"Help for thousand of needy people in this country"
-As if that's ever been a priority to the GOP as they make up their lies about the funding that went to Solyndra. If hungry people mattered so much they wouldn't vote to keep giving $4 billion in tax payer funded subsidies to the oil companies. Oh that's right. The new presumptive VP nominee has holdings in four companies that lease land to oil companies. And he's the budget committee chair and as crooked as they come. Spare me the empty rhetoric about hungry people. Democrats have pushed for more assistance to those in need while the GOP threatens to cut programs that feed innocent children. In the long run research and development of green energy may just keep more people from going hungry.

"What's one half a billion dollar loan to Solyndra"
-
Help for thousand of needy people in this country, but I guess the scheme for green energy is more deserving.

Another notch in the failures of green energy funded by our govt, this company has been losing so much money they are now working with a Chinese company...so much for keeping our tax payer funded stimulus in this country.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/a123-posts...

Another notch on the oil lobby's bed post. I'm pretty sure the oil industry is the "Bank of Washington's" #1 customer. Without all that tax payer money used to pay lobbyists, I wonder if the oil industry would actually have to play fair. Isn't it interesting how the government pays the oil industry to hire people to convince the government to legislate in favor of the oil industry. Favorable legislation AND cash? What a deal! Now that's what America is all about! What's one half a billion dollar loan to Solyndra when we've been giving the oil industry 4 billion dollars a year for years and years that they don't even need? There's no way that Congress is going to vote to stop the oil subsidies, so why not try to level the playing field a little bit at least? Yes, there will be clunkers along the way. Nature of the beast. If we've got billions to put a research robot on Mars, why not continue developoing green energy here on Earth?

More proof of wasted govt spending, "Solyndra Revelations Show It’s Time to Close the “Bank of Washington”"

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/08/06/morn...

Ezoner,
First, let me say that it's always a pleasure reading you get your rear end handed to you over and over again. Thank you for continually setting yourself up for Poobah to tear you apart. That kind of stuff makes my day.
Second, while I may agree with that "perverted logic", as you call it, those are not my words. That is a quote from an extremely successful businessman who had one of the earliest stakes in Amazon. Clearly you missed the quotation marks and the gentleman's name, Nick Hanauer, after the quote.
Just wanted to clear that up. Now, please, as you were.

That's a wonderful fairy tale you've concocted, Ezoner, but it doesn't at all address the comment you previously made that I corrected.

You then go on to say, "Employees are assets/capital. I wasnt speaking in terms of how they are treated on the balance sheet. That is just how they are treated from a finance perspective. They are assets, and assets can and do depreciate unless they are invested in. Training is the investment, insurance (for health) is an investment by the company in that perishable asset."

You were speaking about employees from a tax/accounting perspective and you are STILL speaking about employees from a tax/accounting perspective. They are not an asset and the costs of employees is not capitalized or depreciated. Training and insurance are not assets, they also are expensed and they are not depreciated.

You obviously have never run a corporation.

Poo -- the money has been taxed -- the money you pay for goods -- comes out of your earnings and has been taxed as income. That money is then used to buy products. Assume you personal tax rate is 15%. So out of every $1 you keep $.85 That $1 was taxed. You now take the $.85 to buy a ballon ... The Ballon cost $.40 and the ballon Man. made a profit of $.45 If you tax that profit -- You are taxing the same $1 again. I realize what the courts and IRS says... but thats simply wrong. Its the same $1. Out of the base cost, $.20 cents is used to pay employees, which is a portion of wages and it is then taxed again. The cash is continually circulating and is taxed over and over again.

Employees are assets/capital. I wasnt speaking in terms of how they are treated on the balance sheet. That is just how they are treated from a finance perspective. They are assets, and assets can and do depreciate unless they are invested in. Training is the investment, insurance (for health) is an investment by the company in that perishable asset.

Ezoner said, "That the money that businesses are taxed has already been taxed as personal income, its not new money -- its already been taxed as income so taxation of profits only takes away from additional business investment in capital/assests."

That's simply not correct. Profits that corporations (and not S Corporations that pay no corporate taxes) are taxed on have NOT been taxed as personal income. Employee expenses (compensation, benefits, employer taxes) are business expenses that REDUCE corporate profits and taxes.

Ezoner said, "EMployees are both -- capital and assets ... Get a freakin clue -- read a book"

Since you have stated that within a tax/accounting context, employees are NEITHER capital or assets. Employee expenses (compensation, benefits, employer taxes) appear on the P&L sheet and are not capitalized on the Balance sheet. There are many excellent books to help you understand the difference between expensed and capitalized costs.

Poo -- I didnt think I needed to produce a 10,000 page document like for the destroy health care bill called Obamacare.

My intent -- hopefully you understand that -- is that you should not increase the tax rates on capital gains. That the money that businesses are taxed has already been taxed as personal income, its not new money -- its already been taxed as income so taxation of profits only takes away from additional business investment in capital/assests. EMployees are both -- capital and assets ... Get a freakin clue -- read a book -- you guys are so St&**(&p

Ezoner said, "The government has no role in this process -- none. The government should not penalize those that take these risks, generate the ideas, products and services, nor should they ask them to pay more than a typical comsumer. They should actually provide incentives to those that generate the ideas and services, to promote additional investment."

Boy, talk about self-contradiction and inaccuracy of facts. In the first breath you say government has no role in this process. Then you proceed to go on to explain just some of the roles the government has in the process. As if that isn't enough, you go on to suggest other ways in which the government could be involved in the process - ways which they currently are involved with tax policy, grants and subsidies.

Walter -- your logic is perverted.
The sequence is that entrepreneurs and inventors develop ideas and products to serve a need or a requirement. The products they create are goods and services. They take risks -- generally based upon THIER OWN needs and a belief that there will be a market. They then test and take risk, risk assumed soley on their credit worthiness and the proven idea or product marketability. Those ideas, products and or services, require employees......

There are many factors that affect whether consumers see value in the products or services and whether the cost/price ratio makes good business sense for growth and expansion.

The government has no role in this process -- none. The government should not penalize those that take these risks, generate the ideas, products and services, nor should they ask them to pay more than a typical comsumer. They should actually provide incentives to those that generate the ideas and services, to promote additional investment.

Its these simple concepts that progressives just do not understand.

Walter @ 2:34 PM, Aug 2. Spoken like a true Keynesian. My link earlier points to many other economic theories, all as valid as yours.

If you can't provide real evidence to back up your statements, that's all you have to say. Nobody's moving the "goal posts". They're only farther away because you keep running away from them. You could cut & paste for hours & hours from the comments section of every article on this website. What would that prove about typical liberal ideology? I think you're aware of the small sample size you'd be working with.

Walter stated the following in the game of moving goal posts, "Please come up with something better than a couple of blog comments". Sadly walter no matter the remark you have shown that it fails your shifting objective...

yes zoom, they are very good at believing what they are told... they don't have time to think.....

"That's why I can say with confidence that rich people don't create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is a 'circle of life' like feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle of increasing demand and hiring. In this sense, an ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than a capitalist like me.
Anyone who's ever run a business knows that hiring more people is a capitalists course of last resort, something we do only when increasing customer demand requires it. In this sense, calling ourselves job creators isn't just inaccurate, it's disingenuous."
-Nick Hanauer, venture capitalist & first non-family investor in Amazon.com

QUOTE "Let’s be honest the rich don’t make jobs. Hiring people for the wealthy is an act of last resort! You know it, I know it and anyone with any sense knows it." END QUOTE
So says you, however many with "any sense" appear to disagree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroeconom...

Don't hurt yourself, Oblamer. Backpedalling can be dangerous. Make sure you wear your helmet.

Third_eye: Really if the wealthy are taxed at the same rate as they were under Clinton then there will be no jobs? How does that work. Let’s be honest the rich don’t make jobs. Hiring people for the wealthy is an act of last resort! You know it, I know it and anyone with any sense knows it. Sorry but if we give all the money to the rich we won’t have any jobs. And the Romney tax plan is just that to give money out of the pockets of the middle class and give it directly to the wealthy in the form of more tax cuts. That does not create jobs remember supply and demand! If there is no one to buy products there is no demand and if there is no demand there is no growth. But keep your head in the sand and keep kissing up to the top class but remember they done give a hoot about you or your wellbeing! Let’s give every red cent to the wealthy and see how many jobs are created! That is the same argument that is used about raising taxes you guys say raising taxes will cut all job growth and hell we have cut taxes so far that the wealthy usually pay less than their secretaries but let’s take it one step further give it all to the wealthy “job creators” and see how crappy we can make our economy. Oh and your beloved Romney is a real patriotic American made his money destroying companies in this country and shipped the jobs away for a profit and then shipped his money out of this country to tax havens, that is your vision of a patriotic American? Pathetic!

"Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Obama was talking about roads and bridges, not businesses. Apparently, the right wing sheeple choose to beleive what they want.

Oblamer,
Still waiting to hear your exact plans about starting with the liberals when it comes to population control. You ignored me when I asked about it before. You're not a coward, are you?

You can pick whichever word you like, RAF. "Typical" or "all". You've still proven nothing. Please explain how you've proven that the "typical" liberal wants to control how others live, spend money and worship. Please come up with something better than a couple of blog comments. One would think that you have become weary of embarrassing yourself at this point.

You've yet to prove your claims that government spending on green energy is a waste. Market equilibrium and planning for future energy are clearly a necessity given the government assisted stranglehold that fossil fuels (primarily oil) have on the energy market and the clearly limited amount supply of fossil fuels in the planet.
To your point specifically, RAF, here is a quote from you on the topic:
"A large portion of the stimulus was wasted on pet projects,for campaign donors, in green energy that turned out to be a HUGE waste."
Your claim against the current administration that stimulus money was being funnelled directly to green energy projects backed by Obama campaign donors turned up primarily in a Romney camapaign ad and was proven to be false. If you want to debate the merits of green energy investment by the government, I'm happy to oblige. If you want to use talking points from campaign ads that have already been disproven, I will call you out.

The untenability of a position is exposed by relying on a question as an example of how "liberals, as part of their idealogy, tell other people." Questions seek, not assert, information.

Government lending programs are often made to be the scapegoat for the housing crisis (and overall financial downturn) by many on the right. Most of that's just a smoke screen. Though they were engaged in some clearly risky practices (like all banks), Fannie & Freddie loans performed better and were less risky than loans securitized by Wall Street banks that were much less regulated. In 2006 almost 85% of subprime mortgages came from private lending institutions not Fannie or Freddie. And as far as insuring subprime mortgages, Fannie and Freddie were decreasing the amount on their books before the crisis really took hold. By 2006 they were only insuring about a quarter of all subprime loans. It's also important to remember that Fannie and Freddie were government sponsored enterprises. They weren't in business to fail, so they weren't immune to competitive pressure from the market. When large private banks were going headlong in to subprime mortgage backed securities, the GSEs had to play the same game to a certain extent to remain competitive. It wasn't Fannie or Freddie's responsibility nor was it in their best interest if they wanted to remain viable to develop a crystal ball to see what was coming. Even in banking, it's pretty much standard practice to assume that the banks aren't in business to bankrupt themselves. Ultimately, the Federal Reserve did determine that GSEs had no real impact on the subprime debacle.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?a...
-
http://fcic.law.stanford.edu/report/
-
http://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_...

So in walter world talk about tax returns, clearly from campaign ads, has nothing to do with campaign ads while talk of wasted govt funding for green energy can only be from campaign ads and must be ignored. Then again "I'm sure you consider helping kids that would otherwise go to bed hungry a bad investment especially if you happen to hear it in a campaign ad at some point"....

So much for the faux claims of meat on the bone. As soon as you want to live by one of your claims let me know.

"So that's your unequivocal proof that all liberals want to control how all people live their lives, spend their money and worship their gods?"
-
Moving the goal posts after your point was shown false? I never said all, I said typical. The fact is I backed my position rather easily by JUST two comments made in this comment section. Yet now you CLAIM I could ONLY find two....keep moving the posts, just let me know when you are done.

Also, it's not a surprise that you clearly can't tell the difference between an issue manufactured for a campaign ad (the comment by President Obama that was taken completely out of context that the above article revolves around) & an actual issue (there's nothing being taken out of context when Romney says that he's released all the tax returns he's going to release). The difference is vast yet you fail to see it...or pretend not to. I prefer to dabble in the side of politics that is less obfuscatory. I want there to be meat on the bone so there's something to discuss.

So that's your unequivocal proof that all liberals want to control how all people live their lives, spend their money and worship their gods?
I feel pretty comfortable in saying that when you can only back up your statements with 2 comments (that have nothing to do with what you claimed by the way) from a comments section of a newspaper, you've failed to meet your burden of proof. It's not really surprising, though, considering the sweeping (and ignorant) generalizations being made in your claims.

lol

"Or is it that your church believes that God's teachings don't apply beyond American borders?"

The purpose of the question mark in that sentence, as is a common practice in the English language, was to make the sentence a question and not a statement.

"The tax return issue is not a campaign ad lift in the slightest."
-
It's not?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMo5pykT4...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chX2VKwq0...

Walter stated "...collateralized debt obligations and fancy market trickery with derivatives all for the noble goal of making large amounts of money at an incredibly fast rate for people that were already filthy rich."
-
Ignorance of the govt role in driving demand for mortgages, via purchases mandated by policy of fannie and freddie, inflated prices that created the run (bubble). Your attempt to blame the "filthy" rich falls more toward your liberal talking points not to mention, in your own words, an immature way out of the exchange.

Walter uttered "Your claims were that liberals, as part of their idealogy, tell other people how to spend their money, what Gods to worship and so on and so on. There's nothing factually accurate about those claims, therefore invalidating them as topics worth debating."
-
Wow! How do you go through life with your head so far in the sand? Here are JUST two examples from this series of comment section that deflate your wild claim.

1)" the right is too busy hiding their money in oversea banks and using slave labor in a foreign land to realize how great this country and its workforce is. Perhaps if they love this country they wouldn't hide their money and move employment to other places."

2)"Or is it that your church believes that God's teachings don't apply beyond American borders?"

mespl Aug 1, 2012 at 12:49 p.m.
QUOTE" The fact of the matter is do you want to be a rich guy living in a rich country paying your fair share of taxes." END QUOTE
Fair share as defined by the democrats is paying a larger percentage than others. In that scenario you would be a sub-rich guy living in a country without jobs.
I posted this earlier but it addresses some of your issues.
In the same speech President Obama said, "...I want you (the rich) to keep a big chunk of that..."
Wow, he wants you to keep a chunk of YOUR OWN MONEY.
However, he wants a chunk too.
Why? because you (the rich) used the roads, bridges, firemen, and policemen. Were they somehow better for you than for the guy who works the 8 to 5 and lives comfortably (middle class)?
Did you somehow 'take more' from the infrastructure than the middle class guy?
No, but your reward for working hard, getting ahead, and employing the middle class guy is to pay more than the others.

Here is the point, if you own a business you did not do that ALL on your own! Yes you had an idea and put time into it. But you also had help from government in the form of roads and bridges to move your products. The electric companies and water companies you use are subsidized by the government! The police and fire which are provided to protect your investment are paid for by the government. You might have gotten government loans, the moron on the Mitt Romney TV ad got government loans and government contracts but he also thinks he did it all on his own. You also didn’t create your business without your employees! Furthermore you had people who are in society who made enough money to be able to afford the product you make. Yes you had help, you had luck, and you also had hard work and an idea. But to say you did it on your own and to belittle the help that our society and government has given you is a fallacy and you all know it! The fact of the matter is do you want to be a rich guy living in a rich country paying your fair share of taxes or do you want to be a rich guy in a poor country because that is the direction we are going in this race to the bottom!

Just noticed an actual point you made about government intervention in the housing market being the cause for government intervention to try to balance the housing market. Yes, deregulation of the financial industry, namely the repeal of Glass Steagall under Pres Clinton, was the type of government intervention that led to sub prime mortgage CDO's, large investment bank initiated predatory lending at the local mortgage lending level, and credit default swaps (among other practices within derivatives markets that were legally dubious) that all led to the growth of a housing bubble and the eventual bursting of that bubble. When the government has made such a monumental mistake in deregulation such as in this example, the government owes it to the American people to try to make amends. Keeping some people in their homes was a way of doing that especially since your typical mortgage borrower had nothing to do with subprime mortgage collateralized debt obligations and fancy market trickery with derivatives all for the noble goal of making large amounts of money at an incredibly fast rate for people that were already filthy rich.

Your claims were that liberals, as part of their idealogy, tell other people how to spend their money, what Gods to worship and so on and so on. There's nothing factually accurate about those claims, therefore invalidating them as topics worth debating.
Here's the post in its entirety:

"Typical liberal, instead of fixing the problems, you just want to spend more money...except when your to busy trying to tell others how to lead their life, spend their money, or what religion to have or not. Pathetic bunch."
That was your response to my point about balancing markets. What content worth debating do you see in that? It's just a bunch of blanket generalizations that have no meaning whatsoever. You gave no examples. No source material.
This does happen every so often with you, RAF. You act as though you are really not getting the point when I truly believe that you do. If it's a fun game for you, cool. I'm glad you're amused. If you truly don't get it, oh well I guess.

LOL, it is a valid topic just like every topic I brought up. Yet your only retort is silly claims they came from campaign ads. Typical do as I say not as I do....pathetic.

The tax return issue is not a campaign ad lift in the slightest. It's a legitimate issue considering the standard practice over the last 40 years or so of presidential candidates releasing at least a decade's worth of their tax returns in the interest of transparency. It's a tradition that started long before MSNBC existed contrary to what you might believe. If a candidate's transparency is not important to you, that's all you have to say. That's how you can stay on topic and debate the content of my post. Just a little pointer for ya....free of charge. You're welcome.

"Don't give me any garbage rhetoric lifted from a campaign ad or some shock jock bluster meant to do nothing but offend"
-
Another example walter. You claim others do but your harpings over tax returns are the same thing, right from the dem party line and off the mouths of the spoke puppets of MSNBC...but then again others shouldn't do things that you do on a consistent basis.

If you want to debate ideas then stick to them and stop your mindless claims others shouldn't be doing things you do...hypocrite.

Kid, I fully understand all humans do it to some degree, regardless of political leanings. For me, the problem arises when others tell people what to or not to do and then do the same thing. This falls outside any claims to debate based on ideas and just falls into small-minded arrogant conduct.

'Walter exposing your hypocrisy, much the same as many on your side of the political spectrum have'

RAF: You don't REALLY believe that hypocrisy is only on one side of the political spectrum??

RAF,
I continue to be willing to debate differing views on federal subsidies. I felt the exchange was rather interesting until you unexpectedly decided to run for the hills by accusing all liberals of telling others how to live their lives, spend their money, etc. All of that nonsense just seemed like an immature way out of the exchange. If you're done debating, just say so. I tell ya what, if you spent as much time refining your views as you do hacking up other people's posts so you can cut and paste them into some woe-is-me-my-feelings-are-hurt sob story, we might actually get some where in these blog discussions. Good god man. This has pot and kettle written all over it. People get on your case all the time about your harsh tone with other posters, and now you want to start cryin' about mine? I attack people for having no substance to their post(s). Right or wrong, have some actual content that others can look into further to see if your points hold water. Don't give me any garbage rhetoric lifted from a campaign ad or some shock jock bluster meant to do nothing but offend (I'm looking at you Oblamer). Words that are a little caustic never really hurt anyone especially if there's some real substance to the context in which they're being used.

Walter -- keep cheering for Obama -- It just like the tee shirt says...........

1 Million people were at Obamas Inauguration. Only 14 missed work that day.

Walter exposing your hypocrisy, much the same as many on your side of the political spectrum have, when it comes to "do as I say not as I do" is enlightening and entertaining. The only thing better is watching the excuses people come up with when called for it...priceless.

Yes, I WalterReuther said all of those things, and I stand behind them 100%, all in the interest of spirited debate. There's nothing wrong with getting a little heated, nothing wrong with taking the gloves off every now and again. It's a far cry from a spineless retreat such as this:
"Typical liberal, instead of fixing the problems, you just want to spend more money...except when your to busy trying to tell others how to lead their life, spend their money, or what religion to have or not. Pathetic bunch."
That was the entire post. I didn't have to chop it up to cut & paste the parts I need to make my disingenuous point. That was it.
This is what a certain someone does when you try to have a more nuanced and in depth (and, yes, sometimes a bit lively) inspection of their take on something like federal subsidies. They basically turn tail and run.
RAF, you do realize that that long cut & paste whine fest of a post is little more than kindergarten style tattling, right? Ooooooh. Look what HEEE did. I'm telling.
Seriously. Grow up, and if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Today's dose of left wing hypocrisy. The poster that provided this little nugget, "OK...so, just more empty rhetoric that does nothing more than stereotype? Is that your idea of spirited debate?", also said the following.

-Romney's painfully awkward stumble around the globe continues. Insult the British. Check. Proclaim Jewish culture superior to Palestinian culture. Check. Reenforce the offensive stereotype that links Jewish people and money.
Check. Who's ready for some Polish jokes?

-" now that the oil industry has been given the keys to the kingdom, now is the time to cut all subsidies off."

-"I doubt it's a subject that you were any good at in school considering all your information seems to come from right wing commentators and Ted Nugent."

-"I would really love for you to elaborate on this, but I'm willing to bet that you don't have the stones. You're probably messing your shorts at the very thought of having to stand behind your own words."

-"More information lifted entirely from campaign ads. Do some real work, why don't ya?

-"Romney should be happy to copy no one other than than the originator of the practice, his father. George Romney was an honorable man and politician who spear headed what would become a great tradition focused on political transparency." ----[My Edit]What makes this so funny, this is exactly what is coming from MSNBC and the DNC, a classic.-----

-"it's clear that those that take their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent have spoken. Perhaps when you learn to read and stop relying on others to tell you what to think, you live a much happier, healthier life. You certainly might still end up voting Republican, but at least you'll actually know why."

-" People like Romney & Walker will rail against President Obama's sentiments until they need money for things like the Olympics or drought relief from the taxpayers. All of a sudden, they realize that it really does take a village."

This is just another example of a typical liberal playing the do as I say not as I do game they have tried so hard to master...pure hilarity.

Walter your facts are devoid of substance and truthfulness. If you want to talk of the housing market and make wild claims, like people were allowed to stay due to govt spending, the least you could do is also state the reason most housing became overinflated was also due to the same govt intervention. Willful ignorance over what helped create the original problem by thinking govt helped a few stay in their homes after the collapse shows your faulty bias pretending spending is always the answer while sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the problems. Too bad your analytical skills stop with other’s grammar, while ignoring your own and everything else relevant.

More picking winners and losers based on how much money was donated to campaign funds.
Pentagon says we've got hundreds more tanks than we need. Congress says you'll take more and like it. Tax payers get to pay for those unnecessary tanks.
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/201...

"And who might that somebody else be? Government, says Obama."
.
Just like the 600 million of federal money and 1.1 billion of tax payer money(infrastructure) that went to the 2002 olympics that Rmoney wants to take credit for.

OK...so, just more empty rhetoric that does nothing more than stereotype? Is that your idea of spirited debate? Anyway, I guess I'll continue on with actual points while you spout meaningless nonsense that you heard from Rush or one of his equally disgusting minions.
Just look at the housing market. Sure, a lot of people went into foreclosure, but many were allowed to stay in their homes because the government spent money to help push that market back toward equilibrium. The government's job is not to control markets, but to guide them when things get dangerously out of whack. The difference is not really all that subtle, but it doesn't surprise me in the least that the concept goes over your head.
Also, you should've used "you're" and "too" rather than "your" and "to".

Y'all "vote", now, 'Y hear?

I'm sure there are lot of belly-laughs inside the beltway over all the stupid people who think the "R"s and "D"s are all that different.
I do have to admit, they really make a good show.

Typical liberal, instead of fixing the problems, you just want to spend more money...except when your to busy trying to tell others how to lead their life, spend their money, or what religion to have or not. Pathetic bunch.

Oh, yes, now that the oil industry has been given the keys to the kingdom, now is the time to cut all subsidies off. Brilliant approach. Talk about picking winners and losers. Clearly your displeasure with that practice was pure posturing.
Also, what the hell is "dept"?

Stopping all subsides is the sane and fiscal responsible approach. Yet those on your side see spending more money on other subsides as the way to "level" the playing field. Is it any wonder our country is so far in dept.

When it comes to our future energy needs AND the current energy market in which one industry has so clearly gamed the system, yes, I believe the government should step in to help push the market back toward equilibrium. The other option, the status quo, allows competition to be held at bay through government favor of one industry (which I thought you were not in favor of) until we get to a point where oil starts becoming scarce and the government would have to infuse astronomically high amounts of money into alternative energy. It might still be too late at that point anyway.

LOL, so in your eyes all should get tax payer money to balance things out. You fit in perfect with your kind.

RAF stated
"The first inventors of the light bulb did so without needing huge handouts from tax payers, exactly how inventions and great ideas should be done."
Your short sightedness comes from the fact that you don't realize, or at least won't recognize, the factors inhibiting invention and development in today's market. Lobbying in Washington allows industries with large amounts of money to stamp out potential competition in myriad ways: federal subsidies that can be used to fund anything from advertising campaigns either for or against a specific industry, "research" that "proves" the viability of one industry over another (example, the oil industry uses federal funding to back research attempting to disprove climate change influenced by humans), influencing members of congress to push for more regulation of fledgling industries to make it more difficult for them to get a market foothold, similar congressional influence to prevent any sort of federal subsidies for possible competitors.
The inventors of the lightbulb never had to contend with a hired goon squad (aka lobbyists & Congress) working to hold them back and hindering the advancement of their work. That's why they were able to flourish with their own money along with that of their investors. Even now whatever lobbying alternative energy industries can afford pales in comparison to that of a behemoth like big oil. Sometimes it takes a forward thinking President to realize that the playing field is severely tilted in favor of those who have already won so that any challengers begin at more of disadvantage than the market should allow. So, yes, federal money is sometimes lost on what looks like a failed investment, but what is really happening is that the attempt is being made to level the playing field so that real competition can once again occur. That is an investment that we should all be able to get behind. But if you don't see it that way, vote for the other guy. He's all for tweaking the system so that it unfairly guarantees that those that have won will never even have to face another challenger ever again.

RAF stated,
"Well I guess you can't read."
-
I guess you can't either or you just really never stopped to ponder the idea of balancing the market through other subsidies when one industry has already clearly been favored over another.

Miltonlib: Wow! Are we a little more than pretentious? Wrong spelling or improper tense negates the whole message?
I'm sure an English teacher would find errors galore in most posts.
If I get the point of a post, minor spelling and grammar errors are not an issue. Most of us post 'on the run' and time is an issue.
But hey, thanks for the view from your ivory tower.
Caution: This post may contain errors.

Walter stated another false blah blah blah.."Doesn't seem to bother you when it comes to oil subsidies."
-
Well I guess you can't read.

Walter stated ". If everyone was so shortsighted as you we wouldn't even have lightbulbs. Do you think that we should start working toward alternative energy only when the world's oil reserves are completely exhausted?"
-
Wow walter still tossing ludicrous claims out, I thought the one over remarks on starving kids ended your games...guess not.

The first inventors of the light bulb did so without needing huge handouts from tax payers, exactly how inventions and great ideas should be done. These ideas then survive based solely on their viability in the market and not based on presence created by public funding.

Nothing is keeping you or anyone else from creating new ideas over power generation, in "green" or other areas, if you or they want. When tax dollars are used to facilitate these wasted efforts it is the responsibility of all who pay taxes to resist more wasted funding, just like all other subsides.

Just because you "feel good" over an idea does not make it a good one or an idea that I or my neighbors should fund.

You made you great & I made you great & Obama made you great & Romney made you great & we all made you great. I made me great & you made me great & Obama made me great & Romney made me great & we all made me great. I've listened to Obama AND Romney enough to know without question that they BOTH agree with those sentiments.

I find that spelling or typing words correctly is of vital importance in conveying the point of a message. An incorrectly spelled word catches my attention and takes away from the overall message the writer is trying to convey. Though there are MANY more right-wingers that comment here, it's interesting that you'll find far, far more words spelled wrong in the right-wing comments. Hey everyone, the word is "their". It's possessive. They aren't "thier" policies and they aren't "there" policies. Mitt Romney's iPhone app cover page said, "A BETTER AMERCIA". I'm sure most would agree that shows a clear lack of caring and attention to detail. It's clear that compassionate progressives surely care more about how THEIR message is read. This indicates to me a higher level of caring about what THEIR message says, and THEIR education. You right-wing, tea party folks can say whatever you want (and you surely do), but just know that all of your spelling mistakes do make your comments read like those of an idiot who has no access to dictionary.com or a working brain. Now carry on crazies. As you were.

RAF stated
"I am all for ALL to be done with no subsides as picking one over the other is not how the market should or work."
Doesn't seem to bother you when it comes to oil subsidies. If you do find oil subsidies to be equally insidious, I'd be interested to read your assessment of the market impact caused by billions upon billions in tax payer funded subsidies being handed over to the oil industry. Might have something to do with the near complete inviability of alternative energy investment, no? Wouldn't subsidies to alternative energy just be a measure to right the ship after all the years of clearly favoring one industry over the other? What's wrong with attempting to achieve a little equilibrium especially when the health of our planet AND our future energy needs are on the line?

Understood, and when we get to a point where the balance can shift to where fossil fuels are being used merely for the production of energy storage and the storage itself rather than all of that AND the production of the energy itself, then we'll be moving in the right direction. At that point the research and development of green mining and energy storage can begin. It's important to keep thinking in the long term, actually, the extreme long term. This planet is warming extremely fast probably due to both natural and man made factors. Anything we can do to lessen our impact on the Earth will lengthen the time that it allows humans to keep living on it. If everyone was so shortsighted as you we wouldn't even have lightbulbs. Do you think that we should start working toward alternative energy only when the world's oil reserves are completely exhausted?

Walter stated " I'm sure you consider helping kids that would otherwise go to bed hungry a bad investment especially if you happen to hear it in a campaign ad at some point. "
-
Well if your sure than it must be true, right? Typical liberal...

Walter stated "Whatever mining needs to be done in order to support alternative energy pales in comparison to fossil fuels."
-
This is another example of your failed thought process. Mining is done USING fossil fuels. The batteries for many hybrids have mining done in canada, then shipped to another country for processing, then to another country for more processing/building, and then shipped to the end country in a car; all done by fossil fuel.

Solar and wind energies need to have storage to be a truly viable solution and all the storage products will be made using fossil fuels.

Your declaration that hydrogen is not economical is correct when compared with market prices for normal energy, just like wind and solar would be if not for subsides. I am all for ALL to be done with no subsides as picking one over the other is not how the market should or work.

Hydrogen energy development hasn't proven to be any more efficient or cost effective than any other alternative energy sources. Not only do fossil fuel emmissions pollute but their extraction does as well. Whatever mining needs to be done in order to support alternative energy pales in comparison to fossil fuels. Not only that but the transportation of fossil fuels can and does pollute sometimes to disastrous levels. To top it all off, fossil fuels are non-renewable. We will run out at our current rate of use. Maybe not tomorrow but relatively soon. Research and development of all of our options is the best course of action to determine what will ultimately be our best alternative(s).
Also, I was referring to people that cannot afford food currently being assisted by food stamp programs when I used the word hungry. Nice dodge with the grocery store line, though. I'm sure you consider helping kids that would otherwise go to bed hungry a bad investment especially if you happen to hear it in a campaign ad at some point.

Walter stated "You know there isn't much profit to be made in feeding hungry people. You don't see too many companies doing that without government support. "
-
What? There are grocery stores and resurants all over this country that operate COMPLETELY on thier own. I think it is time you took an economics course, I will be more than happy to lend you my old college econ books if you wish.

Walter you have gone from power lines, to "ifs" and "maybes", to claiming past government spending is justification for current spending. Your mass of irrational reasons to claim wasting money now on failures is okay because of something before is illogical.

If your reason for wanting alternate energy is due to fossil fuel emissions than the current plans should be stopped. The fact is current power plants are always run at near capacity because it costs more to shut down and bring them back up than to just keep them running. With the current heart throbs of solar and wind they are at best a sporadic approach that the main grid must also carry and the current power plants must ensure full loads are always available; hence hardly a savings or a drop in fossil fuel use.

The only true approach away, on the horizon, is hydrogen. That is something for whatever reason Obama has been slow to favor.

The insidious claims of green energy from hybrid cars, to solar, and wind always ignore the added environmental problems they bring to the table with increased chemicals and mining; the very thing people who want green energy are opposed to.

I am all for you having a position on something. At least have a consistent message and base your claims on real information and stop the silly caterwauling over faux comments on campaign ads, as this is no better than the dim witted dem party spokesmen game.

Oblamer, glad to see healthcare fraud prevention efforts being ramped up. This has always been one of the conservatives stated goals but it took a liberal president to implement it.

The reason I bring up electricity is because you clearly lack historical perspective when it comes to government investment.
Fossil fuel energy pollutes and is finite. If we don't invest in alternative energy now, even though it may not be profitable, we may be in trouble later on. You know there isn't much profit to be made in feeding hungry people. You don't see too many companies doing that without government support. Perhaps you think we should stop investing in that as well.

Walter are you done spinning yet? Your tales of campaign ads and electric lines have nothing to do with the topic other than more red herrings and deflection. You are the one that asked about what failed programs should be cut and I answered. The reason you want to focus on campaign ads and electric lines is the same reason you talk about tax returns...because you have nothing else.

I do agree with one aspect you did mention, subsides. I agree and think ALL should be stopped. Thats all subsides do is pick companies and industries over others and has NOTHING to do with what is best for the tax payer or the consumer, just like government subsidized green energy; if there was money to be made, by demand, companies would already be doing it with out government support. It is just more of the same failed policies the current administration is continuing.

I see. So when you're not parroting campaign ads that are full of false information, you're condemning alternative energy investment. Do you think that the government spent nothing on making sure that most Americans could be connected to an electrical power grid? Prior to that, do you think that electricity was immediately the relatively efficient power source that we know it to be today? Large sums of government money went into electricity production when many considered it a novelty/failure/magic/the devil. The same goes for oil. The oil industry is one of the most profitable industries in our country, if not THE most, and yet we still give $4 billion in tax payer funded subsidies every year to big oil. And what are we hoping for by giving them that money? That they'll fund development of an auto engine that can get 80 miles per gallon, so we use less of their product? HA! The technology already exists to produce such an engine, so the oil industry uses the money we give them to keep oil efficiency development shelved, make commercials touting oil's greatness and to lobby Congress to defame and defund alternative energy research, development & production. Clearly many believe that alternative energy is already a failed investment that just keeps getting more government money. It's easy to buy into that bogus argument when just as much money is being spent to stamp it out so that established forms of energy can continue to make historic profits for the already incredibly rich.

Walter if that "is your choice" of media than at least have the ability to read all the stories. Sadly claiming my remarks are from a campaign ad not only displays your weakness it also points out your inability to gather information on your own; much like other topics you chime on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/19/us/19b...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/busine...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/us/pol...

Just to keep everything on the up and up.
Solyndra: not a pet project of Obama campaign donors. Solyndra was heavily invested in by organizations that had donated to Republicans as well.
Fisker Automotive (Finnish car company): received hundreds of millions in government loans through a GW Bush era program. The money was not from the stimulus. Most of the loan money has been suspended. About $190 million of it was spent here in the US. Fiskers' investors include firms whose executives have donated to both parties.
Also, just over $1.5 billion ended up overseas for Chinese wind turbines (which is merely an investment for installation and maintenance jobs here in the US, not to mention energy cost saving in the long run) which represents about .002% of the total stimulus package.

Wow. You didn't even put any effort into that dodge. When your campaign ad based rhetoric is questioned you have countered with calling actual facts (from one of the most respected news organizations in the world mind you) "left biased media hype."
Do your homework, and come back when you're capable of actually debating instead of lazily deflecting real information when your stories are debunked.

Poor walter, if you think my information comes from from some campaign ad you are without hope. I suggest you look at real information and not hype from the left biased media. If your mind is closed to facts you will never see the truth.

You have to stop getting your information from campaign ads. You want to be better than 90% of the electorate, don't you?
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/us/pol...
-
My question stands, so, just to clarify, what ALREADY FAILED projects is the Obama administration still pumping money into? And no more parroted rhetoric about pet projects for campaign donors please. I can turn on the television if I want to hear misinformation from campaign ads.

Walter stated "What failed programs does the Obama administration continue to invest in?"
-
You are kidding right? A large portion of the stimulus was wasted on pet projects,for campaign donors, in green energy that turned out to be a HUGE waste. Yet he still declares more investment is needed. If you can't see the little things how can you claim to see anything like the trillions wasted in all government programs.

Walter we spend more per student than other countries as well but yet have lower results. Perhaps money is not the fix...

Wow. We spend as much as 20 other countries combined on our military, and we still got our behinds handed to us time and again by the Vietnamese, Somalians, Iraqis and Afghans. Talk about a failed investment. Yet we just keep pumping money into it and cutting spending on education. I guess dragging down the IQ of the nation's citizens is how you get more people to enlist.

Ezoner, first, I suggest you research the history of MRI, which did exceedingly well without any investment by our military. Secondly, investment in research does not require a $700 billion per year expenditure on a wealth redistributing war machine. Thirdly, you are lying when you say I have an agenda "to end military spending." I have never suggested that we end military spending. We currently spend more on our military than the next 20 highest spending countries combined! We spend over 4 times as much as China and Russia combined. We need to significantly reduce our military spending, not end it. Lastly, you're lying again by saying I want to issue more food stamps.

Poo -- you have no idea what you are talking about..... There are components in MRI technology that are a direct result of the military invest you want to shut down. There are many more developments that save lives and make life possible for us all. Yet your agenda, to end military spending which is a training ground and development of some of the best technical talent in the world, is so short sided and what you want is to issue more food stamps. Ohh yea -- that makes sense.

So, apparently one of the stars of a Romney campaign ad (you know the one attacking President Obama for something he didn't actually say...well...the most recent one of those) “received $800,000 in tax-exempt revenue bonds issued by the New Hampshire Business Finance Authority ‘to set up a second manufacturing plant and purchase equipment to produce high definition television broadcasting equipment’…” In addition, in 2011, Gilchrist Metal “received two U.S. Navy sub-contracts totaling about $83,000 and a smaller, $5,600 Coast Guard contract in 2008…"
"The businessman, Jack Gilchrist, also acknowledged that in the 1980s the company received a U.S. Small Business Administration loan totaling 'somewhere south of' $500,000, and matching funds from the federally-funded New England Trade Adjustment Assistance Center."
“I’m not going to turn a blind eye because the money came from the government,” Gilchrest said. “I’m not stupid, I’m not going to say ‘no.’"
Glorious! Sometimes I think Mitt Romney actually works for the Obama campaign.
*
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/201...

NoLeftist said, "crony capitalism is investing our children's money, borrowed from the Chinese, to invest in politically correct and politically connected businesses that couldn't get a dime from people with their own money on the line. Then washing your hands of it after they fail and saying "that's business," leaving our children and grandchildren on the hook for it. That's not business. It's fraud."

I'm not sure if I've ever heard a better description of the military industrial complex and the war machines that are among the most efficient, albeit deadly, wealth redistribution systems in the world. Americans alone spend $700 billion per year to maintain our war machine, not to mention the additional costs, in trillions, borrowed for specific wars from central bankers (who historically have loaned money to both sides of a conflict with guarantees that the "victor" repays not only their loans but those of the "loser"). The longer these central bankers could stretch out a war by making more money available to both sides, the more money they could make.

Walter you asked and I answered. Not only are they continuing to invest in that failed program they are increasing the budget of the DEA. Unfortunately whatever fading glimmer of hope we have with Obama, is still infinitely better than if the choice was Romney.

Business is investing your OWN money in projects and demanding a return. Obama's crony capitalism is investing our children's money, borrowed from the Chinese, to invest in politically correct and politically connected businesses that couldn't get a dime from people with their own money on the line. Then washing your hands of it after they fail and saying "that's business," leaving our children and grandchildren on the hook for it.

That's not business. It's fraud. If any corporation did that you lefties would be calling for criminal prosecution.

Not to worry, though: being a Democrat means never having to say you're sorry.

Hey, I'm all for legalization as well tthompson. I'm all for doing away with the DEA all together. And as long as we're talking about failures in that same vein, we have to take a long hard look at the military as whole as well.

Hey, I'm all for legalization as well tthompson. I'm all for doing away with the DEA all together. And as long as we're talking about failures in that same vein, we have to take a long hard look at the military as whole as well.

The war on drugs.

What failed programs does the Obama administration continue to invest in?

Not every investment is a winner walter? Then why does the government, more correctly the current admin, keep saying they want to "invest" more in the same failed programs? At what point does the maddness end?

Not every investment is a winner. That's just business.

Walter:Reuther: We all had a hand in saving Government Motors and Chrysler too. Not so lucky with Solyndra though..What could be more American than that?

After all, he did lobby for, receive and spend $1.3 billion in taxpayer money on the 2002 Olympics. Romney was the community organizer, and we all had a hand in saving the Salt Lake Olympics. What's more American than that?

Exactly the same mindset displayed in both comments. Conservatives shouldn't act so dumbfounded by Romney's community comment. He is, after all, a self-described moderate progressive. I guess you could say that Romney, in his role with the Olympics, was a community organizer!!! Thanks for finding the quote, WalterReuther.

I just can't believe that Mitt used the word "communities", a word that shares a root with Communism. Very scary stuff there. I guess he was the Governor of Massachusetts, so we shouldn't be too surprised.

Willful ignorance is still ignorance my right wing friends. Both speeches center on community and how American greatness only works as it should when we all (including the government) work together.

Too funny Wally! Not really the same mindset at all. Romney's quote, "You Olympians, however, know you didn't get here solely on your own power" credits both the athletes and their families for their accomplishments". Barack Hussein Obama's quote,"If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen." seems to leave out a somewhat important person. The person who took all the risk, probably leveraged much of what they had in order to make their idea a reality. Many people would consider that person vital to building their company--Obama apparently doesn't...

Great quote from Mitt. Didn't mention the government once. Thanks for making his point!

"You Olympians, however, know you didn't get here solely on your own power. For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. We’ve already cheered the Olympians, let’s also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities. All right! [pumps fist].”

-Mitt Romney, speaking at the opening ceremonies of the 2002 Olympics. I guess he believes it takes a village just like President Obama does.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnlZ5Buwp...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzZ0XNpt...

Before we go any further, please provide me with a link or something to your source material that backs up the statement "most of those on welfare, have great cell phones".
Also, what of all the people that were kids on welfare in the 80's under the great Republican savior Ronald Reagan that are now adults on welfare with kids of their own on welfare? Why didn't good ol' Ronnie make sure that welfare wasn't a program to "carry them for ever"?

Walter, I also forget that most oof those on welfare, have great cell phones, get rental assistance, get food stamp program. All the essentials right. Then it is not because of the government that people in this counrty starve, maybe it is also the idiot parents that all the children to go hungry by not taking advantage of the programs in place. No republican has ever said that welfare will be ended. They all realize that there will need to be something in place to help the less fortunate, but not carry thme for ever. It is a system to use and then get off of. That is not happening.

WalterReuther, you wrote "I agree that there is a culture of failure in this country that encourages welfare use to transfer from one generation to the next. The main reason for that is our struggling education system. Cutting people off of welfare isn't going to improve the education of children that are likely to end up on welfare as adults. Investing in education."

If this is true, then why do you encourage more people on the welfare system by voting for Obama. Isn't that going to cause more to grow into the system. Oh, I see, then you educate them to get off the system. You are forgetting one thing. Education is not the main reason for staying on welfare, it is laziness and free will. Those who grow into it, need to make the decision to end it. You must be under the assumption that they (those on their own) have no control over this situation.

Oh I see. The nature of business is to cause federal agencies to have to bail out underfunded pension funds. Well, then Mr. Romney is truly a great American.

The venture capitalist plays with his money and the jobs and lives of people that work for the companies that are looked at as nothing more than cash grabs. Sometimes the venture capitalist plays with our money, too, like when the venture capitalists underfund a pension fund of a raided business (Bain did this) and then a federal agency, the Pension Benefits Guarantee Corp, has to step in to bail out the pension fund.

Walter...the difference is the venture capitalist plays with his money and Obama plays with OUR money!

"Obama never built a thing in his life; he is a socialist parasite who lives off the labor of others."

Sounds strikingly similar to what a venture capitalist does.

A statement like that shows Obama's intellect, or rather lack of..!

poobah speaks the truth. It was I who said the the government should protect us from ourselves. Our society is made up of enough individuals who will stand by and allow bad things to happen to their fellow human beings, that not everyone can be protected from the unforeseen, unavoidable and inescapable tragic events that certain populations (kids, elderly, low income, un or under educated, disabled) are more vulnerable to than others. That is where the government must step in.
Not that the government could have directly intervened in her case, but if you want an example of how individuals will knowingly stand by and allow terrible things to happen to their fellow person, do some research into the case of Kitty Genovese.

Third_Eye, if anyone twisted anything, you just did by stating, "To summarize, both Poobah and WalterRuether believe that it is governments job to "protect us from ourselves.""

I didn't make the statement you attributed to me and as much as you may think that liberals are monolithic, that isn't any more the case than conservatives being monolithic.

Donna there are plenty of statistics provided within the four links I posted regarding how hunger is affecting Americans. Millions of people, young and old alike, go to bed hungry in this country every night. Your comment about the widespread problem of obesity proves how even more screwed up the problem really is. Many have too much food while others don't have enough. There's also the issue of certain areas where the only food that is readily available and affordable is incredibly unhealthy. Meanwhile federal funding to food pantries is being cut.

To summarize, both Poobah and WalterRuether believe that it is governments job to "protect us from ourselves." One of these areas is that if the government did not impose controls the populace would let their fellow man starve to death.(see poobah@11:54pm, 7/21)
Do I think our government is too big? Yes. Bravo to Poo for his brilliant discernment.
The job of government is to promote equal opportunity, not acheive equal outcome.
Historically the bigger the government, the more corrupt.
Historically big governments have always led to totalitarianism.
Twist away poo....twist away.

You obviously didn't read the report I cited.

poo...you never listed your source for children dying in this country every day from malnutrition. Your resource was for the whole world. I'm sorry that children dye in other countries but as citizens and taxpayers we have more control over what happens to children in this country. Again, your source for how many children die in this country every day from malnutrition?

donnaw, I've cited my source. Your response about childhood obesity to the issue of 7,000 children under the age of five dying every day from malnutrition betrays a genuine concern for the problem.

poo...the CDC doesn't keep statistics on how many children die of malnutrition in the USA, as far as I can find. what is your source?
Walter....look around, more kids and adults in this country have a problem with too much food rather than not enough. Obesity is a far larger problem.

donnaw,
You make it sound so easy. Just get a job. A large percentage of people on welfare live where jobs are incredibly scarce (rural and inner city areas). To get a job they need transportation. To get transportation they need money. To get money they need a job. Uh oh. It seems we've run into a problem.

donnaw,
Do some reading. 14.5% of all US households struggled to get enough food in 2010. Almost 60% of those people were on at least one of the 3 largest federal food/nutrition assitance programs. Food banks can't keep up with the demand.
*
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov...
*
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/...
*
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/121076/err...
*
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/27...

Walter...nobody envies those on welfare. Most people just want those on welfare to find a job! Welfare wasn't meant to be a way of life but rather a transitional hand out til they get back on their feet. But some people abuse the system. Tax payers are tired of the lazy people who sit home and do nothing to improve their lot in life. And our govt seems to be making it increasingly easier for welfare sponging.

Denying and/or minimizing the fact that American children die of malnutrition and that not every American child has access to adequate nutrition may make the issue easier for some people to emotionally reconcile but it doesn't make the problem go away.

skippy,
Oh I see now. Your problem is that people are able to "make it" on welfare. You would rather have them not be able to "make it". And then what? Go hungry. What if they have children? Should we let the kids go hungry, too? I agree that there is a culture of failure in this country that encourages welfare use to transfer from one generation to the next. The main reason for that is our struggling education system. Cutting people off of welfare isn't going to improve the education of children that are likely to end up on welfare as adults. Investing in education to find a way to reach kids that come from the culture of failure is how to reduce the number of people on welfare.
Again, if you think people on welfare have it so great, go find out for yourself. Don't be a stranger. It would be interesting to read your review of the lifestyle that you so clearly envy and long for after you've experienced it first hand.

poo, your figure of 88 children who die every day in this country includes children who die from physical abuse, car accidents, bike accidents, drownings, murder, illness, etc. Yes all are preventable but how does that translate into not helping starving children. You would have to try pretty hard to starve to death in this country. There may be mentally ill parents or abusive parents but there is food available thru food banks, breakfast and lunch school programs, welfare, etc. if one wants it.

Third_Eye said, "One of the items that you neglect to mention Poo is that many of the children starving in other parts of the world are being starved by their own big and corrupt government."

It wasn't neglected; it wasn't part of your question, which was, "Do you really believe that a society like ours, and even for the most part the world, at this point in history would sit by and let people starve to death?"

The evidence that has been provided makes the answer clear. You can try explaining why you think this happens, or what we can and can't do, what we should and shouldn't do, but none of that changes the answer to your question. And that answer is clearly, "Yes."

Because a starving child lives under a big and corrupt government does not mean that child deserves any less from us than a starving child living under a small and clean government. I have heard you argue that American government is too big. It's a battle cry of yours. I hear arguments about corruption in American government almost daily on this site. Is America one of those big and corrupt governments you talk about?

Here's a suggestion. If you think that people at the lowest socioeconomic level have it so good, quit your job and attempt to make it on welfare. Back up your words, then let us know how it went. Until then keep blabbin' if you wish, but your words will be empty.

Where in any of my posts did you see me write that people are at the lowest socioeconomic level. The sad part is you know that what I am saying is true. Many people are making it on welfare, that is why they stay on it.

Quite simple, Third_Eye. Your position of "Think charity, think church," was forsaken by your latter comment of, "So let me understand this Poo, because people are starving in another part of the world therefore we, the U.S., need bigger government?"

The idea of bigger government was your suggestion raised in your comment, not mine. Is the change in your thinking a tacit admission that your charity and church thinking is incapable of handling the situation?

poobah Jul 21, 2012 at 3:59 p.m.
HOW DO YOU GET THIS:
"Third_Eye, why are you attempting to change your solution from one of, and I quote, "Think charity, think church" to one of bigger government?"
OUT OF THIS?
Third_Eye Jul 21, 2012 at 3:02 p.m.
"So let me understand this Poo, because people are starving in another part of the world therefore we, the U.S., need bigger government?"
Is there a comprehension issue at work here?

One of the items that you neglect to mention Poo is that many of the children starving in other parts of the world are being starved by their own big and corrupt government.
The kind of big government you and Walter advocate.
.
Many more would starve in OTHER parts of the world if it were not for the efforts of religious groups, churches, and charities. Some examples, Lutheran Social Services, United Jewish Appeal, Catholic Charities, Food for the Poor, etc.
Some of their efforts are being thwarted by governments that are supposed to be 'protecting' their populace.

Detroit is full of roads and bridges. Why has success eluded them? Who wants to even live there anymore? infrastucture is no guarantee of success, like K said it is usually a constant.

Skippy,
Here's a suggestion. If you think that people at the lowest socioeconomic level have it so good, quit your job and attempt to make it on welfare. Back up your words, then let us know how it went. Until then keep blabbin' if you wish, but your words will be empty.

jvilleis86ed - Can you explain to me how I would not benefit. Call names, with nothing to back it up. You move on or explain this to me. That is all I am asking for you to do. Apparently that is too hard for you.

Wow. I missed a lot. So, to answer your question, Third eye, yes. Thanks poobah for the really interesting but scary stats on all that. Much appreciated.
When you look at welfare and social security, I think it is the very existence of those programs that makes it very clear that we as a society will not make sure that everyone is ok. For the most part we could, but we still would not. The reason that social security was ennacted was because elderly people were dying homeless, penniless and starving in great numbers. Charitable organizations and churches existed back then, but people simply were not being helped. Hey, I wish our society would take care of its own, but we wouldn't. Certain populations would fall into a group called "not my problem" and they would be ignored then they would wither and die. Clearly, even with the measures our government takes to protect us from ourselves, people still slip through the cracks. Just look at the stat poobah provided about 88 kids dying every day in the US due to preventable causes. We could do better. Instead certain groups like many hardcore right wingers want to get fired up about defunding the very programs and organizations that make sure that number of deaths isn't much migher.

Third_Eye, why are you attempting to change your solution from one of, and I quote, "Think charity, think church" to one of bigger government? Do the charities you support differentiate between a starving American child and a starving Indian child? Or is it that your church believes that God's teachings don't apply beyond American borders?

Oh, but those 21,000 children under five that die every day of preventable causes aren't all American children. That's true, but 88 of them are. That's 32,000 American children under the age of five dying every year of preventable causes. Consider the fact that there are seven times as many children under the age five dying every day of preventable causes as the number of people that died on 9/11. More than 10 times as many American children under the age of five dying every year of preventable causes than the number of people killed on 9/11. Then consider the relatively disproportionate American responses to 9/11 and child mortality (including child malnutrition).

You clearly and plainly asked if our society and the world would, and I again quote, "sit by and let people starve to death?" The answer is clear given the sickening reality of 21,000 children under the age of five dying every day of preventable causes. 7,000 per day dying from malnutrition. 88 of those children under the age of five dying every day of preventable causes are American children.

"That" refers to roads and bridges dummies

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that...."

So let me understand this Poo, because people are starving in another part of the world therefore we, the U.S., need bigger government?
Part of my quote, "and even for the most part the world,..." acknowledges there presently is an issue in some parts of the world.

donnaw, let me again quote the original question for you, which refers to the world: "Do you really believe that a society like ours, and even for the most part the world, at this point in history would sit by and let people starve to death?"

RustyRotor, here's the source for the information used in my previous comment.

[ http://www.unicef.org/media/files/Child_... ]

poo...that is for the entire world, not the USA. And with free breakfast and lunch programs schools provide, food stamps, and the food banks and centers, only lazy parents would let their children starve to death. If you see a child who looks malnourished, the parent (s) should be arrested.

pooblah, maybe the Chinese have it right when it comes to population control! Quote your sources when you post numbers, we have inquiring minds.

I believe it was al gore who said he invented the internet, some 2 presidents before. But keep fishing.

"Do you really believe that a society like ours, and even for the most part the world, at this point in history would sit by and let people starve to death?"

21,000 children under the age of five die every day from PREVENTABLE causes, with malnutrition being the underlying cause in one-third of these deaths. That sickening reality should leave little doubt as to the answer to your question.

I wish peeps had been screaming about the govt protecting us from ourselves for the last 70+ years of prohibition.

Yes

Well Walter, if you don't know, I can't help you.
Perhaps you could point out when any government ever provided freedom and liberty while at the same time "protected us from ourselves." (think power corrupts.)
Do you really believe that a society like ours, and even for the most part the world, at this point in history would sit by and let people starve to death? (Think charity, think church.)

Under Obama, I would be better off to change to Democrat voting, quit my 24 dollar an hour job, and sit back and live the high life. For anyone who doesn't see that, they are blind. I suppose redistributing the GPA for college kids who party their life away, and giving from those who try and EARN a 4.0, is fair as well. I want some of what you guys are smoking. Problem is there is no reason to work hard for what you have and want anymore. Krauthammer has hit a home run with this article. A bit off the subject, but why are you dems ok with having to prove your health insurance on your IRS tax form, yet you are against Voter ID law. Shouldn't we want to make sure legal people are voting.

Yes.

Yes, it was out of context. Krauthammer started his article with this quote from President Obama's speech, “If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Krauthammer worked his entire story from that one limited quote, lifted out of context, and standing alone it significantly altered the message of President Obama. I encourage everyone to read the entire transcript of his speech and watch it as well.

"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

Transcript of Presiden Obama's Roanoke speech: [ http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-offi... ]

Video of President Obama's Roanoke speech: [ http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Roano... ]

I respect that people will disagree with me. Feel free to explain what is actually "wrong" or "scares" you about it.

WalterReuther Jul 20, 2012 at 3:08 p.m.
QUOTE "The government is in place to protect us from ourselves. Left to our own devices, we'll let people that don't mean anything to us starve to death." END QUOTE
Wow! I'm at a loss for words. Everything about this is quote is wrong.

goodamerican....known as the Gazette Stalker!

Walter with all due respect your reasoning and perspective scares the living crap out of me and is the reason people fight against big government.

Third eye,
It depends on how those property taxes are paid, personal income or business taxes.
Also, I understand the difference between what Romney and Obama are saying. The reason we have elections is to let the people decide between those two differing philosophies. My question to Mr. Romney would be how do you propose that we as a great nation pay for all of those things? Should we let those sort of things get handled privately? How long do you think it would take a pot hole to get fixed in a "rough" neighborhood if there were no people of means regularly driving on the road in that neighborhood? How about food assistance? What happens when the lowly churches and food banks in areas of high poverty run out of resources? I guess we just let survival of the fittest kick in, right? Hopefully no news cameras will turn up to put images of hungry children wandering the streets, digging in the garbage for food on the nightly news. The reason the great American system functions and functions relatively well is because our leaders of the past, like FDR & LBJ realized it was being left up to the people to handle problems on their own, and that wasn't working. The government is in place to protect us from ourselves. Left to our own devices, we'll let people that don't mean anything to us starve to death. Think about all the justifications we tell ourselves for not giving money to people panhandling on the street. They'll just use it for booze. Do we really know that? No. What good will it do just to give money to one. I can't help all of them. What's the point? That kind of thinking is logical. It's very individualistic. It's very human. The government is there to overcome that.

goodamerican....get a life!

The only way Krauthammer could pull this story off while keeping a straight face was by taking Obama's quote out of context.

Just a thought.
Doesn't property taxes pay for a good share of infrastructure such as schools, Fire Dept, and Police Dept.?
Successful people usually have more property and that factory they build takes up a lot of land.
Given that, it seems they already pay their "fair share" based on what they have.

WalterReuther Jul 20, 2012 at 12:25 p.m.
The Presidents point was that it is government that should collect the money to 'help others'.
Romney's point is that those who succeed should reach back and help others without government as the 'middle man'.
There is a difference.

Third eye,
That was also the President's point. Those that have benefitted from the American system should help others. Those that have benefitted the most should help more when they have the ability to do so. That is the American way. Initiative being a variable is not a message that Obama strayed from. Roads and bridges being a constant is a little off base. Our American system needs constant care both literally and figuratively. We must all pay our fair share to maintain that system so that others with the initiative to become successful like Romney or Obama have the opportunity to do so. Without the American system, American success cannot be achieved and certainly not maintained. Steve jobs may be the only person to give us the Ipod,phone,pad,etc but it was the collective efforts of everyone that made them the overwhelming success that they became. He didn't build the system that made him a true success. He had an idea that needed the system to be a success.

Out of context? LMAO are you serious? With the line of thinking defending Obama should I blame the government and everyone else because I lost my business a few years ago? Or was it a bad business decision on my part? I believe it to be the latter but if it means I get a handout from Barack I guess I can be convinced otherwise.

In the same speech President Obama said, "...I want you (the rich) to keep a big chunk of that..."
Wow, he wants you to keep a chunk of YOUR OWN MONEY.
However, he wants a chunk too.
Why? because you (the rich) used the roads, bridges, firemen, and policemen. Were they somehow better for you than for the guy who works the 8 to 5 and lives comfortably (middle class)?
Did you somehow 'take more' from the infrastructure than the middle class guy?
No, but your reward for working hard, getting ahead, and employing the middle class guy is to pay more than the others.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need seems to be the campaign strategy of the democrat.

Walter R: Since you have used the argument twice about President Obama and Governor Romney saying the same thing. How about context?
In the context of Governor Romney's comments, he was saying that the individual should help other individuals just as they were helped.
President Obama on the other hand is saying that those that were helped by the 'infrastructure' should send more money to government so that it can be redistributed.
.
The key comment in Mr. Krauthammer's commentary is "Roads and schools are the constant. What’s variable is the energy, enterprise, risk-taking, hard work and genius of the individual."
Some use the infrastructure to succeed while others use the infrastructure to collect their 'benefits'. Initiative is the variable.

goodamerican...my, oh my, I left out an entire syllable. Wow! The world is coming to an end! It's funny, I don't notice you criticizing carlitosway's grammar which is atrocious. Must be because she talks like you. And actually, "narcistic" comes up as correct in my spell check.

The Dem's defense is always it was taken out of context but then ignore it when something on the right is taken out of context. Maybe you should go and look up the COMPLETE statement regarding "---I like to fire people". Then you will see taken out of context.

This wasn’t Joe Six-Pack pontificating on his back porch, this was the amazing speechmaker himself. He’s no stranger to demonizing business and businessmen, except those who contribute to his campaign. Here’s the best refutation to all the “he didn’t mean what he clearly said” that I’ve found”

“That's bunk, and not only because ‘business’ is more proximate to the pronoun ‘that’ and therefore its more likely antecedent. The Truth Team's interpretation is ungrammatical. ‘Roads and bridges’ is plural; ‘that’ is singular. If the Team is right about Obama's meaning, he should have said, ‘You didn't build those.’

“Barack Obama is supposed to be the World's Greatest Orator, the smartest man in the world. Yet his campaign asks us to believe he is not even competent to construct a sentence.”
Tip’o’the hat to James Taranto, “Best of the Web Today”. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872...

Thank you goodamerican, I bow to your supreme knowledge. I will be more diligent using spell check.

gpawcat - and without the collective taxes of all others to biuld that school and pay those teachers would they have home schooled you?

The statists will generally rant, point fingers, insult, then head for the hills when met with a thought through response with supporting statements. Occasionally, I enjoy a conversation with a cup of coffee with statists who rationally make a point with supporting statements. Sadly, they are rare. Billnewbie, your remarks are right on point. As a matter of fact, four years ago as a YMCA employee, I actually saw people walk into the exercise room with six televisions (most with Obama's visage) and look up at the sets with open mouths and mesmerized expressions. I am not making this up. All I could do was slowly shake my head and walk across the room.

Our dear President does seem to get a lot of things wrong. His nearly a $trillion stimulus packaged was a complete failure. His "Job Council" hasn't meet in 6 months due largely to presidential indifference since the President is in re-election mode and can't be bothered with such banalities since re-election is much more important to him than jobs. And now he says that infrastructure created entrepreneurialship when in fact entrepreneurialship, and the tax income generated by it, are responsible for all our infrastructure. When you see the President make such remarks, and so many like those below pick up and parrot his mantras like Orwellian sheep, all you can do is shake your head and wonder how such a person who is so obviously ignorant of economics ever got to be President. I guess the electorate had stars in their eyes 4 years ago.

Romney and Obama said the exact same things within a few days of each other. This is a non-story. Romney's been playing it up, even though he said the exact same thing, to divert attention that he won't release his tax returns. There must be something politically fatal in his financial background.

Please, Obama was not taken out of context, especially when you see the context as everything he is working for: expanded food stamp programs, expanded government health care, expanded government authority over healthcare, ever-rising taxes, loosening welfare-to-work requirements, huge government subsidies to politically correct (and connected) businesses that cannot get anyone else to invest in them, millions of pages of regulations, innumerable federal dictats to states, thousands of new beaurcracies answerable to the community organizer in chief, or better yet no one.

THAT IS THE CONTEXT!

It is funny how when the true desires and thoughts of Democrats are laid out there for all to see, they flee like cockroaches, saying mealy-mouthed stuff like "taken out of context." I'm surprised "hater," racist," or "it's Bush's fault" haven't made it into this string yet.

Please stop trying to spin. You are making yourselves look (even more) foolish.

whythink...and our narcistic president would NEVER refer to himself as "awesome" and "powerful"? Ha ha he thinks he's God incarnate!
tthompson...that must have been tough for you to give so much thought to.

The German Hammer is bang on as usual with his perspective. Those things that The Framers warned about and advised to take action against are before us. Tyranny is at hand and we are allowing it. Obama exposes himself more and more and more. His design to lower our standard on earth to that of other nations, to "level the playing field", is taking form. Redistribution of our wealth not only within our borders but around the world is his objective. This was his vision when he was younger and said, "I want to be President someday." Consider our continuing participation in the United Nations.

Is this the end of the United States of America and the only way of life we have ever known? My eyes fill up when I ponder this.

"""For Obama being touted as a great orator, he surely missed the boat on this one. You can parse this any way you want but what he said, he said. Kraut is right on! Obama's true colors show here."""
.
At least he didn't refer to being president as "awesome" because "I was famous and powerful".

4th grade comprehension or the lack of complete partisan hatred of our current president to understand that this is Kraut GRASPING at straws.
.
It is clear, crystal clear, that president Obama was referring to the roads, bridges, educated workforce, internet, etc... when he said, "you didn't build that."
.
Kraut is why the "partisan politics" article is worthwhile.
.
The right loves to use government as an excuse for record profits at the same time of high unemployment but refuses to credit them for anything.
.
Perhaps that is because the right is too busy hiding their money in oversea banks and using slave labor in a foreign land to realize how great this country and its workforce is. Perhaps if they love this country they wouldn't hide their money and move employment to other places.
.
Of course, those that follow blindly will defend the hiding of money and hiring of child slave labor as long as they remember their American Flag lapel pin. That is what "being an American" is all about. Right J. Sununu?

Completely out of context.
Come on, you guys.
Is that the best you have got?

Let's play the out of context game!! These are all words from donnaw's first post, even in order:)

'Excellent! Amen! Obama's philosophy absolutely is responsible for the success of business owners'

Krauthammer misses the mark again. Just more proof any beltway wonk can write an opinion piece.

For Obama being touted as a great orator, he surely missed the boat on this one. You can parse this any way you want but what he said, he said. Kraut is right on! Obama's true colors show here.

How exactly is that taken out of context?

"If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."

His entire time in office has been pro state, big government, hand out vote purchasing, and creating dependency.

He certainly meant what he said, exactly how he said it. His dream isn't the American Dream, it's a dream of socialism.

I would not be surprised if somewhere deep in his pockets he's got a proposal waiting to remove the blue and white from our flag.

Government didn't provide my education, my parents did. They paid for the building, and teachers pay checks through the taxes.

President Obama was referring to the American system that involves collectively pooling resources to build roads, bridges, schools, etc & funding police, fire protection, teachers, etc. That is the "that" he refers to. Unfortunate but not surprising that Krauthammer would take a soundbite out of its original context.
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that...."
"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own...."
"So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together.
That’s how we funded the G.I. Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people...."
Try a little context before you buy into the right's nonsense.
And how does the GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney feel about this topic? Well...
"There are a lot of people in government who help us and allow us to have an economy that works and allow entrepenuers and business leaders of various kinds to start businesses and create jobs. We all recognize that. That's an important thing."
"I know that you recognize that a lot of people help you in a business. Perhaps the banks, the investors. There's no question your mom and dad. Your school teachers. The people that provide roads, the fire, and the police. A lot of people help."
Yes, Mitt Romney said those words. He said them 2 days ago during a campaign speech. It seems he and President Obama agree.

Quote taken completely out of context. The "that" he is referring to is not the business.

Excellent writing! Amen! My distaste for Obama's philosophy of govt since the Julia episode and his absolutely idiotic comment that gov't is responsible for the success of business owners has increased tenfold.