You all couldn't be more wrong about me - if you only knew :)

TCB, nice one!

No fordfan, we just have written proof you are a bully and a racist. The gazette's failure to remove your vile is par for the course with liberals. Keep it clean and be nice only is a rule for conservatives as with all media.

Fordfan,

Your constant attempts to turn a fiscal cliff column into a rank about legal redistricting is boring.

Your attempt to paint anyone who espouses religions beliefs as misguided only demonstrates your intolerance of others. Are you a disciple of barney Frank or Barry Obama?

Your lack of knowledge about the history of low information voters highlights your contempt of a news network- again-page 1 of the liberal playbook-attack the messenger. Silence those whom you disagree with! This is Tolerance defined by the left.

You like to create a false dilemmas or use platitudes to try to defend your argument. You dont like the gerrymandering of congressional districts-your solution? More govt. You dont like people to freely express their religion/speech/press- your solution-more federal govt and silence those who speech you personally dislike. The use of "intent" is one of these false dilemmas.

The fun part of these threads is I get to play you like a grand piano. You take the bait hook line and sinker.

Bowlgal - thought that was settled when, after all your name calling at me and your howling at the Gazette, they ignored your request. wislady described someone she was ridiculing as a "black female" when the person needed no identifier as she was the only one who made the statement. When I called her wislady with "white" as an identifier, you blew a cork. Have you sought any help for your anger problem?

Wow fordfan, really? After you called Wislady all kinds of bigot and racist names last week?

MrData,

You wrote "Both political parties should be outlawed and all their politicans and leaders who are alive that have malpracticed in the current and past governments should be put in jail for the crimes they have perpetrated upon this once great nation"

Does this not imply that you charged people with Crimes? Now you are backing off your claim?

You rang the bell-now Im giving you an opportunity to make a citizens arrest. Which politicians are you referring to?

BTW -The USA is still a great nation....

Wow TCB - seems I am getting to you when you start name calling. Just what I wanted to let others know who you really are. Won’t answer questions and accuse others of changing the subject when in effect, you did yourself. You seem to be just another Republican who thinks they are a psychologist because they had to take a course in high school. Drop out of the conversation and I will have no one to talk to it appears (you can call me more names first if you wish).

Fordfan,

What is the "christian religion"....are you referring to? Catholics or Quakers or Liberal protestants or Pentecostal christians?

Unlike you-I dont believe there is a monolithic viewpoint to politics, religion, business, economics, athletics, diet, etc.

Your intolerance is shaped by your fervent belief that the federal govt has you in mind when every single issue is a crisis which requires Federal govt solution. Your inability to debate an issue finds you frustrated and desperate-which requires you to attack the messenger-which is page 1 of the liberal playbook.

You are entirely predictable. You desire to change the focus of this thread on reshaping congressional districts rather than the fiscal cliff is quite funny. So you dont like your district representative? Move or run yourself. Thats what is great about the USA-its your choice-I wont stop you from making a fool of yourself.

Are you a disciple of Barry Obama?

Hey TCB .. for the record I did say .. that those politicians .."that have malpracticed in the current and past governments should be put in jail." I didn't mention any names. You have.

Also, for the record .. from 2006 to 2011, the illustrious Tammy Baldwin voted against the four biggest efforts to toughen sanctions against Iran. In one case, she was one of only eight representatives to oppose the measure, joining such lawmakers as Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich and Texas Republican Ron Paul. U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin - who was against Iranian sanctions before she was for them - received nearly $60,000 for her Senate bid from a group that says the American policy of imposing sanctions and trying to "publicly threaten and insult Iran" does little more than strengthen the country's hard-liners. The Council for a Livable World, which opposes nuclear weapons, argues that Iran poses no current threat to the United States. Baldwin has had the support of the left-of-center group since her first congressional race in 1998.

Perhaps this not criminal stuff .. but clearly is not things that make her worthy of her being a representative for those of us in WI.

Are we talking about gun control now? I was talking about elections. Just a day ago or so, someone got all over me for talking about elections and being off topic. Wait, that was you, TCB!

I am not defining anything so why are you accusing me of that? I am asking if intent has anything to do with laws and I believe you just said it is not important in your alternative world. Have you ever administered contracts or met terms and conditions of a legal document? I guess you define why there are so many lawyers since you do not care about intent, only if there is a way to cheat on the contract. When peoples shook hands for firm a deal, certainly there had to be a meeting of the minds and deception could not be part of the deal. Unfortunately, those days are long gone never to return. Hence our legal libraries, multiple thousand page laws and contracts the require a lawyer to write and interpret.

I will buy that you are not an atheist, but what religious beliefs do you follow that teaches that deception and cheating is OK when dealing with others – you know, the ones you are told to love as yourself in the Christian religion?

Fordfan,

intent of the law--who is defining intent? you? This is your strawman. If you disagree with how law is prosecuted-then you claim "this is not the intent"-so in order to get what you want-you need to erect a this strawman and shout we need more law to clarify (ie change) the law....its the left that advocates for judicial activism )see the 9th circuit or the outcry against rifles cosmetically designed to look but not act like military grade weapons-so their should be a law to change this....meanwhile televisions falling on kids killed twice as many kids in 2011 (41) and not a peep for new laws prohibiting the sale of deadly assualt televisions....

The laws need to be clarified? How about enforcing current laws? Such as Federal immigration law.

As for Ayn Rand. I'm not an atheist.

You do not think laws have intent? If the intent of the law is not met, the laws need to be clarified. It is called leadership. We have lawmakers who can make changes and judges who can make interpretation of the laws. The Republicans are so good at circumventing the laws through loopholes that they now think that is the way to govern - forget anything about intent and grab all the power they can using any means possible. Fair and just representation is does not come into play in their world and do you know why? NO ONE would buy what they have to sell so they have to hold onto power any way they can. Cheating, ignoring their representative status and exploiting every loophole they can find is all they have in their diminishing world.

Are you an Ayn Rand disciple?

Fordfan,

"Intent"....your definition of what intent is- is probably different than your neighbors. Therein lies issue. The intent of our founding fathers was and is apportionment.

If your political philosophy is that more federal govt is better for society-or that more central govt control of local issues is better-you and I probably have an irreconcilable difference.

TCB -are you an Ayn Rand disciple?

TCB - then we disagree. I do think that ethics and the intent of laws and govenance come into play - win or lose. Todays winners who govern by those rules you support will be the big losers down the road. And rightfully so.

MrData,

Political parties "should be outlawed"? I "should" be taller....

Specifically-what "crimes" has Paul Ryan committed? Or Tammy Baldwin-she is a criminal? WHile I agree with almost nothing -politically- Tammy Baldwin stands for-she is not a criminal.

ford,

I am perfectly fine with your hypothetical scenario. Thats politics-and they are cyclical. Im sure you remember the salad days when Texas was a reliable blue state and california a reliable red state...(which state is doing better today?)

Do you folks get it .. after 80 posts to this blog you have all done a great job in making your points.

The reality is, there is now very much irrefutable data from all of you folks showing significant blame on both the DEMS and the REPUBs for the mess this nation is in.

You all deserve a world of thanks.

I'm glad I am an independent and not a loyal party member to either of these two major moronic political parties who are doing just as Russia's Premier Nikita Kruschev said back in the early 1960s that they would .. destroy us from within.

Both political parties should be outlawed and all their politicans and leaders who are alive that have malpracticed in the current and past governments should be put in jail for the crimes they have perpetrated upon this once great nation.

TCB - but you are OK with the Republicans using any and all means, whether ethical or not, to gain an advantage, right? So if 75% of the voters in a state voted Republican, but the Democrats had gerrymandered the state to such an extent that the Democrats got 60% of the representatives, you would be fine with that and defend it, right? No complaints from you in this case, right?

fordfan
Federal and state reps-represent their constituents. You may not like it. But then again based on your posts you dont have any idea what a representative republic is.

As for redrawing congressional districts read Article 1, Section 2 of the US Constitution. For local seats read Section 4, Article 3 of the wisconsn State Constitution. If you don't like it -or dont agree with this process-find a way to change it- or move. It is really that simple.

MBH - I understand what you are saying. The foreign aid represents 1% of the federal budget and giving this up leaves us with mainly the military to influence foreign nations. Let's not forget how much Iraq alone cost and still costs us in money and blood. Are you saying to stop aid to Israel also? I certainly understand your sentiment, however.

It is very simple folks. When the debt clock starts going backwards then and only then will that be a true indicator that we are headed in the right direction. First step: Stop all foreign entitlements, then go from there cutting waste. Americans which are priority ONE should be at the bottom of the list to be affected.

TCB – “provide a proof source” I don’t know what this means since I asked a question. I googled Pauline Kael and fail to see where that fits in and I don’t really know much about the upper west side and fail to understand why you would ask me to look it up. About the only thing I got from your post is that you don’t think the elected representatives should necessarily represent the electorate’s desires – much as we get with severe gerrymandering. In this case Republican gerrymandering in order to stay relevant as no one will buy what you are really selling - except the low-to-no information voter. I know plenty of them.

Fordfan,

Define "allocated fairly" provide a proof source and I will answer your question.

The tally of the popular vote is entirely irrelevant. Ask Pauline Kael (go ahead and google her....and by the way-I spend a lot of time on the upper WestSide...)

Pharm,

You are correct. I am biased-its not a bad thing and I fully admit it. Everyone has biases priests,journalists, pharmacists, etc. Do you have the courage to admit your bias?

TCB, you don`t know if I am biased or just a troublemaker. The hack on Fox was one because of what he said, not where he was. And, it is still funny!

TCB - the title of the article is "Election, struggle with ‘fiscal cliff’ starkly contrast two major parties". I believe I asked a question about the election but perhaps you didn't comprehend that. How about answering my questions?

For you partial response, are the congressional districts supposed to represent the voters in those districts such that if allocated fairly the make up of the House would closely follow the majority vote? Or is that not the way you see it? What about the rest of my questions that you avoided?

TCB "The left general is intolerant of speech it does not agree with-which is probably why you disagree with the decision." No, this is not why I disagree with the decision. I don't believe that $= free speech. This decision simply allows those with more money to have a louder voice and more of an influence regarding the laws that are passed, which benefit them and not the individuals. Corporations are made of people they are not individual people and therefore should not be entitled to individual rights. I would much rather be a queen than a pawn. The sad thing is you don't even realize you’re a pawn.
As for your rant believing that "party is more important than person" only provides proof that you are incapable of critical thinking on your own as others have stated, you parrot right wing talk show host and plagiarize right wing blogs. I doubt that you have ever had one logical, rational thought of your own. What is it you righties say when a person cannot analyze an issue on its own merit and simply follow along with entire group thought? "Sheeple" I believe is the term. Which is exactly what you are doing when you simplify each political party and what each (in your mind) stands for.
You can respond if you so choose but I will no longer read your post, you’re not worth of debate. After all, you can’t fix stupid.

3rd,

Perhaps presidentfordfan does not know that congressional votes are cast and counted for specific candidates-for example, Paul Ryan can only receive votes for him or his opposition within the Wisconsin's 1st district.

This might not be the case in chicago-but it remains true in Wisconsin.

Or maybe ff thinks that the Potus is elected via popular vote count and not the electoral college. My guess is there are very few principles or ideals that ff actually supports-consistency is not one, that is a given.

Presidenfordfan,

THis thread about the fiscal cliff. If you wish to ask civics questions perhaps you can ask your mommy. And if she cant answer you can google wikipedia. It will be just as accurate as the CBO.

Pharm,

I dont know the qualifications of the guy on Fox- but based on your bias I guess that you think that all guests on Fox are hacks. Why is it that liberals assume they are the smartest in room?

Al Gore flunked out of college-and yet he is not a hack? He has zero credibility as a scientist-and yet he is the spokesperson for the climate change cause?
cite with a c....not s...

TCB, I was not citing (with a c) anything to prove a belief or disbelief in man-made global warming. I was citing a hack making an obviously idiotic statement. It is hilarious!

Fordfan asks: "Since the Democrats got significantly more votes as a whole in the House, why are they still the minority party in the House?"
Gee FF, didn't you bring up the concept of the low information voter?

TCB - some questions for you...
When was the last time a president was elected to two terms of office with over 50% of the vote as Obama was?
Since the Democrats got significantly more votes as a whole in the House, why are they still the minority party in the House?
And in the same election with more seats to defend, why did the Democrats, with state wide races as the presdiential election is, pick up seats in the Senate?
Why is Reince Pribus talking about dividing the electoral college votes in the states that have Republican held state offices but does not want to do this in states that are pure Red (with embassasment I suspect)?
And if you support the Priebus plan, why do you call yourself a supporter of democracy? Or do you?

Third eye,

I agree. I believe-though I am not a anthropogenic scientists-I will predict local climate change within 60-75 days. The temperature change or the "delta" compared today Feb 6-will be significant. The local area will undergo a significant warming period-over these next 60-75 days....

I cannot with certainty predict exactly what will happen locally, however the range of temperatures on May 1st could be very wide- 2 degrees C to 20 degrees C....I can write with confidence that there is little concern for humanity despite the short term swings in climate change. Hospitals may experience both the loss of human life as well as new life being brought into such a volatile climate. Food shortages, the loss of electrical or natural gas power sources are not likely to be impacted-as the local community has invested wisely in safe guards that allow for the free flow of energy to continue-despite local climate change. The volatile climate is likely to continue for at least the next 180 days and then a severe event which will cause the local area to cool drastically in the next 250-300 days....which will be followed by warming again....this cycle will continue every year as long as humans are allowed to drive the cars they wish and to fly in airplanes or to burn coal......

On these cold February days I often wonder when that global warming is going to kick in:)
(Smiley face added for the humor impaired, aka lefties.)

Pharm,

So now you are siting surveys and political strategists to prove the existence of anthropogenic global warming (or cooling?). Al Gore is to Brad Blakeman is to human caused global warming. Zero credibility.

Tell us Pharm, how the heck the ice retreated during the previous 5 ice ages? Probably had nothing to due with the fact my family has 3 cars-including a Yukon or that I travel via airplane does it?

The center for economic policy and analysis released a "study" probably paid for by US tax payers that claims if we work less = less global warming! let us know what the fox and friends news readers say about this-or better yet what Ed Shultz thinks about this important "new" discovery.

Meanwhile-I will plan on vacationing, traveling for business and pleasure, and working hard to support my family and my quality of life-in your terms-contributing to global climate change. Heck I even shop at Whole foods and bring my own bags-so that I dont have excess plastic bags! (unless I need to clean up after my dog...)

signed,

I wonder if the Sun contributes to global climate change?

"On Fox News, Republican strategist Brad Blakeman denied the scientific consensus on manmade climate change, saying "For every one scientist that says there is, I'll give you 10 scientists that said it's not manmade":

But in fact, credible surveys have repeatedly found that the vast majority of climate scientists agree humans are changing the climate. For instance, a 2009 survey published by the American Geophysical Union found that 97 percent of those who specialize in climate science said human activity is contributing to rising global temperatures"
Laugh of the day! You can`t make this stuff up.

TCB, the reality is Republicans fail when it comes to generating economic growth. Obviously, you are not aware that we will NEVER see 4% unemployment, thanks to technology OR that the President of the U.S. has NO control over markets (which also determines gas prices). The U.S. has far less direct influence in a global economy. The fact is, our economic growth is dependent on 80% of consumers earning a living wage. THAT'S considered the middle class. As Mr. Kinnaman correctly points out, the Republicans have destroyed our middle class. Sometimes reality sucks. This is one of those times. You can't change the truth no matter how much you cry, whine and gnash your teeth TCB.

TCB.. +1

Fordfan,

The USA is the greatest nation on earth and despite my list I choose to live here. I live in a country where I can choose to be openly critical of the leader and still live. Be positive-if the recession did not end in June of 2009 (which it did) think how bad it really would be.

As for the election-Obama won. He won with less votes in 2012 than in 2008 and historically 2nd terms are worse than the first term. America will be in far worse shape financially after Obama is finished-the fiscal cliff, the debt, the stagnant economy, a jpobless recovery, high prices of goods and services, and a desire to raise taxes on productive society members all of which provide a perfect storm for another recession. WHo will he blame then? And will you still believe that its Bushs fault? The low information voter will....

I day,

citizens united was decided 5-4 and certainly is not corruption. You may not like the fact that unions have a 1st amendment right to free speech-or that corporation do- but this does not surprise me. The left general is intolerant of speech it does not agree with-which is probably why you disagree with the decision.

As for the form of govt you would like-I thought you might want some unrealistic, "no party" type of rule. This exists in Cuba, China, North Korea, Iran and for example- it existed in Iraq until very recently.
Campaign funding is a separate issue from legislating-which tells me that you lack the basic understanding of why party is more important than person.. When you vote democrat you vote for liberals, collectivists, labor unions, academics, plantiff lawyers, net tax receivers, govt nannyists, anti gun-anti military, anti business, world-cause types-in general. And when you vote republican you vote for conservatives, pro strong defense, pro american exceptionalism, pro market, individuals for limited govt--in general. So parties matter-Which camp does Obama or Tammy Baldwin fall into and which camp does Paul Ryan fall into? This is what you buy when you cast your vote-good bad or indifferent. Everyone has a bias whether they say it or not. Our form of govt is not perfect-but it is better than the alternative-which is why millions beat a path to our borders every year.

Midnight...you are right! Obama is too busy flying around the country pushing his gun control montra instead of being in DC working on the economy which should be his priority. Now he wants MORE tax increases, additional spending and less spending cuts...talk about not keeping his promises. The Repubs, in going along with more taxes on the wealthy, were buffaloed by this shyster. Now he has backed down on his former spending cut plan of increasing Medicare premiums for wealthier Americans and other spending cuts.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/...

Of the scores of people dubbed terrorists and taken out by American military drone strikes, three men -- all killed in the fall of 2011 -- were U.S. citizens.

I'm sure this was on the liberal media under the "patiort act".

Protecting a loser in the economy and the national security of our country. Way to go libs.
Benghazi Barry will be happy to keep talking guns and immigration as long as we don't talk about the fact the Dems missed another budget deadline and we don't talk about the poor economy.

TCB
Feb 5, 2013 at 5:01 p.m.
Suggest removal

Your list makes everything sound pretty bad. And the Democrats still beat the socks off the Republicans in the last election even with the gerrymandering the right wing state governments did. How bad must the Republicans be?????

Thatwaseasy – in you plagarization from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012...

You missed the last two lines – I assume to make it look like you actually made this up yourself:

“If a Republican reads this, she'll forward it so her friends can reflect on it.
If a Democrat receives this, he will delete it because he's "offended".”

I listened to Rush a few years back...he said in justification for invading Iraq something like "Just wait until we get 50 cent per gallon gas and then see that the liberals say"....still waiting.

And for any one of you to try to defend Rush the biggest buffoon of all times kind of shows you mentality, don't you think? That is why you are low-to-no information voters.

Everything passed relating to cuts was also passed by republicans. Where`s the love? And where are your cuts?

TCB...Citizen's United is perfect example of "legalized" corruption. If I were queen for a day, that would be a monarchy...not for that. The system of gov't that would work best would be to have no party affiliation. Each candidate should run on their own merits without having a central organization telling them how they are going to vote if they want their campaigns funded.

Pharm,

Obama promised a responsible and balanced approach:

The facts

3.8 Trillion in Spending
85 Billion in spending cuts

This is the equivalent of $7 per month for a family earning 40K per year. Do you agree that this is a balanced and responsible approach? The Obama approach is a family earning 51K in annual wages and spending 73K while already having 325K in debt. Is this responsible? How long will you support this type of fiscal mismanagement?

The budget numbers are so ridiculous that the normal person cannot understand the fiscal impact-let alone the low information voter-who think Obama is a nice guy-which is why they voted for him. Obama has not cut a "trillion" from spending-he has proposed 85 Billion in cuts-for a fiscal year that begins October 1, 2013. Obama makes Bernie Madoff's crimes look innocent.

"Consider a 1977 law intended to finance the cleanup of abandoned U.S. coal mines. Coal producers are levied annual fees to help pay for the work, and this money, which amounted to $485 million in 2011, is distributed to 14 states, with states keeping 50 percent of the money collected within their borders. Yet four states that have finished their mine reclamation work continue to receive money. In 2011, for example, the Interior Department paid $140 million to Wyoming, and the state has claimed $10 million of it to finance a basketball arena at the University of Wyoming.

The Obama administration’s 2012 budget proposal recommended cutting off funds to states that have completed reclamation and setting up a competitive grant program to direct funds to the nation’s most hazardous sites. That would save the U.S. $1.2 billion over a decade, the Office of Management and Budget estimates. Rather than adopt this approach, however, lawmakers last year simply capped at $15 million the amount a state can get if it has completed reclamation. Funds will continue to flow to states that no longer need the money for mine cleanup.

Meanwhile, the 1872 mining law dictates that taxpayers continue to foot the entire bill for cleaning abandoned gold, silver and other mineral mines across the U.S., which has cost them more than $2.6 billion since 1998, according to the Government Accountability Office. The tab could swell to as much as $54 billion, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, yet a provision in the 1872 law keeps the mining industry from paying anything at all. The White House estimates a fee could increase annual revenue by $1.8 billion over the next decade. "
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-05...
To those advocating a trillion dollars in cuts, what are they? And no answers on the Medicare Advantage question? That is why it is hard to just cut spending. Not including defense cuts should be a non-starter as that is a big part of the budget, when all monies for defense are added up, it is the largest part.

Pharm asks: Liberal media bias in American news: fact or fiction?
Fact: Since Sandy Hook CBS radio news at 7:00 am (WCLO) has had daily stories about gun shows, gun show incidents, and gun show sales. Before Sandy hook this was not a subject. Could the bias be toward the ever increasing call for gun control?

1day;

Who specifically- is corrupt? What laws are being broken and have you reported this corruption to the proper authorities?

If not a 2 party system-let say you are queen for a day what system of govt would you prefer?

@ TCB...I don't know how you arrived at this "You agree that spending more than 1 trillion more than you take in good economic policy?" What I said was I agree that the two party system is broken and corrupt.
@that was easy "Oneday, you blame "trickle down" economics for the most successful time in America. While you are eye witness to the worst time since the last socialist FDR and the trickle down poverty for Americans." You second sentence contradicts your first sentence. If you truly believe that we are experiencing the most successful time in America, you must be one of the 2%,but with your reading comprehension skills, I doubt that. As I stated, there is over 30 years of data and statistics that prove we have been in decline ever since trickle down economics was implemented. Even Reagan's own economic advisor, the author of trickle down economics has said it has been a complete failure.
"Get real- most of the mess started with Clinton's houseing act and steam rolled when Pelosi and the Dems took over in 2007." Again, your are mistaken. This mess started in 1998 with the Grahmn Leach Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass Steagal Act. The GSA is what prevented the circumstances that allowed the housing crisis to happen. While the GSA was in effect we had a stable financial system for over 60 years. It was less than 7 years after it was repealed that the financial system became unstable and remains so to this day. Although the Dodd Frank Act has helped to restore some stability.
"You've also complained about the "patriot act""...Never happened, I have never commented on the patriot act.
"Tyranny starts somewhere doesn't it?" People like you that constantly rant about tyranny are so paranoid you are bordering on mental instability yourselves. People who are this paranoid frighten me much more than anything the gov't might do. Have you ever thought about joining the "Freemen" in Montana? Civilized society might be safer.

panama,

So correlation equals causation?

Im sure no one, let alone Janesville auto workers would hate to go back to the stone ages when Reagan was president or even George Bush. Heck, 4% unemployment-real job growth, and global economic prosperity were only an illusion.

its great in Obamaland:

48 million on food stamps
8.6 Million left the work force under Obama
16.4 trillion in debt
1.6 Trillion budget deficit
real unemployment 16%
50% of new college grads unemployed
All time high gasoline prices
Gitmo open for business
Iraq and Afghanistan still occupied
More military suicides than killed in action
the 1% got richer and the 99% got poorer
Stock market up-poor did not participate in this redistribution of wealth
41 Children killed by television sets and govt is doing nothing to stop it

But lets focus all energy on legal citizens who own guns! (Never mind the real petty issues-like jobs says Obama-surrounded by men carrying assault weapons!)

So again, never mind these facts-Obama rode in on his unicorn blaming all of societal ills on Bush (and you believed him) and will ride out on the same unicorn-the drone warrior has promised change. Heck maybe hell get another Nobel peace prize! He has earned it!

At least the rest of the globe "likes" the USA now......

Here are some facts, not spin or talking points. The fact is Republican policies result in economic failure time after time.
-
The growth of GDP during the administrations of ALL Presidents since Hoover has been tracked by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, a unit of the Department of Commerce. The results clearly show that GDP growth is nearly THREE TIMES as great when Democrats are in office as compared to Republicans. The four (4) with the greatest average GDP growth are all Democrats: Roosevelt 6.4%, Truman 6.2%, Kennedy 5.7%, and Johnson 4.2%. The four Presidents whose administrations saw the weakest economic growth were all Republicans: Hoover -7.3%, Bush(41) 1.9%, Bush(43) 2.4%, and Eisenhower 2.7%. The number of administrations and the total number of years is equal for the two political parties.
-
Mr. Kinnaman claimed, "income for the wealthiest 1 percent has increased 480 percent, while that of middle-income families has risen only 21 percent; the richest 400 families now have greater combined wealth than the bottom 150 million; 46 million now live below the poverty level; from 2002 to 2007, 65 percent of all economic gains went to the richest 1 percent of the population."
I have NOT seen any information provided by Republicans that dispute those claims.
-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/20...
-
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-08...

Granted this math is from when the US Debt was a mere 14.3 Trillion dollars but it will prove a point about presidents and debt.
Just saying that President Obama has the highest debt in history is quite inaccurate as the debt does not start over at each election but is an accumulative ongoing debt from president to president so we must look at the percentage of the total added while a president is in office. And a large portion of each Presidents debt is interest on the borrowing the previous administrations did.

All presidents prior to 1981 = 7% of the total
Ronald Reagan--------------- = 13.2%
George HW Bush ------------- = 10.5%
Bill Clinton ---------------------- = 9.8%
George W Bush -------------- = 42.7%
Barack Obama --------------- = 16.8% (2009)

All Presidents prior to 1981 7.0%
Republican Presidents incurred 66.4%
Democratic Presidents incurred 26.6%

http://useconomy.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1...

Mr. Kinnaman has used in this article just about every major Democratic Party talking point their spin doctors have issued over the last election cycle. That article could have been written by at least a half dozen of the Gazette's most obvious partisan Democrat commenters. For example, "This provides proof of the extent to which the extreme right has taken control of the Republican Party." has been repeated time and time again by Democratic talking points parrots that comment on the Gazette on almost a daily basis. It's as though they are in the Capitol's rotunda singing songs and chanting slogans in unison.

Thank you for that article Mr. Kinnaman, but I think it was unnecessary. The faithful already have their lines memorized.

Yup and when you’re applying a greasy lubricant of some sort, you are usually are told to do it “liberally”

Oneday, you blame "trickle down" economics for the most successful time in America. While you are eye witness to the worst time since the last socialist FDR and the trickle down poverty for Americans.

Get real- most of the mess started with Clinton's houseing act and steam rolled when Pelosi and the Dems took over in 2007. Bush wanted to put regulations to stop the looming housing crisis and the Dems said "lay off" - Blame yourself, blame the Dems.
You've also complained about the "patriot act" - well now how do you feel that Obama not only hasn't stopped it but is now giving authority to shot down Americans with the drones.
Before or after they take our guns away.
Tyranny starts somewhere doesn't it?

oneday at a time,

You agree that spending more than 1 trillion more than you take in good economic policy? The govt will receive about 2.6 trillion in revenue and it will spend 3.8 trillion. This is sound "responsible and balanced" economic policy as defined by the President in 2013-B Obama?

Who will Obama blame for the economy he inherited in January 2013?

I agree with you completely Eagle..66% of the Senate are millionares and 44% of the house are millionares. They are not there to represent us, they represent themselves. I was simply stating that the policies that have been created by this were bills initiated by Republicans and that enough of the Democrats are so self serving that they have never wanted to vote against them. It would be voting against their own interest. It just amazes me that we have over 30 years of data and statistics that prove the very policies that many on the right are advocating DO NOT WORK. If 30 years of doing the same thing over and over again hasn't worked why would anyone want to continue with those same policies?

Phar, I read through your posts about deficit reduction, those numbers are laughable at best, the fact they are peddling these as significant and people are buying that is sad and scary. if they were serious about spending reduction and reducing the deficit and the debt, the minimum they could do would be balance the budget. But I guess it is tough to balance something that doesn't exist. Are we really lowering the bar that much that a miserable 200+ billion per year (this doesn't take into account the massive interest on the current debt btw) reduction is something to brag about, holy crap we are all doomed with these parties and the fools that support them.

Phar,

The level of cuts the obama is suggesting for Fiscal year 2013 is the family household equivalent of $7/per month -or 84/per year -assuming that family earned $40,000 per year. This is what Obama calls a balanced and responsible approach.

The interest paid on the federal long term debt-under Obama-in 2011 was 227 Billion-this is on interest alone-the debt is 16.4 trillion and growing daily. The interest payments alone exceed the total spending of the Department of Labor, The VA, Homeland Security, The Department of Education, The department of transportation, and the Department of Agriculture.

If every family spent like the federal govt it would have earned $51K (which is the median family income) and Spent 73K in that same year. That same family would have $325K in debt it owed to creditors as well. Do you think Obama would allow this to happen to his own family? This is a man whose net worth increased nearly 900% since he ran for the US senate. Not a bad return on investment-I cannot say the same for me - can you? The Obamas must have been the beneficiaries of a Bush economy - and he sounds like a 1%er......

onedayatatime, awesome you agree with what she says but then pass it off to only one party when both parties have held onto congress for a significant part of the timeframe you picked, when will you people wake up that the 2 party system is at best inept and most likely extremely corrupt?

Well bowlgal everything you stated is true. What you fail to grasp is that it is because of the last 30 years of failed Republican policy of trickledown economics. It hasn't trickeled down, that is why we have more people on public assistance and lower wages for the middle class. Perhaps you shoud reread the article.
"The result of these measures are many: In the past 30 years, income for the wealthiest 1 percent has increased 480 percent, while that of middle-income families has risen only 21 percent; the richest 400 families now have greater combined wealth than the bottom 150 million; 46 million now live below the poverty level; from 2002 to 2007, 65 percent of all economic gains went to the richest 1 percent of the population."

While you're at it, vote for the highest poverty, real time 20% unemployment, more people now on welfare then income, and middle class income dropping. Oh wait, you already did that.
But, hey, they saved Big Bird...right on!!

pharm
43 Presidents equalled 10 trillion in debt.

1 president named Barry 7 trillion all by his self.

Take that to your low information booth and vote for more of it.

Let us talk about steretypes shall we Tim

If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A Democrat wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Democrats demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.

If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A Democrat demands that the rest of us pay for his.

Fordfan thinks all we do is sit around and listen to Rush when we are the hard working independents. He projects his own reflection.
If you aren't a low-information voter, why protest so much?

"Government spending under President Obama has grown at a slower rate than it did under any president since Dwight D. Eisenhower was in office six decades ago, according to an analysis from Bloomberg. That may not jibe with the conservative complaints that Obama has overseen a massive growth in government spending, but it’s true"

Federal outlays over the past three years grew at their slowest pace since 1953-56, when Dwight D. Eisenhower was president. Expenditures as a share of the economy sank last year to 22.8 percent, their lowest level since 2008, according to Congressional Budget Office data. That’s down from 24.1 percent in 2011 and a 64-year high of 25.2 percent in 2009, when Obama pushed through an $831 billion stimulus package. [...]

Spending grew just 0.6 percent from 2009 to 2012, according to data compiled by Bloomberg from government reports.

Obama has already agreed on $1.4 trillion in spending cuts with Congressional leaders, which, combined with new revenues and reduced interest payments, will reduce the deficit by $2.5 trillion over the next decade.

Spending is expected to fall 1.3 percent in fiscal 2013, according to projections from the Congressional Budget Office. Annualized spending under Obama is growing slower than it has under the past four Republican presidents, as ThinkProgress noted in March. Meanwhile, a Goldman Sachs analyst told Bloomberg that a stronger economy will cut the deficit to $500 billion, to less than 3 percent of gross domestic product, by 2015."
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/01...
Be informed, not "low information"!

Let us see how conservatives react to this statement. We should get rid of Medicare Advantage to cut spending because it costs 14-17 percent more than regular Medicare.
They excoriate Obama for not cutting entitlements, yet run ads blasting him for supposed Medicare cuts. They fight defense cuts and say they cost jobs, then argue government spending doesn`t create jobs. They don`t come forward with specific cuts for spending because they know what they want to cut will not be popular. They support farm subsidies because those states vote republican.
(Thanks to Michael Grunwald, Time Magazine, for the talking points) The Med Advantage question is all mine.

Pharm,

Can those spending cuts be rescinded? Sure they can. Federal spending forcasts 8 years into the future are as accurate as hens teeth.

For this year the obama has promised 85 Billion in spending cuts on a budget of $3.8 Trillion. To put this into perspective-this is the equvilent of a family earning $40,000 per year to cut $7 per month from their budget.

The deficit remains more than $1 trillion this year (starting Oct 1-which is the govt fiscal calendar). This is what Obama means by "balanced and responsible" approach to the nations finances. Which is also why we have a 16.4 trillion debt and no job growth.

The American Progress article ends by saying .."... Since the start of fiscal year 2011, Congress and the president have cut about $1.5 trillion in programmatic spending, raised about $630 billion in new revenue, and generated about $300 billion in interest savings, for a combined total of more than $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction. The result is a substantial cut in how much publicly held debt the country is expected to hold 10 years from now. Instead of reaching nearly 93 percent of GDP, debt is now projected to total about 83 percent of GDP—fully 10 points lower. And while that won’t be enough to finally put the budget onto sustainable footing, it is a massive improvement. In fact, it’s about two-thirds of the way toward stabilizing the debt-to-GDP ratio."

What this article fails to mention is the new, additonal TRILLION dollars collected by the US government from OBAMCARE taxes that are kicking in.

So tax revenues are up $1.63 TRILLION and spending cuts are at $1.5 TRILLION. The US gov't has once again bamboozled the Americna taxpayer by collecting a hundred billion more to spend.

Disgusting.

tthompson,

There are plenty of studies that examine the tendencies and voting characteristics of low information voters. I've attached one. Dont confuse a label with a stereotyping.

An example of stereotyping is: All irish are drunks. This is stereotyping.

This is not: Low information voters are swayed by appearances (which explains John Edwards candidacy) a link to the study is listed.

http://phys.org/news/2011-07-low-informa...

"Since the start of fiscal year 2011, President Barack Obama has signed into law approximately $2.4 trillion of deficit reduction for the years 2013 through 2022. Nearly three-quarters of that deficit reduction is in the form of spending cuts, while the remaining one-quarter comes from revenue increases."
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/b...
Be informed.

Unless you talk with each individual voter and gauge their individual intellect regarding the 'information', the term 'low-information voter' is nothing more than a stereotype. I'd call anyone who uses the term 'low-information voter' a low-information stereotyper, but then that would be redundant.

Another view, be well informed.
"Thirty-year Republican House of Representatives and Senate staffer Mike Lofgren, in a 2011 article entitled "Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult", characterized low-information voters as anti-intellectual and hostile-to-science "religious cranks," and claimed Republicans are deliberately manipulating LIVs to undermine their confidence in American democratic institutions."

TCB, good points.

Right TCB - fordfan should probably listen to Rush before speaking what he does not know.

don't be a low - information voter.

BTW Fordfan - the guy that shot Gabby Gifford was a "left winger" in your terms disgusted by his government.

If you are driving on a rough and bumpy road, you drive slower to "conserve" your car from damage.

Don't be a low-information voter fordfan.

fordfan, perhaps you relate more to the term 'useful idiot' rather than 'low-information voter'. I would say both parties are riddled with them.

Ford fan,

Samuel Popkin a liberal political scientist who consulted for Al Gore and bill Clinton-is credited with the term Low information voter and used it as early as 1976 while working to defeat President Ford- (maybe you are a President Ford Fan-which is where you took your screen handle?)

I accept your apology. Now go back to watching Fox and friends-

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl...

Fordfan,

You must not be familiar with George Lakoff or Samuel Popkin liberals who coined the term Low information voter-to describe voters who liked Bill Clinton because he ate at McDonalds. Instead you search for phony boogey men on Fox news-where 2 million people might be watching at any given time. While 25 million watch ABC, NBC, CBS...maybe bring back the fairness doctrine to?

Fordfan definition of free speech-I believe in free speech as long as I agree with what is said. The lefts version of Tolerance. Well done.

fordfan,

The Alabama professor that killed 3 faculty members as well as her brother was an Obama supporter-maybe even volunteer for the dear leader-do you wonder if there is a connection-since obama shoots guns "all the time"?

"low information voter" must be a term just discovered by the right wing. Low information voters are the ones who get their news from right-wing talkers like Limbaugh, Beck and their ilk along with Fox News - better known as Faux News because most of it is made up. So, since they are addicted to this trash and they know it, they have to project the term onto the non-right wing paranoid so they can feel better about their unhealthy diet of trash news.

BTW - the guy in Alabama who took the child hostage greatly distrusted the government and was a listener of right-wing talk radio. Wonder if there is a connection with the talkers and the actions he took?

Leave it to a democrat to offer nothing and blame only others. Spending is out of control and the democrat solution is to take more from tax payers and spend more. Well done.

The dems want the low information voter to believe that income taxes can be raised on everyone without consequence. Then again, those who are truly rich-the Warren Buffets and mitt Romneys pay capital gains taxes-at rates ~1/2 (20%) of what those who earn income via a salary-36%.

Both Democratic and Republican presidents once warned that high tax rates can reduce economic growth. And Secretaries of the Treasury under both Democratic and Republican administrations once pointed out that higher tax rates do not necessarily bring in more tax revenues than lower tax rates. Yet this lesson from more than 90 years ago has still not been learned by those who advocate higher taxes on "the rich" as the answer to our fiscal problems. Obama showed that class warfare rhetoric wins votes from gullible people-remember when he promised that only "households" (households do not pay taxes-people do) would see an increase in their taxes-I guess everyone earns more than 250K becauseon Januaru 1, 2013 everyone saw a decrease in their take home pay-not those 8.6 million who've left the work force under Obama-those who have jobs.

The White House has always been a source of Dis-information. Never before in history have we had such a compliant media to aid his poor behavior. As far as the TEA Party, what's the problem? You have to live within your means, why wouldn't you expect your government to do the same.
You live everyday as Conservatives.
Running low on cash? Avoid big purchases to "conserve your money"
Electric bill too high? Shut off a few more lights to "conserve energy"
etc etc.
Face it folks, you expect more from yourself as far as being responsible then you do your own Government. That's why Obama fooled most of the low information voters.

I am not familiar with any partys per say I just think no one should pay high government taxes for waste.

dusty ... please do not tell me you are not alarmed about how Obama got his money during the 2012 election campaign. I know Romney received more campaign contributions than Obama (quite different than in 2008 when Obama outspent McCain nearly 2 – 1), but for you to paint Obama’s campaign sources as the little guy on Main Street … that’s pure BS!
Obama raised over $300 million for his re-election bid, $24 million of which came through a secret channel that allowed him to raise money from wealthy donors in chunks of more than $30,000. At least $9 million of that haul came from just 8 newly enlisted wealthy power brokers, which his campaign has attempted to brand as “volunteer fundraisers.”

About $20 million came from people giving $200 or less. $20 million. Small donors made up one-fifth of the Obama re-election money raised. While the Obama campaign consistently has touted its grass-roots, small-donor fundraising appeal, the reach of the tentacles of a few hundred people, largely Hollywood moguls, Wall Street financiers and Chicago establishment figures, is astonishing. 445 bundlers gathered at least $100 million for Mr. Obama, and likely much more. Even as campaign officials said 98 percent of its donations were less than $250, more than 100,000 people are documented that donated between $5,000 and $35,000, totaling $16 million. Meanwhile, contributions under $250 amounted to just $24 million. Seven times more people gave vastly more than $5,000 than gave between $250 and $1,000.

Nine people and couples collected more than half a million dollars each in three months by hosting parties and phoning wealthy friends. Sixty-one gathered half a million a piece last year. Among the new bundlers are Marilyn Katz, a Chicago public relations consultant who was a member of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in the 1960s; Thomas McLarty, a one-time chief of staff to former President Bill Clinton; Eva Longoria, an actress who appears on “Desperate Housewives”; and Betty Saltzman, an heiress and longtime supporter of Mr. Obama. In the District, real estate developer R. Donahue Peebles, who contemplated a bid for mayor, raised between $100,000 and $200,000.

Obama has also firmly fastened technology workers into a reliable money spigot. Where lawyers and energy executives have long dominated campaign contributions, Mr. Obama has found thousands of computer programmers and Internet executives who are enthusiastic, liberal [-] and wealthy. Among his top contributors are employees of Google.

MRData: enough of the false equivalency on everything. Spending by Super PACs and other outside groups in the last election, the first since Citizen's United, was $577 million for Romney and $239 million for Obama.

Liberal media bias in American news: fact or fiction?
By Arion McNicoll Posted: August 13, 2012
10

An infographic from the 4th Estate

"The commonly held view that mainstream American news has a ‘liberal bias’ is a myth, according to new research.

A study by 4thestate.net, released on August 9, found that in coverage of the 2012 US presidential election, a greater percentage of negative comments were directed at President Obama and the Democratic party than their Republican rivals.

The study took into account news reports from publications ordinarily considered to be Democrat-friendly, including the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, CNN, NPR and MSNBC, as well as Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News, which is regarded as being Republican in its political leanings.

Between May 1 and July 15 this year, Republicans were quoted more frequently Democrats, and, according to the research, negative coverage for Barack Obama was 17% higher than for Republican candidate Mitt Romney."
http://www.thejournalismfoundation.com/2...

NRCC | February 4th, 2013

"President Obama’s budget is due today and, according to the White House, it will be late for the fourth time in five years. Whether it’s the Arab Spring, ATMs, or, of course, “headwinds,” President Obama is known for putting blame on anything and everything he can in order to escape taking responsibility for his failed economic policies."

Obama’s Top Ten Excuses Why His Budget Is Late

http://www.nrcc.org/2013/02/04/obamas-to...

Brown says .." ....the Tea Party Republicans were BANKROLLED by Big Corporations as well as Billionaires wanting more tax breaks and Billion Dollar Subsidies. Like the 20 BILLION Dollar Oil Subsidies!"

First, I don't like BIG OIL either. But I do know how business works. Remove the $20BILLION in oil subsidies, or whatever the real number is, and our gasoline / diesel fuel prices go up on ALL of us.

Second, special interests supported both political parties, my friend. BIG BIG money from Wall Streeter, to large Unions, to OIL companies, to billionaires like the conservative Koch brothers supported Romney and liberal billionaires like S. Daniel Abraham, William Hambrecht, Charles Kushner, Charles Ergen, Warren Buffett, Howard Buffett, Pete Buffett, Carlos Slim Helu, Thomas H. Lee, Alex G. Spanos, Ron Burkle, Steven Spielberg, John Doerr, Jeffrey Katzenberg, John P. Manning, Gary Winnick, Robert Dyson, Dennis Washington, Bernard Schwartz, Carl Lindner, Haim Saban, B Wayne Hughes Sr., John L. Tishman, Edgar M. Bronfman, Vance K. Opperman, Vinod Gupta,Ted Waitt, David Shaw, Ted Turner and oh yeas .. that goofball named George Soros all financially supported Obama.

So go cry me a river and stop lieing that BILLIONAIRES only support conservatives. Obama raised more PAC money from billionaires than Romney.

PLUS, when you literally own / control the liberal news media -- CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS -- and the entertainment industry who makes movies and songs that influence us, and the PUBLIC education system whose teachers propagan dize our kids into believing capitalism and conservatism is bad ... the Republicans have a very minute chance of getting a fair coverage in their elections.

What goes around, comes around. Once the news media outlets become owned and controlled by the conservatives, and once the entertainment industry is converted to conservatism, the DEMS will be shown the door.

I already see a leading Dem .. Bill Maher ... whi is beginning the charge with his questioning of the need for / the value of the nation's entitlement programs. He's asking if the tax dollars used for entitlements could be better spent on other things, just like conservatives.

Once Dems start asking those questions, they'll realize the failings of Keynesian economics and the poor leadership skills that Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the Dems have.

what a wonderfully objective article. (Sarcasm) Increased government by both parties has gotten us into this mess, the blind cannot see the obvious at times.

"The Tea Party must be destroyed"

So much tolerance from the left...

Good article! Once the republican party can successfully destroy and minimize the cancer known as the TeaParty...we Americans may once again find our way to a prosperity that benefits those whose labor creates that which is needed and those who manage that labor and logistics needed to have private enterprise run the way it should...to benefit those needing a product or service and those who provide the products and services of our society.

The Tea Party must be destroyed.

It was apparent during the last election that the Tea Party Republicans were BANKROLLED by Big Corporations as well as Billionaires wanting more tax breaks and Billion Dollar Subsidies. Like the 20 BILLION Dollar Oil Subsidies! WHY??? When they have record breaking Earnings! Paul Ryan would rather put the elderly out on the street by cutting their Medicaid & Medicare...than cut the pork for the Big Corporations! The baby boomers paid Payroll taxes for 40 or 50 years and paid into the system...now that they are sick...why should they be treated like disgusting "Takers" by the GOP?