent than we are today.

If we were paying a flat taxe percentage chances are we would end up paying less than we do now because we would be getting more from the wealthy. Regardless, it would be much more equitable.

Since it appears you were in the military you are a recipient of government welfare. In much the same way tax lawyers are recipients of welfare in the form of the tax code. Now I am sure you'll cry about it.

Private sector pay comes from investment? What percentage? What about government investment? Remember, the REA? How come the private sector didn't want to invest in the electrification of rural farms that turned out to be very profitable for the American people. Get the whole picture please.

retired... tell me about it. Been there done that!

darwin1--you cant back up your slander so you don't answer?

"Just go to "top 400 taxpayers in US tax rate", then look for that site."
-
It does not interest me to look at what others make. The more they make the may they pay in taxes; the more taxes they pay the more the government will spend.

pharm---Again, I never stated all would like it, but I do (flat tax). Only the government can make something so simple as collecting revenue this complicated; 3.4 million words in the code.

RetiredAirForce, for whatever reason, the entire site name will not come up. Just go to "top 400 taxpayers in US tax rate", then look for that site.

retiredairforce, that site I listed wrong, should be www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=20310...

Retiredairforce, a flat tax would have to be set between 18.5 and 20% to generate the revenue we get now. If it is done the way Steve Forbes, and many others propose, interest, dividends, and capital gains would be exempt, driving the rate much higher. Even at 18.5% a single person making $30,000 a year would pay more under a flat tax unless you keep the exemptions and deductions they also want to do away with. Then again, if you type in "top 400 taxpayers in U.S. tax rate", it will take you to a list of sites including, www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=20310.... That site lists the tax rates for the top 400 from the IRS, and says in 2006 their rate was 17.17%, so a 18.5 to 20% rate would get more from them!

You go Obama. At least someone is trying to target the greedy people who really run this country. No one deserves millions in pay.

“our tax systems rewards money generated from money. Talk about a gimmick. All money earned from money should be taxed because it has to be regulated. Otherwise how would you know the money your made from money wasn't made from a Ponzy scheme. This is how many of your so-called rich people made their money. They didn't earn it.”
-
The tax system rewards money generated from money? Employment income is generated from other money (investment) how is that rewarded? Yeah those mean rich people none of them ever earned their money…

"RAF, is a fine example, of someone who has lived off the welfare of the state but now cries like a baby if someone else does. Boohoo poor me.
Pay your taxes cry babies."
-
Please, provide examples of your in depth knowledge of my life to support your conclusion.

RAF, all governments are forms of social engineering. Markets are forms of social engineering. Democracy is a form of social engineering.

Currently, our tax systems rewards money generated from money. Talk about a gimmick. All money earned from money should be taxed because it has to be regulated. Otherwise how would you know the money your made from money wasn't made from a Ponzy scheme. This is how many of your so-called rich people made their money. They didn't earn it.

RAF, is a fine example, of someone who has lived off the welfare of the state but now cries like a baby if someone else does. Boohoo poor me.

Pay your taxes cry babies.

“The flat tax and fair tax are gimmicks, and very regressive. What rate would have to be set to have a flat tax bring in the revenue we get now? I have gone to the so-called fair tax site, and have done the calculations. I would end up paying more, and I am in the bottom 50% of taxpayers.”
-
Gimmicks? If collecting tax is the objective how is it a gimmick? Like I previously said there are many that are opposed to it. I personally think the tax code reflects the many inefficiencies and problems we have in government. Congress has taken a simple task of collecting revenue, and warped into social engineering, payback, and class warfare. There is nothing that will ever be fair about paying a tax, as fairness is an objective opinion. By instituting a flat tax and dropping all deductions it takes the power out of Washington; reducing paybacks through tax code manipulation. Currently you have a system whereby “guesstimations” are used to predict revenue assuming all monies will be taxed and citizens and corporations pay their tax. Government money is wasted to perform audits using a tax code with 3.4 million words! The current administration has railed against the inefficiencies in healthcare; IMHO how can government begin to fix things outside their control when they can’t even manage the simple task of collecting taxes without using 3.4 million words?

Nothing is Free. There is always a price to pay.

I fear that as a country we are swaying from one radical position with Bush to another with Obama. Neither is really the solution. Unfortunately, moderates don't get much say in politics, because they can't get funding from either radical political side. Obama is overly critical of Wall Street and company executives. It is as if being successful or having money is a bad thing. Not all executives and Wall Street types are crooks. A few bad apples have spoiled it for a lot of really good people. In addition, our banking system may be broken, but I don't think the entire American capitalism structure is. Although I think education and health care are issues that need to be addressed, I don't think social wars are going to stimulate the economy. If you divided up the wealth in this country evenly today, there would still be rich and poor within a few years. It's not as simple as people would like to think. Education is the key to closing the gap between rich and poor. However, people should be rewarded for being successful, not chastised. Not everyone in this country gained wealth Paris Hilton style. For many, it took decades of hard work. Unfortunately, there are those in the country who think it should be handed to them. Its obvious that the more our government gets involved, the worse things become while our debt increases. We'll get out of this mess eventually, but not likely because of anything Bush or Obama have done or will do. People put too much faith in politicians and not enough in themselves.

localboy..not all of them are crooks. There are actually people of moral authority in these leadership positions that actually are trying to accomplish something positive and worthy. Here's the problem, "you hang around dogs long enough, you'll get fleas". The few trying to do good are constantly fighting an uphill battle because of the numbers game. I give them credit because they're putting all on the line to make a difference. Key point here is, every one of these politicians were taught at some point in their lives how to lie, cheat and be greedy. They didn't get into their position and decide to be immoral. Therefore, why can't people of good moral value run for these offices and start turning the tide??? Most people will say it's impossible, but, it's not. A fire starts with a small spark. If we have enough good people lighting one another's candles who decide to unite and do this right, we can change things. The key is the WE word! It's a matter of buying in and understanding it's a process and won't happen overnight. This country didn't get into the shape it's in overnight either. Most people these days aren't interested in getting off their couches and stepping out and doing something about it. It's called HOPLESSNESS...something the govt. prey's on.

RetiredairForce, you got me wrong, I do believe what Buffet said because I have seen figures on the top 400 taxpayers that say they pay a tax rate of 18%(2005). He might have fudged the figures of his secretary, or whatever her title, but I`d say she did pay more than 17.7%. The flat tax and fair tax are gimmicks, and very regressive. What rate would have to be set to have a flat tax bring in the revenue we get now? I have gone to the so-called fair tax site, and have done the calculations. I would end up paying more, and I am in the bottom 50% of taxpayers.

kiowamohican :
.
You have a good post about the capital gains. They are very much misunderstood, and the people who insist on taxing these more don’t see the problems that would cause. They also don’t care, because they are not investors themselves, and see this as another area where we should be soaking the rich.
.
Just to clarify one point, “You only have capital gains when stocks grows in value…”. You only have capital gains when you sell your stock (or fund) for more than you paid for it, less the round trip commissions. Simply growing in value gives you a “paper gain”, which you may not ever realize. Lots of paper gains disappeared when the market tanked last year.

They (politicians) are all crooks. No sense trying to figure them all out.

RAF:
Yeah; I know.
The "free speech" left loves to report my posts and it's "in-sensitiveness". I'm just waiting to be banned from the gazette blog! LOL. Would not be the 1st blog I was kicked off ;-)

pharm:
Capital gains is a tax that is very much misunderstood. The reason you hear many of the "super rich" only pay 15% in taxes is because they often don't have any "income". All their wealth is usually in the stock they own, and as that stock grows, you pay capital gains upon it's growth, and or dividends. Any salary they get as CEO of the company is taxed in the income brackets. Capital gains only applies to stock you hold or dividends paid from the stock in which you hold OVER a year.
.
The idea behind lower capital gains is to encourage long term investment. The theory of ridding capital gains is that you will spur a ton of investment; and that investment in turns grows the economy. Of course as the economy grows, that creates jobs, wealth, all of which gets taxed. If you have a very high capital gains; all you do is DIS-courage long term investment. If you raise the capital gains to anything above 35% (many on the left are saying 50% or more) all you will do is force people to sell stock within a years time frame. As if you sell stock without holding it a full year, any gains you make are taxed at whatever income bracket you fall into (most that is 25-35%).
.
Last year; hardly anyone made any capital gains; unless they were short sold in the market the entire year (most short sellers only hold a stock a couple months; at most). Warren Buffet lost BILLIONS last year. It was his worse year ever. He had ZERO capital gains last year; as did most people invested long term in the market. You only have capital gains when stocks grows in value, which happens in a growing economy, of course.

"look at...that nut job Joe McNally"
-
Don't pick on 'ole Joe, he is "special" and people might complain of your insensitivities.

"RetiredAirForce: You must admit that there is a HUGE gap?"
-
The has always been a gap (difference) between income tax and capital gains tax in this country. But then I have always been a fan of flat tax and many do not like that plan either.

idu2:
Krauthammer is on the fox news all stars with Bret Bayer every week night, and no doubt gets paid very well for doing it. He makes no bones about his political affiliations. That is far more then many "journalists" do, who claim to be objective, when in fact they are very much left leaning. Dan Rather was a great example of that.
.
The piece in the gazette is in the OPINION section. You will find many opinion pieces from the other side as well (look at all they have published from that nut job Joe McNally). The gazette is FAR from conservative. Very much a moderate news paper.

RetiredAirForce: You must admit that there is a HUGE gap? What will happen with a gap that big?

Pharm -- So you figured out his con was not true to begin with, very good for you. Comparing tax rates is not always as easy as it sounds. If his claims of 17% are true (his words) and his challenge to others was compare their capital gains tax rates to personal income rates while betting a million dollars proves my previous very sarcastic point. "…this is a guy we should all stand behind and support...he is speaking the truth and has only the best interest of others at heart."
-
Again, if he really believes he doesn't pay enough taxes why has he not made deposits to the treasury on his own?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER should apply for a job with fox news he would fit right in!!!! I think the Gazette could get a side job with fox news also!

I want to go to the Tea party too. This Administration is going way over the edge What happened to his Bi-partisanship? Oversight? Now we are warranty providers for auto parts? The incentive to excel is being quashed and the Constitution is being deliberately ignored in favor of a socialistic type Government. That is just an Obamanation!

frusion, thank you to you also. It was refreshing to have a debate without attacks and judgements.
Andre, who do you suppose has to pay for it? I do not think it should be just the wealthy people that should pay. There are millions of hard working people who are offered no insurance. So, what about those people? (that would be the middle class)Shouldn't healthcare be affordable to everyone? Shouldn't small business be able to offer insurance?
I am confused why I keep hearing people say Obama believes everyone should get things for free? Spreading the wealth does not mean give things away for free. That is not how I understood it.
Reality is there are WAY TOO many greedy rich people AND WAY TOO many lazy poor people. How I understood Obama (and this article) is he wants to make the unmotivated MORE responsible and accountable and make sure they have the same opportunities (not everyone has the chance to go to college) AND make the rich also MORE responsible and accountable.
The judgements and accusations based on what we only assume are not fair and will get us no where.

Is ther going to be a Tea Party in Janesville?

RetiredAirForce, 17.7% of $46 million is a little over $8 million, and the majority of his, and the other 400 richest of this country, income is taxed at 15%, the capital gains rate. I have read that some of those 400 get over 70% of their income via capital gains. Don`t you wonder why he would make a claim like he has, what would be his reason if it wasn`t true? It`s much like the corporate tax rate of 35%, but in reality the effective rate is in the low 20`s, and that is for the one third of profitable corporations that actually pay taxes.

Pharm; His claim is interesting when you look at the tax tables for 2007. Earned income over the first 1/3 million is taxed at 35% for the fed. Yet he claims with a straight face he did not avoid taxes and his rate was lower than hers and only paid 17%?
-
He also likes to claim he doesn't pay enough tax (legally) and thinks his rates should be higher; yet has failed to voluntarily ever pay more to the government treasury, even though he does pay donations to politicians, political parties, and action committees.
Yep this is a guy we should all stand behind and support thinking he is speaking the truth and has only the best interest of others at heart.

Whether you voted for him or not congratulations, we've elected a man that little understanding of the constitution. I can't wait to vote in the 2010 congressional mid-term.

RetiredAirforce, just on a quick calculation, if she is single she could have easily paid 25% counting FICA and Medicare.

RetiredAirForce, you`d have to ask him, it came out of his mouth. Remember, she is paying 8% for FICA and Medicare, and he is only paying a tiny percentage for those taxes.

"Warren Buffet...tax rate is 17.7%... Buffet`s secretary paid 30%.
-
Buffet paid over 8 million in fed taxes that year on personal income, there is no way his secretary paid 18,000 on a salary of 60,000. More than likely her rate included all her taxes and his included only Fed taxes...not the whole truth only part of the truth.

So, the treasury secretary does not have enough power now. That's a big change in just 3 months.
I remember hearing that the previous secretary, Paulson, was too powerful and there was a need for better checks and balances. I guess all that has changed now or shall I say "flip flopped". I think that by 2012 hypocrite and democrat are going to be synonomous. ;-)

Hope and change were the mantra of President Obama’s campaign message. Many didn’t bother to wonder “hope for what” or “change into what” as the economy is in recession and there is an unpopular war on so the “hope” and “change” were assumed to mean whatever the hearer wanted them to mean. But there were signs of just what our President intended in what he said on the campaign trail and in his political career as well as his associations. So now this “hope and change” manifests itself as a much more pro-active governmental approach to the economy which seems to include governmental control of resources and output in manufacturing, finance, education and health care, a use of the tax code for the purpose of promoting what those who control government consider to be “fair”, a host of societal changes such as government paid abortion on demand and extreme environmental policies that will favor carbon reduction to the detriment of the economy and job creation. Many cast their caution to the wind as this President seemed so reassuring, subjugating their principles for what they viewed as refreshing change. Unfortunately there is nothing new under the sun, as the bible says, so this change the President offers isn’t new, it is recycled policies of the past, such as the “new deal’ and the “great society” that, while having some success, where overall failures in that they ignore human nature just as does the socialism they are based on. The underlying philosophy of the President is obvious and can be summed up in the following “from each according to his ability to each according to his need”. Some of us ignored the warning signs. Now buyer’s remorse is starting to set in but the election cannot be undone. The President and his party have the political power they need to force through their agenda, and it is a long time until the next election. They are counting on the recession being over by then and the changes they make now being overlooked as a result of the renewed prosperity.

Callita, Warren Buffet, who said his tax rate is 17.7% offered a $1 million bet to anyone in the Forbes 400 if their tax rate was higher than the people that worked in their offices. Nobody took him up on it, Buffet`s secretary paid 30%.

schnckstac1, now we found a level ground. I may have misunderstood you earlier, but I thought you were saying no matter what a person's circumstances are, everyone should be treated the same i.e."socialism". Good debate... thanks!

Cas, can`t remember where I saw the numbers for the top 400, when I looked it up I got a site that gave 2005 numbers, $214,000,000 average income, and only an 18% tax rate. It was, visualizingeconomics.com/2008/03/30/top-400-taxpayers-income-and-ta.. but when I tried to get back to it I couldn`t get it to work. Had to type in "top 400 taxpayers income and tax rates," and search. The numbers from Ryan`s budget are from "Citizens For Tax Justice."

The only two things I said I think EVERYONE deserves is the right to healthcare and the opportunity to go to college (not free college). Whether you live or die is not more important then whether or not he does, just because of his POOR POOR choices. I am in no way backing him on that. That is what I meant by the same. I will suggest you re-read my posts as well.

schnckstac1, re-read my post. I have absolutely NO problem with a person working at a restaurant or any other lower paying job. THAT is what I am getting at. If you are able to stand around smoking and drinking, you are able to do SOMETHING to work. And the guy I am talking about? YES, I did get to know him and that is what made me even more irritated with him because I ascertained he IS able to work but didn't want to. Just to be crystal clear with you schnckstac1, I have no problem with helping those that help themselves but what I do have a problem with is a comment that you made in an earlier post about everyone is the same and deserves the SAME. If you are working at McD's and you show up every day you are exhibiting a willingness to fend for yourself and contribute to society. If you live under a bridge or stand around smoking all day in your driveway and you have no intentions of trying to work because you don't feel the urge, then I have not much time for you. In the winter I'll contribute to you not freezing to death but otherwise get a job. This goes right back to you saying everyone is the same. If I make sacrifices and can hardly hold my eyes open by 10pm, how am I the same as these other examples I give you?

Buckyfan, I do agree with you. I do agree harsh motivation in a lot of cases is what has to be done. I understand it must be frustrating to do what you do. What you do should be respected more in this country.
With that said, the same goes for the rich. They need harsh changes to make them see they are not the superior beings of this world!
Prime example is the big wigs at AIG!!

I didn't say that that guy shouldn't be working! I didn't say you weren't a stand up person for working your butt off! I wonder if you know the guy personally though? I wonder if you have ever taken the time to talk to him? Are your judgements about him based on facts you really know about him?
And because someone is lazy and won't do anything for themselves, you think they do not deserve to go to the doctor? If he gets diagnosed with cancer or is sick he doesn't deserve to have the same treatment you would? THAT is the point. Whether he lives or dies doesn't matter because he didn't go to college?
It's funny how people talk about how the "poor" feel entitled, but isn't thinking you are superior to another person because of class, education, or money the same thing? Why do you feel people should put you on a higher level then the people who work in daycare(who make crap with no benefits by the way), McDonalds, factories, etc.?

frusion...now that's what I'm talkin' about! You guys rock!

Pharm, where are those numbers from?

I'm with Bucky too. I work my A** off. It took me TEN YEARS to get my bachelors degree while raising a family and working full time. Then I come home from work everyday to see my neighbor standing in his driveway smoking and drinking yapping it up with his buds--NONE of which have worked in years. Somehow this deadbeat has figured the system out so he is never without. Again, while I work my rear off he is the same as me. So, schnckstac1 is that how you suggest it should be? Everyone is the same no matter how much effort one puts in to life? And as for the bum under the bridge, why the heck is that guy not working somewhere?? Wild Buffalo Wings is hiring, Perkins is hiring... Oh yah, for those of you that will say you can't make a living working menial low paying jobs like that of a restaurant isn't it better than NOTHING. Oh yah,schnckstac1 says we are all the same.
schnckstac1, can you clarify for me how we can all be the same when some people do NOTHING to help themselves or NOTHING to make themselves a contributor to society???

Bucky, I think you're thinking is right on. We need to be more focused on offering people a "hand up" as opposed to a "hand out".

"Right now I’m working with youth, hoping to motivate them to stay in school, go to college and work hard to get the things they want. But it’s hard when their families are modeling a totally different lifestyle and don’t see anything wrong with it."

Good for you, Buckyfan! That is definitely a noble challenge. Kudos!

"We must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight!! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left to us!...Why stand we here idle? What is it that the gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"..... BARACK OBAMA (lol!!!!)

Just the headline alone of this particular article should serve as a wake up call to everyone. Matthew is 100% right. We've got to rise up and get this thing right. Giving up isn't an option for sure. WE need to get back to principles and get this foundation back to being rock solid again before it crumbles beyond repair. Matthew, I'm with you.

toasty..problem is, we don't have 3 years! Look at the ripple effect of just 4 short months...! It's about the people. I'm not going to put everything on Obama, even though he's the supposed leader. I expected this much from him. I expect more out of myself and I would think if more people chose to raise the bar on themselves we could make some things happen. It's a collective effort, not a one man effort. Anyone who thinks that there's nothing they can do, I assure you, there is! We have no choice but to act. What's the alternative??

Well Obama, you just created more lower class people with your trillion dollar debt! Way to narrow the gap. Thank God you will be gone in three years!

Thank God the rich have Chuckles to speak up for them.

Sorry, United States.

Schnckstac1, while I admire your utopian ideals, I’m not sure what it will take to get us there. How do you motivate the unmotivated? Take Oprah, for example. She wanted to help the poor here in the United State, but when she asked them what they wanted, it was material things (shoes, electronics, etc.). That was one of the reasons she chose to build her school for girls in Africa.
---
I used to be one of the people who wanted to help the less fortunate in this country, but after watching them cheat the system, spend money on frivolity and model this pattern to their children, I’ve come to realize maybe the way to help our country is to actually take away some of the services or make it harder for people to get them. I know that sounds harsh, but we’ve somehow got to reeducate people that it’s through hard work that people get ahead. That doesn’t mean that I don’t help people anymore, but I’ve learned you can only help people who want to be helped (and it’s not always easy to find those people).
---
Right now I’m working with youth, hoping to motivate them to stay in school, go to college and work hard to get the things they want. But it’s hard when their families are modeling a totally different lifestyle and don’t see anything wrong with it.

Where did I say some are more important then others?

Wait, wait you do not just get free maternity leave money WITHOUT a job!!!! A friend of mine got that, and she was a hard working person who could afford EVERYTHING she had! Her job did not offer any benefits for this!! This was put in place for the WORKING people who have jobs at companies who cannot afford to give benefits. I think the max is $700 a month and it's 3 months. The only way to get 6 months is if there was a complication where it is needed.

It pays to be rich, the top 400 taxpayers in this country, averaging $240,000,000 a year, only pay a 24% tax rate because 58% of their income consists of capital gains. If Ryan`s budget had gone through, there would have been no capital gains taxes for at least two years. The top 1% of taxpayers would have gotten a $100,000 tax cut, and those in the $50,000 to $100,000 range would have seen their taxes go up.

So, in this case you justify playing the role of "God". I guess everyone has their justifications then, don't they. So, I don't think your posts on this topic have any depth to them as you just backtracked on your "why is one human life more sacred than another?" with this stance on abortion. Sorry, I can't take any of your posts seriously since you have qualifications yourself for some humans to be more sacred than others.

The only detail you need, only 2% make $250,000 or more.

Pharm-Can you back that up with detail?

I guess my biggest gripe is that we are paying people who may have never had a job in their lives, to have babies.
Wisconsin is now planning on offering PAID maternity leave for women. 6 months worth!
Pop out a kid, get a check.
So I work hard, save up to be a responsible parent. Other people can just sit at home all day, collect a check, get Section 8, food stamps, free medical.
All this time I was trying to be a responsible member of society by working and supporting myself. Seems like I'd be getting a better deal by not doing so. The insurance would be better than what I have now through my job.

I will answer you first by saying I am pro-life. But, I am also realistic. Abortion will never be banned in this country. I had to weigh my beliefs and I could not vote %100 on my beliefs on abortion. The rotten things I saw from McCain sickened me! I am pro-life, but I do believe in stem-cell research on what companies will throw away anyway. It is unrealistic to think that every unborn baby that is in a cooler could be born. Who do you suppose would take care of all of these babies? Until they make a law that says they can't throw them away as "medical waste" why shouldn't we try to use them to cure diseases?

Well the companies CEOs took them down and they were considered the leaders of the companies. now some one has to do something to help. And these companies want bail out money and that comes from the tax payers, so IMO we the people should call the shots as to who, what, and where. as it is the govs. decision as to the help and to give it to those who already destroyed the company would not make much sense; so get new fresh leaders in and if that means forcing people to step down then "so be it". It is our tax dollars bailing them out and I don't want the same greedy CEOs having the money I worked hard for lining their pockets as they did in the past.

Callitas, only 2% of small business will be affected by the tax changes for over $250,000.

well said mikki

Schnckstac1, I don't get it. You are saying that no one is God and no one should be able to decide who lives and who dies, yet you vote for a man who obviously believes that life in the womb is not worth protecting. The most vulnerable are the easiest to dispose of. How do you justify this? Especially with everything you are claiming in your posts? I am a Christian and you couldn't have paid me a million bucks to vote for this man. My conscience wouldn't have let me.

I agree that is up to one person himself!! So, why do we get to pick and choose who gets healthcare? That is what I mean by picking and choosing who lives. Just because someone has in OUR opinion screwed up their lives and not taken responsibility they do not have the right to live? WE are not God so, how is it that we have the right to decide who gets that right or not? Human life is human life, PERIOD!
I am not saying all the wealthy should be going out and motivating every unmotivated person. BUT, the idea that the poor are just looking for a free ride is not always true. What would happen if there weren't the "little people"? There has to be people at the bottom in order to have the little things we forget about. Yes, I do agree A LOT take advantage and that IS a problem. Balance is what I think Obama is talking about. Making the poor more responsible for their decisions and also the rich, it goes BOTH ways! If it weren't for the little people the rich wouldn't be rich AND if it weren't for the rich the poor wouldn't have some of the opportunities they have.
The judgements between the rich AND poor is what's causing the division in this country!

So, how do we actually do something? What do we do? Calling in doesn't seem to help. How will the government get our message that we are tired of the government overstepping their bounds. Does anyone have solid advice on what to do. Has anyone seen the video that's going around regarding sending in the teabag? What are practical, lawful and effective solutions to our problem? I, for one agree with weeds on this, something doesn't seem quite right with this administration. The question is, what are we going to do about it?

schnckstac1--I believe that you're living in an alternate reality:)--We don't get to pick and choose whose lives are worth more, that is up to the person themself. These aren't babies were talking about, these are adults. There's something called personal responsibility--and this country is lacking more and more of it as each generation develops. It never seems to be the less fortunate who are at fault because they lack the drive and ambition to get off their couches and do something with their lives. It's always the government's fault for supporting the wealthy, the fault of the wealthy for not being as giving as they are able, but never the fault of the people that don't want to get up and make a move or take a chance. Now you're telling me that those that have worked hard and have earned good jobs that are supposed to take time out and motivate and support those who don't have these same things? I don't think so. Having my tax dollars support welfare, Badgercare and food stamp programs is all the support I am able to give. The programs that I see Obama supporting--All I see them fostering is apathy.

Unfortunately there are few jet owning "wealthy people" who will be hurt in comparison to the small business people who will pay this bill. The jet set will buy a turbo prop or smaller jet instead but it is the plumbers, contractors, store owners etc. with 2-15 employees that will be hurt the most. They will be the ones not able to hire the next person or buy the capital to expand and grow the economy. If they want to start somewhere lets hit the Hollywood elite who wanted Obama, the Pitts/Jolie's the Travolta's with their many jets. They reap the benefits and do very little to truly add to GDP.

I understand that targeting the wealthy seems unfair. But, it's the wealthy that have the means to help. It's the wealthy (a lot, not all) that show they have no common sense with their big power kicks and big spending. If we want to pull this country back together it's the wealthy that are going to have to decide that expensive trips and private jets are less important then helping your fellow man. It's also the job of US less fortunate to strive to do more. The people who have worked hard should be pushing and ENCOURAGING the people that have slacked (without judgement) and the people who have slacked should be standing up and doing more!!! That's what I am understanding from what Obama means by fair! I didn't hear him say anyone should get everything for free!

To also add, the bum under the bridge deserves to live just as much as ANYONE! Human life is human life. We all fight for un-born babies, how is it that once they are born we get to pick and choose which one's lives are worth more?

I take a neutral approach to his administration at the moment. Although, dumping trillions of dollars into the economy with nothing backing it, let's just say there could be a negative effect down the road. For all you conspiracy people out there, here's a URL, one of many hundreds of videos that youtube hosts about the same subject. Personally, I'm not a crazed conspiracy theory guy but common sense dictates that something in this administration doesn't seem quite right, or isn't what it seems at face value. To be honest, I hope he pulls it off. If he can fix what's happened without totally blowing off the Constitution and micromanaging America's big business, we may have a chance even if it's slim. I certainly wouln't bet the farm on it just yet. Like they say, "Something that seems too good to be true..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwa...

Here is that 10-minute video about with wisdom of our Founding Fathers and the tragic flaw of democracy: http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

schnckstac1--I agree that one person is no better than another. Unfortunately, Obama seems to think otherwise. Why should the wealthier people be targeted? I think everyone deserves health care so long as they are a productive member of society or are disabled in some way. But I also think everyone should be taxed the same. Decide on what percentage of their income should be taxed and that's it across the board.

andre..no doubt! The fall of the Roman Empire.
Great post!

Correct! The U.S. was never intended to be a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. Democracy will always devolve into oligarchy. (Somewhere, I have a link to a great, short video explanation of this but haven't been able to find it.)

usaret - you hit the nail on the head!

Everyone...check out this article. It's exactly what is happening right now before our eyes! http://orrinwoodward.blogharbor.com/blog...

usaret~ correct, right off the cliff!

As long as Obama and the Liberals promise free this or that the sheep will follow.

schnck...well said.

"Nobody "deserves" free health care or a college education, these are things that you work for".....So, since when does a person have to have a great job (because those are the only ones with descent healthcare) to have the right to live??? Why is one human life MORE sacred then another? That is NOT christian, FAR from!!!! Education should be a right everyone has. I never heard Obama say he wants to give it away for free either. If I recall he just paid off his loans. Everyone should have the same chance to go!!!
I do not find THIS funny. What I find funny is how all the "well educated" people have run these companies into the ground and we're suppose to trust them. Yes, it is up to US, but how do you suppose anything will change with all the greed and the sense that one person is better then another? I recall that being a BIG part of Obama's beliefs! We all have to take responsibility for OUR lives and actions!
I come from a family of "money" and it's awful how money blinds people to what is really important! I spent half my life wishing I came from a family that had more love then money! I do not feel entitled to anything but common respect without judgement (regardless of how much I have in the bank).

fool on the hill, I apologize, disregard that last comment. I misunderstood you. Forgive me.

fool on the hill......turn CNN off. You're badly mistaken.

I don't know what the solution here is, but, I do know that there are some professions that definitely should be paid more, and, some that should be paid less. For example, social workers make very, very little money and are entrusted with a job that makes them lose sleep, risk being sued, and, holds HUGE responsibility. However, you can make more money at Taco Bell. I don't know that it is the government's place to be a "modern day RObin Hood", but, we, as a country, should want to pay certain professions more than what the are making.

This socialism fear mongering is a red herring. That ship sailed decades ago, exacerbated most recently by Medicare Part-D, thanks in no small part to the efforts of so-called conservatives in power at the time.

The threat to freedom is from the power of government, regardless of which political party or alleged political ideology happens to be wielding it. The purpose of a Constitution is to limit the power of government. We need to start defending our and, if necessary, amend it.

I didn't know the President could just go into a company and fire people.
Guess I am ignorant.

I'm very concerned! Even if you don't agree with charles Krauthammer you have to see the logic in what he is talking about! If you don'e just listen to Obama's speech this morning over there at the G20. he talked about globalism and that it was our fault(usa) that the economy is the way it is over the world!!!and that we are going to change everything here to help out the rest of the world! Now I'm all for helping a brother in need but only if I choose. He is touting Socialism and everyone is cheering!!! I don't get it!

Schnckstac1--your posts are too funny:) That's the problem with society today--There is this insane sense of entitlement. It's irritating to see these people that truly believe they shouldn't have to work for anything. Nobody "deserves" free health care or a college education, these are things that you work for......FWIW I consider myself a Christian and a decent human being--and I definitely do NOT support Obama's policies:) Thanks for listening!!!!

schnckstck..who said anything about CEO's? What's wrong with people like you and I stepping up? Bitter or better man! You find humor in all of this and that's somewhat concerning.

I suppose you are right, we could leave it to all of the compassionate non-greedy CEOs of this country. I mean really, they seem so much more trust worthy!!!! LMAO!!!!

It's not up to Obama to clean this mess up! It's up to US, the people of this country to get off our duffs and do it ourselves! Why is everyone so content just watching things happen as opposed to making things happen? This country has gotten lazy. We've been spoiled rotten and now when it comes time to actually fight for something, like our COUNTRY'S future, everyone is putting it all on Obama like he's God! Give me a freakin' break people.

Isn't he tryin to make the companies responsible for themselves and helping them more then what he should? I mean if we went with the theory that people who do nothing don't deserve anything then shouldn't the ones who got greedy also get nothing? Yes, he is trying to fix a lot, yes, it is scary, but there is NO perfect way to fix the mess all the "hard working citizens" have left him. He is trying to give companies a new foundation to stand on and trusting them to do what is right by America. Of course it is not a game. I am trusting that he doesn't think so either. He seems to have more compassion then any president I've seen.

AMERICA, have we lost our minds?!!
WHY are we letting the government take over the direction and leadership of our private industry?
WHY do these bureaucrats think they have the authority? I certainly can't find it in any of our founding documents!
WHY do they think they are qualified? I have never seen such arrogance in my entire life!
Let me see, the government causes much of what's going on in this bad economy because of their insane economic policies. Then they say they are going to "bail us out" with even more lunatic economic policies. When this makes matters worse, and the very industries that have won us our freedom in past wars and have generated long-term jobs and lifestyle for MILLIONS of Americans, are dying on the vine because of it, then they DARE dictate terms to the struggling companies?
This is like shooting a father and taking over his family because he is unfit to provide for them!
Has anybody read Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand? It's just as she predicted. Only it hurts more when it's not fictitous, and you see freedom being murdered in real life.
As spoken by Rand's government crony purchasing manager to the industrial magnate hero: "No Mr. Reardon, it's one or the other. Either you're good at running the mills, or you're good at running to Washington."
It's one or the other, folks: bigger freedom, or bigger government.
The two cannot co-exist!!!!!

One man can't clean it up! That's the problem! Obama is trying to play God all of the sudden! He's totally not living up to his talk on election night. As much as I have and still do differ with his policies, I made a commitment to stand behind the guy because I love this country and I chose to respect the leader of my country. What's happening in a very short time since he's taken office is turning into a horror story. I'm not bitter, I'm fearful. This aint no game.

I second that!!! It took years of "hard working men" to screw it up. It isn't going to take a few months for one man to clean it up!!

How sad, people read this and think the only hard work done in this country is done by those that make big money. What would happen if everyone went to college and everyone had "great" jobs? Who would be left to take care of all the "dirty" work?
The idea that people deserve more and are far better people just because they have big money (not everyone who has it has worked their a*# off!) is awful. Everyone deserves to go to the doctor and be treated and everyone deserves to go to school! The idea that one human life is more important than the other in not only borderline evil, it is against everything I thought this country has already established?
I am behind Obama!!! I would hope anyone who claims to be a Christian and/or a descent person would be also.

localboy~ You got that right! Obama did a wonderful job charming the pants off this nation and I'll be the first to admit, I was never a huge fan of his from day one. However, I bought into the vision like everyone else and gave him the benefit of the doubt because I truly felt his words on election night during his acceptance speach were exactly what America needed to hear and he spoke like a leader. Here's where character comes into play. His actions are NOT backing up those words. Again, this country is collapsing before our eyes because we have no leadership and we're teetering on the abyss of socialism. We need MEN to step up and start leading before it's all gone. I volunteer!

Can you say Socialism???

Here we go again, Krauty touting class warfare and knee jerk conservatism through his polysyllabic drool.

"In fact, we are now so deep into government intervention that constitutional objections are summarily swept aside."

Therein lies our real problem. It is not a partisan issue.

It makes total sense. Take from those that spent their lives risking everything, sacrificing their time and energy to build businesses that, if they failed, would leave these people in a world of hurt. After they have made it the government steps in and tells them, "thanks, but you don't really deserve all that you have worked so hard for--there are a lot of people that just sat back and coasted and they don't have as much as you, so we're going to take it from you and give it to them......." Seriously, what is this country evolving into?? It really is sad......