reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...

Gary go to Obamanomics-Lew Rockwell on Economics 101......

September 30, 2010 at 2:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...

Gary if you have 114 minutes to spare go to Videos for Obama Deception alex jones.

September 30, 2010 at 2:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...

Gary if you only have 11 minutes go to Videos for alex jones health care lies.

September 30, 2010 at 3:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...

Gary please go to Lies, Damned Lies-Canada Free Press.........and now you know the rest of the story.

September 30, 2010 at 3:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I can't speak to specific language in the HCR package...but I can speak to the spineless nature of the Democratic Party. And I say that from the perspective of a life-long democrat.

By the time the Dem's got done caving in to all the bellyaching, distortions, and downright lies (remember death panels), put out by the GOP (Grand Obstructionist Party)---we ended up with a watered down law that is of little value to anybody. And the really disgusting part is they did it all in an effort to gain the approval and "love" of the Republicans which they were never going to get no matter what they did.

That theme has been carried through the Obama White House and the current Congress to the point that this administration looks more like the last administration than the last administration did. And surprise...surprise....the GOP still doesn't approve or "love" them.

Until the Democrats learn what the Republicans have known for years....that politics is a rough and tumble, frequently crooked, and always dirty game they will continue to be an ineffective joke.

Ironically however, when a state politician, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Tom Holland, attempts to honestly portray the difference between himself and his opponent, the Gazette's esteemed editor and political pundit Chris Walker chides him for being negative. Go figure that one.

September 30, 2010 at 3:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

It used to be said that freedom of the press was limited to those that owned one. All that changed with the Internet...now everybody owns a press with world wide distribution.

But after a few years of looking at the results I'm not at all sure that is a good thing. Now, every nut-job with a computer and two fingers to peck at a key board can use his press to disseminate what ever perversions of the truth, hate, lies, and ugliness he sees fit. And he usually finds no shortage of other nut jobs to believe every word.

This has changed politics for the worse by placing all the rough and tumble, frequently crooked, and always dirty nature of politics on steroids.

September 30, 2010 at 4:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Quack (anonymous) says...

I resent that- I can use three fingers...

September 30, 2010 at 4:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Quack (anonymous) says...

And one on the other hand for the "shift" key

September 30, 2010 at 4:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

biscuitboy:
You get upset when others point out the wrongs of the Democratic way and you perceive it to mean that they think that the Republicans are innocent and good, and after reading your 3:33 post, I believe you are projecting when you say that because it's what you do on behalf of the Democrats. You told everyone what crooks and traitors the Republicans are and then essentially said that the Democrats are poor, naive do-gooders who have never done anyone wrong and are just in over their innocent little heads. You know where I stand on both, so you know I'm not defending either one, but I am put off by that post you made. Of course, you did follow up with an observation of the nut-jobs with computers, so I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that you were doing some introspection after your first post. ;-D

You had to know you were baiting......I'm the fish that bit. Good thing we're friends, huh? :-P

September 30, 2010 at 4:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

proverbs18_21 (anonymous) says...

Say it isn't so! A politician lied???? I'm shocked!

September 30, 2010 at 5:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

oh4

I may well have been baiting but I think you misinterpret my intent.

It is my honest opinion the Republicans play the Democrats politically like a fine violin....and they have done so for years. What better proof do you need than the past two years. With a substantial margin of victory in the Presidential election...... a Congress that was described as a super majority....and a Republican Party with approval ratings in the toilet....they should have been able to push through sweeping changes. In stead they far$ed--fumbled--and fell while accomplishing virtually nothing of importance except a watered-down HCR bill that should have been left in the toilet.

And this happened to a great degree because of the obstructionist tactics of the Republican Party. Now you might not like to think of it as obstructionist tactics but that is exactly what it was. Considering the situation it was the only real tactic they had and they played it to a tee.

The Republicans have also done a masterful job compared to the Democrats in shaping and controlling public opinion through the use of inflammatory pundits like Rush (the fat man) Limbaugh.....and blogs on the Internet....some of which play fast and loose with the truth.

Now, of course, the Democrats have been trying to play catch up in the last few years but they are still like a local high school playing against a professional team in the political shenanigans department....and I'm not at all sure they have the basic combativeness in them to do the job. Hell, I'm such a lightning rod on this forum because I am one of the few liberals that will stand toe to toe with the conservatives and duke it out. And they don't like that.

Finally, I don't quite see where describing the Democrats as spineless in nature and an ineffective joke is tantamount to saying they are poor innocent creatures. It's more like saying they are way out classed in the dirty ruthless game of politics that the Republicans play so well.

September 30, 2010 at 5:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I really do think you should re-read my post oh4....I really do think you did misinterpret a lot.......and we are friends....just friends that disagree sometimes....:-)

September 30, 2010 at 5:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

empgazfan (anonymous) says...

That dumb fat black lady who got on TV last week and whined that she was tired of defending Obama must be the dumbest supporter he has. Who needs Republicans with supporters like that? Have you ever seen a conservative Republican get up and fire a line like that at a Republican president? I'll bet she single handedly put in motion a sequence of events that will bring about the loss of health care assistance to millions of people and turn back the clock on women's rights.

September 30, 2010 at 5:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

krazykansan (anonymous) says...

what does "fat" have to do with it?

September 30, 2010 at 7:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Reddog spends all his time on youtube, and the rest of you fight amongst yourselves, repubs. vs dems. all the while the professional polls laugh at us.

There was 1 chance that our government could vote on tax cuts, (or tax raises), depends on where you stood, this week.

But being the politicians they are, NEITHER party did what was right for America, just what was expedient for their re-election.

It is no wonder people are fed up with both parties, and I think both of the main parties will suffer for it. There may be some "crazy" people elected in the upcoming election and it is because people are just plain fed up.

ALL THE MORE REASON FOR "NONE OF THE ABOVE ON THE BALLOT.

September 30, 2010 at 8:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

But what is happening in Massachusetts, which has a system in many ways similar to the current HCR, is that the insurance companies are being driven out of business. Soon there will be only 1 choice. The government. That is why they dropped the public option out. They knew with the policies instituted they would end up with it eventually by default.

If the Republicans truly could "play the Democrats politically like a fine violin"........ then we wouldn't have ever gotten the Democratic super-majority we currently have right now, would we? Both parties are masterful at playing the other. When the opportunity presents itself. When conditions are ripe, and permit. It swings both ways. I see no difference over time in how either party plays the other.

September 30, 2010 at 8:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Right now many Republicans are pretty masterful at blaming ALL our deficit problems on the current admin. Just as Democrats are pretty masterful at blaming all the reasons for the current recession on Bush, and denying their part in the housing bubble that pretty much triggered the whole mess (are you listening, Barney Frank?). And before that Repubs were masterful at playing on public sentiment against Clinton. And before that, Dems were masterful against the Repubs, and so on, and so on.........

I think examining TARP pretty much paints the accurate picture of it all. It was under a Republican president..... and a Democratic congress..... and of the 700 billion, 350 were release by Bush, who then said "no more, unless asked to by the incoming president-elect". And Obama asked for and got it.

And the moral of that story is...... no matter how ya slice it...... it pretty much comes out 50/50. If you disagree with it, you've got to blame your party just as much as the other. If you agree with it, you've pretty much got to give the other party just as much credit as you do yours.

Playing a fine violin my a$$. More like who has the biggest shovel in the horse stall at any particular time. Every time I leave the barn & come back they've traded shovels & stalls with each other.

September 30, 2010 at 9:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Scratch that, they both shovel the same amount and spend full time doing it. Only difference is the wind changes direction occasionally causing more of it to stick to one wall than the other at various times.

And folks, ya gotta remember - this article is from Gary Lukert, he of the most idiotic and has-most-of-his-facts-100%-bass-ackwards writer these boards have likely ever seen. Hey Gary! We sure do miss you around here when a Democrat tells a lie! ;-)

September 30, 2010 at 9:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

bisciutboy:
Yes, we disagree, but that's what makes our friendship fascinating. I really do think I understand that you were trying to put down the Democrats, but in doing so, you made them out to be innocent by comparison. I was just trying to point out that such comparisons are what prompts people to start bringing up evidence against the Dems and making the GOP out to be innocent by comparison. I know that gets under your skin when people do that. Maybe it is just me reading it that way, but since I know pretty well what your political position is from both personal conversations as well as defenses you have had to offer on these forums, I don't think I'm reading it in. I was just trying to point out that it reads that way--at least to me. I apologize if I didn't communicate that very well. You did say, though, that the two parties are not equally corrupt and are not equally skilled at "bellyaching, distortions, and downright lies" and obstructionist tactics against each other. When you give the Dems credit for doing something to try to make the GOP love them or for not knowing just how rough, tumble, crooked and dirty politics are, all of a sudden, they are the sympathetic lead character in a tragic emotional drama. The GOP, in your description, is the unfeeling, domineering, emotionally abusive character that torments and tortures the lead character, but that the lead is attached to and can't give up trying to gain approval/love/acceptance. That's why it was off-putting to me, but again, I will concede that maybe it was just me and reiterate that I did not mean that you meant it that way.

P.S. In my story, they are both aggressive, manipulative, abusive dysfunctional characters that are only ever happy if they are making the other one miserable.

September 30, 2010 at 9:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

REWBA (anonymous) says...

The phrase "You are either with us or your with the terrorists." is an example of how the republican party works. Marching orders come down from the top in the form of pithy and cleaver talking points and the elephants fall in line without even questioning the consequences of their collective actions.

The phrase "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is." is an example of how the democratic party works. Those at the top can never agree to a short simple message and ends up boring us all to death with never ending arguments over the definition of the word sex or something stupid like that. It's global warming...er...no, it's climate change...well...maybe, it's just greed. Anyway, nothing ever get accomplished even if they have a super majority.

create said it best on another thread: "Bread and circuses" yep :-)

September 30, 2010 at 10:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

oh4

Point well taken....and I also understand your interpretation, and your prediction that it was certain to trigger another round of "well you guys are just as bad as we are" that does often irritate me.

By the same token, I think I am admitting what many are often want to admit....politics is a dirty game. It was no accident that a certain (unnamed) strategist for a certain (unnamed) party a few years ago wrote and planned for what he defined as dirty tricks. Karl Rove himself made no bones about the practice of getting maximum mileage from dis-information.

Both parties do it....but I was giving a compliment (backhanded perhaps) to the Republicans for doing it better. One of the reason they do it better is the extraordinary party unity they maintain. As empgazfan pointed out....when would you ever see a conservative Republican break ranks the way that lady did last week on the Democrats. Democrats don't need Republicans to throw them under the bus....They do a great job doing it themselves .

Lastly....my remark about the Democrats wanting the Republicans to love them was in no way meant to paint them as kind and loving creatures being abused by the evil old Repubs. It was sarcasm aimed at their actually expecting the other party to join them as we all marched off together into La-La Land. In the real world of dirty old politics it was not in the Republicans best interest to join with them and give each other hugs. The Repubs recognize this and the Dems are fools if they don't.

September 30, 2010 at 10:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

You didn't really think I meant lastly did you.

My whole post was triggered by Gary Luckert's threat to not vote for Gary Jilka since he didn't call his opponent about an alleged lie. That is exactly the kind of rank breaking you never see among conservatives. REWBA did a great job of summing up in a few words what I was saying in several paragraphs.

But this whole idea of the best interest of the party superseding the best interest of the nation is the number one reason (drum roll please) our country is so screwed up today. It also points out the need (as Steve often points out) for the addition of a None of the Above option on the ballot. If None of the Above got the most votes you would hold the election over again. That in and of itself would break the stranglehold this two-party system has on us as quick as anything. That's also why we wont see it in the near future.....It's not in the two parties self-interest.

September 30, 2010 at 10:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I can think of a pretty high-profile Senator from Pennsylvania who has recently switched parties....... apparently all for political gain. "Threw his party under the bus", as you say..... apparently just to get re-elected.

Hint: Wasn't a democrat.... at least not originally. ;-)

But, to be fair, it happens all the time, both ways. Wiki has a pretty good lineup of listings, sorted by Repub-to-Dem, Dem-to-Repub, and back again, etc..... looks like there's plenty both ways.

Now I'm not denigrating someone who honestly has a change of heart or views, or who's ideology honestly evolves in any direction or the other.

But knowing what I know about politicians..... I'd say from this list.... I'd be willing to bet a large sum those I just decribed as honestly changing horses make up a much smaller percent than those who do it purely for gain.....

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

September 30, 2010 at 10:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I've also witnessed quite a bit of infighting in the Republican party in the last, oh, 4-5 years. About as much as I witnessed in the Democratic party the few years before that. One thing we can always be sure of in politics..... the pendulumn never stops swinging ;-)

What's most interesting is how both parties seem to be effective (in this case, moreso the Dems, because I'd say a larger percentage of the group is obviously former GOP) in denigrating the Tea Party movement. The Dems have been quite effective taking small segments of them and painting the whole as racist and ignorant. A much better job of doing it than the Repubs ever managed to do, when they had even much larger percentages of anti-war protestors carrying flat-out disgraceful signs, yet they weren't able to paint those protests as the few being representative of the entire movement. Not anywhere near the extent they've been able to against the Tea Party. Even though the few in the former were easily larger in number than the few in the now.

And we have infighting now in the GOP, Republican candidates are being defeated by Tea Party members in primaries, but instead of "closing ranks", - they're still going to campaign as write-ins, etc.... dividing up the voters (music to the ears of their Democratic opponents).

You may claim you don't see any bodies being thrown under the bus from one side.... but I sure do hear alot of bones crunching under the wheels..... ;-)

September 30, 2010 at 10:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

"That in and of itself would break the stranglehold this two-party system has on us as quick as anything. That's also why we wont see it in the near future.....It's not in the two parties self-interest."

Ahhh...... you may be starting to get a glimmer now of why both parties dislike the Tea Party so much...... and have their own pet media outlets (the ones in their pocket) work so hard to belittle/destroy it.............

September 30, 2010 at 10:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

And now, when I get told next (as I'm sure I will) they don't have to work to do it, the Tea Party does it to itself, they're all racist, blah-blah-blah, they're disorganized, blah-blah-blah, don't know what they stand for, blah-blah-blah.......

Well, then the media and entrenched parties are doing a dang good job of carrying out their propaganda agenda then, aren't they?

Because I honestly don't see where either of our current parties are all that different from the description in my first paragraph here.

September 30, 2010 at 10:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...

Steve, that was a good point you made. A retired Colonel told me the black lady that was critical of Obama was making 100,000 dollars per year and her kids attend a private school. It was a put up deal but, everyone took the bait. Steve you represent what I am hearing from a cross section of people that I visit with every day. November is coming!!!!!

September 30, 2010 at 11:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...

Go to documenentaries by Alex Jones....and give them to your friends. This will make the house of cards that is the left-right paradigm fall.

September 30, 2010 at 11:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...

Go to the truth about Sarah Palin and her backers

September 30, 2010 at 11:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...

Go to alex jones: gulf oil may not degrade for decades.

October 1, 2010 at 12:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I agree we apparently are starting to see some chinks in the Republican lock step armor. At first the Republicans widely assumed (IMO) that the tea party would just become some kind of a wing of the Republican Party...that was before they realized it was Old Line Republicans that were getting knocked off by them. I also think it is starting to dawn on Old Line Republicans now that these tea party candidates are not going to come into Washington and just automatically fall into line. Many of them are young and idealistic with no intention of following the old Republican Guard off to battle.

When some of the old guard's ox start getting gored by the new guys we might start to see some interesting alliances between old guard Dems and Repubs. They often will have self-interest more in tune with each other than with the idealistic new-comers.

Could be very interesting!

October 1, 2010 at 3:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

" Republican candidates are being defeated by Tea Party members in primaries, but instead of "closing ranks", - they're still going to campaign as write-ins, etc.... dividing up the voters (music to the ears of their Democratic opponents)."

That is exactly what I am talking about. Campaign rhetoric aside, the Old Guard of both parties is heavily invested in inside the beltway politics as usual. It is what they know......it is how they play the game. John Boehner is as much dependent on maintaining the old rules and procedures as Pelosi is. They are going to be threatened equally if the tea party actually succeeds enough to start to threaten that balance.

October 1, 2010 at 4:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

rabblerouser (anonymous) says...

You will have to prove that you have Insurance, But you don't have to prove that you are al Legal Citizen! What's wrong with this picture!
Like they always say: How can you tell when a Politician is Lying? ...............There mouth is Open!!!

October 1, 2010 at 5:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

open_eyes

It is not lost on me that my position here might appear to be that of someone talking out of both sides of his mouth.....and to a degree that is true.

But following the disaster of the Carter administration, the Republicans did seem to enter a period of ascendancy. They have controlled the White House and often the Congress during the majority of that time. And they built a satellite network of talk radio giants, TV commentators, and print media political pundits unequalled by the Dems. This satellite network has been masterful at helping control the agenda and the focus of the American people even during those times when the Republicans did not actually hold the reins of power. They also seized onto the potential power of the Internet some time before the Dems did even though Obama did seem to raise that to a new art form during his campaign.

This ability to control the talking points and the focus of the agenda was never more evident than in the first two years of the Obama administration. From a position of utter defeat and terrible poll numbers, the Repubs were pretty much able to emasculate the Dems super majority and leave them powerless to accomplish anything they claimed they wanted to accomplish. And that includes that poor excuse for health care reform they did finally manage to wiggle through.

Of course the image of all the negativity and the obstructionist tactics used to accomplish this defeat of the Dems may have come at a high cost to the Republican image...and that may be as much as anything the reason for the problems the Repubs seem to be facing from within and without now.

Of course all of this is my opinion and is placed out here more for discussion purposes than any statement of fact.

And yes oh4...the baiting nature of my initial post did serve to stir up a lively discussion if nothing else. I've been known to do that.

October 1, 2010 at 6:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sail (anonymous) says...

I dont think the demms or the repu can put our anger at the parties back in the bottle for a long time.This will be a interesting few years to watch.We have woken from our stupor.

October 1, 2010 at 7:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

genxer (anonymous) says...

Those poor Democrats. They are simply victims of the Republican bullies.

Liberals like to pretend like they are victims, that's why they play the race card every opportunity they get.

An overwhelming majority of the American people getting pissed off about the Dems idea of a health care fix is what stopped them from going fully socialized.

There is just way toooo much BS to respond to on here but biscuitboy pretty much full of crap.

I'm getting tired of all this talk. It's time for action. Let's undo the progressive/regressive agenda and get back to our roots, using any means necessary.

October 1, 2010 at 8:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

All true, biscuiboy, but I think you are concentrating on one and not pointing out the other a little too much. The Dems controlled the House by huge majorities - sometimes by a spread of over 100 - after Carter until 1994. Actually, you have to go back to 1955 to find the last time the GOP had the majority in the House before 94. And they had super-majorities under Carter. Maybe it isn't always the GOP turning things...... sometimes it is, as you said yourself, "the disaster of the administration". I mean if you throw a dead mouse in front of a cat you it really isn't accurate to sit back and praise the cat's hunting prowess. ;-)

And I think you have also overlooked the overwhelming liberal bias in most of the remaining media that you did not mention above. If not for those you listed, it would pretty much be complete domination. Surely you don't want a complete stranglehold on what we see and hear by either side.

I think one of the regular democratic/liberal analysts on Fox this morning said it best when talking about the Tea Party (and I paraphrase because I don't remember her precise words) - but she summed it up like "And that's what we're seeing in the growth of the Tea Party movement. Both Democrats and Republicans who are fed up with our current elected officials. More Republican than Democrat in their base, to be sure, but the former/current Republicans in the movement are just sick and tired of the way the Republican party has behaved the last several years."

October 1, 2010 at 8:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ZaneRokklyn (anonymous) says...

Getting back to the topic, did any of you folks GO to the debate? Jilka *did* call Huelskamp on that and other lies, every time he had the chance to do so. The debate was framed in such a way that he often had to take time away from another topic to respond to what Huelskamp had said, but he did do that in order to point out the lies. I suppose it's a shame if the Gazette's reporting of the event didn't include that, but just because it wasn't reported doesn't mean it didn't happen -- check with someone who was actually there before condemning someone publicly for something you didn't see!

October 1, 2010 at 9:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Well it has been an interesting discussion by everybody...everybody except genxer. But I have come to expect nothing of substance from that one.... just tough talking garbage.

October 1, 2010 at 10:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

open_eyes

I may in fact be giving the Repubs a little too much credit for the failure of the Obama administration. Their own ineptness may have had every bit as much to do with it as the political prowess of the Republicans.

Whatever the case the next few years will be interesting.

October 1, 2010 at 10:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

HCR started out as basically a government take over of the health care industry in this country. Moderate democrats are the ones who held it back from being such a fast leap to the left. The Republicans had no power, without the help of moderate Democrats the Republicans could not have stopped the take over.
People complain about what hcr is now and the potus reassures them that it is just the beginning, a "first step" if you will. So we have a moderate bill and the potus says it is just a step towards ...... what? A more moderate bill? No, a step to the left.
People want to say they are "moderate" but complain about a bill that didn't go far enough to the left. Excuse me if I find it hard to believe someone who says they are moderate yet is for a far left health care bill and wanting things to go farther in that direction. I've been told that there is a "new math" where things don't add up the way they use to. This must be one of those cases.

October 1, 2010 at 10:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sail (anonymous) says...

Wonder if in the future , our leaders that we placed in office will no longer want to go out in public,for fear of being badgered by the proletariat class.Im sure our local officials have seen an increase of opinions from all of us.Remember elected officials representing us got us in this mess, we dont want to send them back .

October 1, 2010 at 11:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I saw alot of inaccuracies claimed by BOTH sides of HCR. Obama on the one hand kept saying this was not for illegal immigrants, but yet he continually included that number in his statistics. And insinuated more than once when talking to those groups that, in effect, once they're made legal, then they won't be illegals and excluded. And, for the 10 or 12 people in the whole country who actually READ the bill (none of them politicians) - they found plenty of loopholes around many things claimed to be exempt. And the CBO $$ numbers kept changing daily - usually in the opposite direction that the Dems claimed. And..... always based on a "best case scenario" - like that EVER happens when government is involved. And the backdoor deal cut with the pharma companies bears some examination as well.
One has only to look at Massachusetts to see how things are turning out.

As for the Repubs, its simpler from their end, because every single thing they proposed got shot down, and then the opposition labeled them the party of no and said they brought nothing to the table (also baloney). But that makes it simple to boil it down - why didn't the GOP push the reforms they wanted when they DID have the power? So what gives me any reason to believe they will now? Yeah, I know.... the war was the main focus. Well, the economy (stupid) should have been the main focus the last couple of years, too. Too many of them were beholden to interests that had them in their pocket as well.

Right now I have pretty much zero faith in either. Housecleaning time. Anyone see any signs of a movement that has some similar aims? I'm sure if there was, it would attract the usual fringe crazies, like they all do, but, at its core, is there any such grass-roots movement going on that anyone is aware of?

If you did see one.....would you do a 180 and fall back in line march-step with the existing power base and find all sorts of excuses to belitte it? Or would you try to give it momentum to help steer and guide it into morphing into a real, constructive, viable alternative?

October 1, 2010 at 11:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Time will tell open_eyes what I will do.

When the new kid on the block actually gets on the block and I see that he/she is actually working to fix the things that are wrong with our system....and representing all the Americans in this country, not just the ones that look like him....I could warm to him quite quickly.

If however he shows up wearing his Roy Rodgers cowboy suit and waving his gun in my face telling me he his going to take his country back (using any means necessary to quote genxer) then I will oppose him with every fibre of my being...and at any cost necessary.

Right know I just want to wait and see.

October 1, 2010 at 12:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

seriouslyfolks

What is a moderate bill to some is a "far left' bill to others. I don't recall getting the memo that designated you or I either one as the sole arbiter of definitions.

And I always thought new math was a crock....I wouldn't trust it if I were you. :-)

October 1, 2010 at 12:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...

YouTube Black is Back: Don't Trust New Accounting Rules, Stress Test is a SHAM!

October 1, 2010 at 12:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...

Go to AGORA'S Financial's 5 MIN.FORCAST..........This is earthshaking. Read the whole thing and hold your nose.

October 1, 2010 at 1 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ClassicNotOld (anonymous) says...

I think Ron Estes, a candidate for Kansas State Treasurer, has the right thoughts:

"I will work with the Kansas Legislature to pass a bill that will not a allow State officials to use their agencies' programs to promote themselves for personal political gain. This is exactly what people don't like about government -- people focused on themselves instead of serving the public."

October 1, 2010 at 1:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Fair enough, biscuit. But just some friendly advice - quit paying so much attention to the Roy Rodgers that the media keeps parading across their screen and look deeper.

You know, kindof like how the media never paraded all the Kill Bush nuts wearing leather thongs threatening to bomb the White House across their screen constantly, but instead concentrated on the sentiment and displeasure of the whole against the administration policies.

Too bad very few opposed those "Roy Rodgers" with every fibre of their beings.... :(

I have never attended a Tea Party gathering. But I know people well who have. And they are very intelligent, hard-working, open-minded, forgiving, sensible and caring people - far from being racists. And they tell me they see very little of what gets pasted on MSNBC's comedy hour (news) daily. Who's playing the fine violin there?

As I said from the begining - give things time. It will either turn into something good, something bad, or fizzle out. Its a free country, one can participate and help shape any of those 3 directions, or sit back and watch and join if/when it suits you.

October 1, 2010 at 1:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2010/0...

http://www.rantrave.com/Rant/Massachu...

Not that I have any love for the insurance companies - just those fat cats at the top that think if a company makes a $100 million profit, that means $33 million apiece for the 3 of them. And send more of the jobs overseas so that next time around they get $50 million apiece.

Instead of giving their employees better wages & benefits, or reducing their premiums.

As I said - soon you WILL be told which company to buy your insurance from. Because you won't have any choice.

(Highlander) "There can be only one!" ;-)

October 1, 2010 at 4:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

Ready for some fun???

T'was the night before elections
And All through the town
Tempers were flaring
Emotions up and down

I, in my bathrobe
With a cat in my lap
Had cut off the TV
tired of political clap-trap

When all of a sudden
There arose such a noise
I peered out my window
Saw Obama and his boys

They had come for my wallet
They wanted my pay
To give to the others
Who had not worked a day!

He snatched up my money
And quick as a wink
Jumped back on his bandwagon
As I gagged from the stink

He rallied his henchmen
Who were pulling his cart
I could tell they were out
To tear my country apart!

'On Fannie, on Freddie,
On Biden and Ayers!
On Acorn, On Pelosi'
He screamed at the pairs!

They catered to his cause
And as they flew out of sight
I heard him laugh at the nation
Who wouldn't stand up and fight!
So I leave you to think
On this one final note

IF YOU DON'T WANT SOCIALISM
GET OUT AND VOTE!!!!!!!!!!

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!

Believe it says it all!!!!!

October 2, 2010 at 12:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

A poster on these boards just the other day announced his intention to vote for a candidate with several criminal charges outstanding against him (a couple of them suggestive of violence), because he wanted to show support for the third party the candidate was representing......

Another poster suggest we overlook some obviously pretty loose cannons supporting (and in some, cases running for office) representing another third party. Why? Because support for the party was paramount over the election of a few loose cannons that might come with it.

Any Republican that dares think out side the box is promptly labeled a RINO and sent off to some party purgatory.

Democrats throw them selves in purgatory (as in the writer of the letter that triggered this thread ) by refusing to support a party candidate that does not live up to their idea of party purity.

I, and others like me from all parties, continue to vote for the party candidate even when they feel he has done a terrible job. Why? Because they believe to not vote is tantamount to voting for some party they fear worse.

I somehow really believe this is "NOT" how the framers intended our system to work. Have we all become to blind, stupid, or lazy, to be able to look at things and make choices beyond the choice somebody else tells us to make?

I have only heard one individual on these boards of late come out and say....I am supporting a candidate from another party than mine......because I believe that candidate is the right man for the job. Is there only one man left capable of thinking for himself?

October 2, 2010 at 4:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

IF YOU WANT TO SUPPORT YOUR VISION OF WHAT AMERICA SHOULD BE....GET OUT AND VOTE!

Let's all bless America and what it stands for.

October 2, 2010 at 4:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

biscuit,I believe we have been saying the above.It is now time for our voices to be heard. The current "head of state" ( I will not call him a president for he is not, look up the definition of "president")
We are being lead down a path of total destruction for it seems that this current head of state holds very little values of what this country was founded on. He and his followers only know how to "control" and not lead. Yes! time for a change..............get out and VOTE!!!!

October 2, 2010 at 9:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

How is what I'm doing "not thinking for myself"? I have explained in detail several times why I won't vote for one of the two "big box" parties. I have explained in detail how I have researched several other parties and even posted links so people can do the same. The people who aren't thinking on this are the ones who complain about problems with the current system yet continue to vote for the two "big box" parties that have made up the system for a very very very very very very long time. How is trying the same thing over and over and over and over and over and expecting "change" thinking?

October 2, 2010 at 10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I have not commented on any of this, up until now.

After reading the letter that started this party bashing session and the comments that basically are party bashing comments, I have but one question ... How many of you are or will actually vote for someone/politician that does not represent a certain political Party, whether it be, Republican, Democrat, Tea Party, etc. and how many of you actually believe that a third, fourth or more political party system would be any better than what we now have ?

The U.S. now has a two party system that constantly fights for Power and the citizens tax moneys' and cares nothing about whats best for the country or its people and now you have a third party vying for the a piece of the power and money " Cake " and this party is trying to be " courted/absorbed or destroyed " by at least one party, possibly both and this third party has basically made enemies of both old established parties and their followers/supporters .

And as far as a political party or party candidate not being totally truthful and honest, none of the political partys or their candidates are truthful and honest , it is part of the game of politics .

To be quite honest, I do believe that the Democrats will lose the congressional majority this November and then you will see the real fighting, bashing and dirty politics begin, in earnest and you will or may see the country fall deeper into dispair.

October 2, 2010 at 10:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Truth, honesty, integrity, in politics, political partys and politicians ! Not in your or my lifetime !

October 2, 2010 at 10:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I agree methusla because I believe when the Dems lose control of Congress this November they will repay the Repubs in spades for all the negativity and obstructionist tactics that have been used on them

Furthermore, I wouldn't be too surprised to see Obama not seek a second term and the Dems to put forth a weak, throw away, candidate like the Repubs did with McCain last time. Thereby forcing the Repubs to put up or shut up about what great things they have in store for us.

During the six years the Repubs held all the cards during the Bush administration none of those great things were actually delivered....I personally don't think they will be next time either.

October 2, 2010 at 10:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sail (anonymous) says...

Who will restore freedom, who will restore a sound dollar,who will restore jobs,who will not increase my tax ,thats who I want to vote for. No more platitudes from the parties,we are no longer going to keep drinking the cool-aid.

October 2, 2010 at 10:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

seriously

You are thinking for yourself perhaps more than the ones who just keep on supporting the big box candidates....but you are still letting your decision be shape by party ideology. Hence your willingness to support a very questionable candidate to remain loyal to a party.

I would love to see the removal of all party identification. This would force all of us (yes, including me) to make our choices by looking at the candidate and what he said rather than just looking at what graphic he had next to his name..

October 2, 2010 at 10:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Oh, I agree biscuit, Obama will not seek a second term or will be shocked, if he does seek a second term, as I believe that his goose is cooked and there is a fork stuck in him . He may have been a " so, so " Senator, but I think he did not know how to be a " President " and I also believe his only claim to " Fame " will be that of Americas first African-American President and nothing else . But I do realize that it is very hard to accomplish good things as a President at times, even with a party majority controlling Congress . But then, again, I also realize that it is not the political partys or the people that is controlling government, but private and corporate money that is in control of every aspect of government and politics .

October 2, 2010 at 10:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

sail,

And just who will that be ?

Who has the ability or the power, truthfulness, integrity to do what they promise ?

Will it be that politician that tells you he can and will, better question is how can you believe that they will and can absolutely do what they tell you they can ?

October 2, 2010 at 10:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Right on meth about who really wields the reigns of power in this country and it's not either party. Both parties are powerless to do anything that is not in the best of interest of the real power brokers....the ones with the money.

To what extent that may work better for the Repubs than the Dems is solely because the Repubs have a long history of stepping and fetching for the real power brokers.

A few post ago one poster was complimenting President Bush on his willingness to only spend half the TARP money, leaving the other half up to President-elect Obama to decide. Get real. Bush did it that way so he wouldn't be the only one blamed for throwing all that good money after bad. And it worked. In the end Obama caught more heat for the Bush administration era program than Bush did.

October 2, 2010 at 10:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

REWBA (anonymous) says...

President Clinton lied about two adults having consensual sex and the republicans impeached him.

President Bush allowed a terrorist organization attack our homeland and kill thousands of innocent civilians. He failed to capture and or kill the leader of the terrorist organization who attacked us and refused to provide sufficient resources to destroy the terrorist organization responsible for 911. He created lies upon lies to convince congress to allow him to invade and occupy a country who had nothing to do with the attacks on us thus killing thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and thousands of brave American Soldiers. He created the largest government agency in the history of our nation and all his war spending was kept off the books. He was hated by all our allies and weakened the United States of America in ways that will never be repaired. His disastrous term as the president has left us with a mountainous debt to a communist country and still the right wing idiots sing his praises. If America goes back to a republican house, senate and executive branch in Nov 2012, the world as we know it is doomed. Our only hope is with the tea party. Hopefully they will divide the republican vote and allow sanity to reign long enough to recover from the Bush/Cheney era of errors.

October 2, 2010 at 11:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sail (anonymous) says...

Well we have one thing in common, we are both upset with politics,where we differ is I accept both parties are bad.Do you still believe that voting demm will bring in a state of nirvana.....Methusla,The last repub Presidential primary was interesting,the one who wanted a sound money policy and freedom protected was the one the media beatdown the most..

October 2, 2010 at 12:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

People forget it was anger at the Bush Administration and the Repubs that swept all those Dems into power two years ago. Now many of them are hell bent to sweep the Repubs ( or their knock-offs, the tea Party) right back into power so they can use the same policies that got us into this mess to start with to get us back out of it....LOL

But I kinda secretly hope they are successful by 2012. Then the rest of us can set back and say......"O-K big talking boy....show me what you got." And I don't think they will be any more successful this time than they were the last.

But I don't think any party that is rooted in a return to the early days of the twentieth century (or before) is going to have success convincing the rest of the world that America is capable of leading them into the Twenty-First Century. And until we can convince them of that we will continue to slip from our position as world leader.

October 2, 2010 at 12:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

REWBA (anonymous) says...

Sex Good War Bad. If you agree, you're a Democrat. Vote accordingly

October 2, 2010 at 12:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

The Twentieth Century was widely regarded as America's Century...The Twenty-First Century is still largely up for grabs. But as long as we maintain a white-knuckle grip on remaining in the last one....we don't have a prayer of succeeding in the new one.

October 2, 2010 at 12:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

REWBA (anonymous) says...

"Sex Good War Bad" could never be adopted as a democratic slogan because the word sex in the slogan is undefined. As we all know, the word sex is a broad term that means different things to different people. To some, sex is defined as a life long relationship between a man and a woman. If that is what is meant by the slogan, the homosexuals could never get behind it. To some, sex is defined as lying in a pile of blood soaked cash masturbating to the thought of making more. If that is what is meant by the slogan then the republican party could take us to court for violating their intellectual property rights even though the slogan clearly states WAR BAD which is opposite to the core republican beliefs. That is why a slogan like SEX GOOD WAR BAD VOTE DEMOCRAT could never be accepted by the democrats and also why republicans kick the spit out of democrats when it comes to the simpleton vote.

October 2, 2010 at 1:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sail (anonymous) says...

I think im moving to NZ.

October 2, 2010 at 2:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

REWBA, Please start using the head on your shoulders and not in your pants.

I understand it is so very easy to blame Bush for all the BAD things that happened while he was in office, but please note who had the final "call"and what party they were when he was in office, our congress. Our current "Head of State" can't say the above and Boy! d we should have many questions to ask him and THEM!!!

I so agree with Seriously and Meth,(believe there are alot of people stating the same) that it is time to LOOK at the person and not the party. We so need leadership at this time and not someone who will "sale" to the highest bidder. Is that truly possible or have we gotten so currupt even that is no longer possible? Are we at a point that "Divide and conquer" will happen because we no longer are able to work together?

October 2, 2010 at 2:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Is that what you were saying seriously...?

October 2, 2010 at 3:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

REWBA (anonymous) says...

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to all the greedy republicans who were aroused by my explicit description of blood soaked cash. Again, I'm sorry. It will never happen again :-)

October 2, 2010 at 3:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

sail......Sounds like a good plan to me! I really wonder at times to what extent the lunitics have taken over the asylum.

October 2, 2010 at 4:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

No. It wasn't what I was saying. You can look at the individual all you want but these days the people are pretty much controlled by the party anyway. If we had more parties we would have more choices and there would be more ideas to consider. Now we have two and it gets pulled back and forth and we get no where. If we had more parties(that people actually voted for) this could change. More ideas and perspectives could be thrown in the mix for consideration. It may not work like that at all but we will never know until we try. I don't mind the idea of someone running with out a party but I don't see them getting very far. Even Ross Perot with his vast resources had a party, the Reform Party.

October 2, 2010 at 4:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I actually do understand what you were saying seriouslyfolks. I even agree that having a number of parties is much preferable to only having two......though not as preferable as having none... :-)

But I am not going to take a party....any party.....just to support a third party when I still think that one of the two major parties is closer to my beliefs and ideals than any third party I know about.

I guess you could say I am still waiting for the right girl to come along. I just hope she shows up some day.

October 2, 2010 at 4:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Most people have your attitude so we will never have more than two parties. My way may not be the solution but it may be. Your way has been proven not to be the solution. Part of the problem is that partisan people like yourself refuse to believe anything bad comes out of your party, you just say that anything that appears to be a naughty no no that comes from your party is just something the other party tricked your party into. Well that's not entirely true, some Republicans will admit to the problems their party has caused like open-eyes. You still think that it was the Republican's "failed policies" that got us into this mess when it is widely acknowledged that it was Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Frankie Muniz etc. that got us into this situation and those are Democrat things. If the Republicans had been the fiscal conservatives they say they are perhaps when the Fannie Freddie Frankie bomb went off we could have recovered easier but they did not, they spent like liberals. Now "we" are creating a "small business bubble" that is going to burst because the majority of small businesses are not successful. The current government is going to force loans for small businesses and when they fail and can't pay the loans back ....... well the bubble bursts just like it did when they forced loans for people who couldn't afford to pay for a house. This seems more like repeating the same failed policies than what you are talking about.

October 2, 2010 at 6:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

biscuit, hope you are successful in locating that right girl and that you are the right boy, Good Luck.

Seriously, if you had a major choice concerning voting and not by parties, how would you decide which one to vote for?

REWBA, believe greed runs down both sides of the street, even on your street. I truly felt that your example of "Sex or War" was very poor. Yes, Clinton had absolutely no thought of the American people with his "act" and then denied. President Bush -War, which he has never denied and had the blessings of his congress, am I correct?

October 2, 2010 at 7:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

"Seriously, if you had a major choice concerning voting and not by parties, how would you decide which one to vote for?"

By the content of their character, of course. :-)

October 2, 2010 at 7:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

seriously

I am plenty able to admit that "my party" has caused some problems. In fact I don't even believe that "my party" is right about a lot of the things it does. But it's basic position on the role of government and our responsibility to all of our citizens fits my view of the world better than any other party I am aware of at present.

Fannie, Freddie, et al, were certainly contributing factors as to where we are today...but to claim that they are the only things that got us here, or that they are exclusively the problem of the Democrats, is to show a degree of partisanship that you accuse me of having. Even TARP had the approval of a democratically controlled Congress......but it was a Bush program.

The simple fact is both parties got us to where we are today, But I am somehow the only partisan while you are defending a party you don't even claim to like or belong to. If you don't want to be a Republican why are you always so quick to defend them every time some evil old Democrat says something about them. You are just about the most partisan non-partisan I have ever seen

As to open_eyes neutrality...LOLOLOL. You must be reading a different open_eyes than I am.

October 2, 2010 at 9:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

seriously, biscuit

Whether you place the blame on the Conservatives, i.e. Republicans/Republican Party or the Liberals, ie Democrats/Democratic Party for the current woes of the Country ... Don' t you think that no matter which political party happens to be in power or seeking the " Reigns " of power, no matter whether it is a two, three, four or numerous party or no party at all or individual with good intentions ... The fact will reman, it will not make any difference, what so ever, the outcome will still be the same ... individual, private and corporate money will still end up dictating this Countrys' policys, laws and agenda and that is simply the way it has been done for many decades and will continue to be done for many more !

This particular part of politics and government has been there for all to see, but there are a lot of people who cannot see this or do not want to believe that this is the way the game of politics and government is played and control of the Countrys' various governments has been and will be decided .

Even Emporias' micro government is no different than the National, State or County Governments when it comes to control of government and their decisions .
If you don' t think lthis is true, attend a local government meeting of the " minds " some time and see/experience it first hand .

The idea that the people control what is done and decided in government is nothing more than a " Grand Illusion " ! The concept or hope of " A government of the people, by the people and for the people . " is also, only an illusion and has been since the " people with the money, who have the power to buy and control the government and what the government does ", became the real and true reality long ago and will continue to be the real and true reality for a long time to come .

October 2, 2010 at 11:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

Seriously, Thanks with your statement above "content of their character"-in other words you LOOK, checkout etc. their position. I stated it poorly but did feel that was what you were saying.

October 2, 2010 at 11:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Fannie Mae is a government sponsored enterprise. It was formed in 1938 by FDR to spur the availability of home mortgage money to a country struggling to get out of the great depression. In 1968 Lyndon Johnson privatized it to get it off the federal budget. Since then it has operated as a privately held corporation, complete with stockholders. Freddie Mac was founded in 1970 again as a private corporation with stockholders. Both however are guaranteed by the U.S. Government against loss. Because of this guarantee the Government does have some regulatory control over the private loans they make.

The current housing disaster was triggered in part by some regulatory changes allowing....(not demanding).....Fannie and Freddie to decide to make loans to lower income people who previously would not have been qualified to do so. Since they could make these riskier loans and still be gauranteed they of course did so seeing the potential for a boatload of profit as long as the housing bubble continued to grow. It didn't and the rest is history. These regulatory changes were sponsored by Democrat Barney Frank hence the suggestion that the Democrats caused all this mess.

But considering the two are privately held corporations with governmental oversight that is a gross oversimplification of a complex issue. Over the years the regulation of Fannie and Freddie has occurred under both parties.

For more on this here is the link

hnn.us/articles/1849.html -

October 3, 2010 at 5:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

http://hnn.us/

Sorry, first link didn't work...try this one.

October 3, 2010 at 5:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

That one doesn't work either. If you want to read it google Fannie mae and Freddie mac orgins and click on history. Also just call me reddog two.

October 3, 2010 at 6:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

methusla

I thought the point you are making was (in part) what I have been trying to say all along. Now I am either doing a terrible job of saying it, or others are not wanting to hear it.

Yes...I agree....our government is little more than a front organization for the people that really own this country and that is big money. I guess that should be expected in a capitalistic society where the creation of wealth is paramount. And this is going to continue no matter which party is in power. But both major parties continue to blame all the problems back on the other as they both vie to be the step and fetch it for the big money that controls them. The same thing will happen to co-opt any third party that has any success for any period of time. Money runs this country, money built this country. Power is money and money is power,,,and power corrupts.....It always has, it always will.

October 3, 2010 at 6:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

biscuit,

Your are right about you and I making the same point and I apologize for lengthening what you and I have been saying, but I have found that for some people to understand who/what really controls this nations governments, etc., sometimes you have to go into lengthy explainations, in order for some people to understand and get a particular point or make them stop and really " think " about who really has control and how things are really done, in the real world of government and politics.

October 3, 2010 at 8:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Oh meth.....I pretty much assumed that you knew we were saying the same thing. There were one or two others however that did not seem to know that.

October 3, 2010 at 9:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

biscuitboy and meth, sorry, don't see that you two think alike. Perhaps some of the same principals but Oh! so different.

biscuitboy, you seem to like to down the republicans whenever you can. Please note your post Oct 2nd at 4:39. Who are you glorifying 99.9% of the time? Sorry boy, but those of us who do "step out of the box" (as you stated) do not feel like a RINO and going to purgatory.
Now some of you Democrats may MAKE us feel that we are in purgatory when we look at the shape our country is in because that is where the Democrats are located (as you stated) and they must be lonely.

October 3, 2010 at 12:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

sandman

And when was the last time you said something good about a Democrat?

Why is it just fine for you to say the Democrats are destroying our nation...but it is terrible for me to say the Republicans are better at manipulating the political system than the Democrats?

October 3, 2010 at 12:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

My Oct.,2, 4:39 p.m. did not glorify any party....

In paragraph one it was referencing the Reform Party.
In paragraph two it was referencing the Tea Party.
In paragraph three it was referencing the Republican Party.
In paragraph four it was referencing the Democratic Party
In paragraph five it was referencing all parties
Paragraphs six and seven were generic.

October 3, 2010 at 12:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

REWBA (anonymous) says...

sandman, I'm the one who believes the Republican Party should be outlawed as an Enemy of the Constitution of the United States.

I have believed this every since completing the History of the U.S. course I took in college. That is where I discovered that the Republicans have attempted to destroy our nation every since they became a party. You don't have to study history to know that Lincoln was the first Republican President and that his party held a super majority of the House and Senate. You would have to read history to know that the Republican Party manipulated the laws to remove all the liberal Supreme Court Justices and appoint radically conservative justices so that they would control all three branches of government. Then they began re-writing the constitution to their liking. They divided this nation so much that we went to war with ourselves. The nation recovered under democratic leadership and with all the peace and prosperity the nation forgot the lesson and Republicans took control of all three branches again. This led to the rich republican bankers stealing all the money in America's treasury, re-writing of the constitution some more and throwing the world into the Great Depression. That is when we should have outlawed them because they always wait for democrats to fill the treasury and then they steal control and empty the banks leaving us all broke. The American People kept the crooked republicans out of power for a while but one day they cheated, stole and lied their way back into control. We couldn't understand what they were doing at that time because America was broke so they couldn't be trying to empty banks...Right? No, they learned a new strategy, borrow cash from other countries and put it in their own pockets and keep doing that until we have to borrow money to pay the interest on our debts. Remember "It's the Economy Stupid" The Democrats took control again and brought us out of the darkness back into the light so the republicans took out a contract on America and although the majority of Americans knew that republicans shouldn't be trusted, the republicans stole the election of 2000 and worked quickly at stealing everything from the treasury, creating world war three, dividing our nation to the brink of civil war, robing the world markets tossing the world into a new era depression and as their last act before leaving the white house, borrow another trillion from the communists and handing it to their minions on wall street. Now they just sit around complaining about a black president and folding their arms in a classic Nancy Regan "Just Say No" campaign to slow progress so they can begin to make their way back to power after the democrats make America solvent again. If you can't see that then your blind or your one of them.

October 3, 2010 at 2:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. This famous misquote seems appropriate here.

The actual quote..."Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" by George Santayana is equally appropriate.

And the past I am talking about is only the past ten years.

October 3, 2010 at 4:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sail (anonymous) says...

rewba,....all I can say is,WE COME FROM DIFFERENT REALITIES.

October 3, 2010 at 7:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

REWBA (anonymous) says...

sail, I have a really fat ugly cousin who believes that she is hot. She reminds me of my poor ignorant republican friend who believes that the tax cuts for the very rich will someday benefit him too. He reminds me of you.

October 4, 2010 at 8:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Listen and become informed.

http://kansas.watchdog.org/5300/kansa...

October 4, 2010 at 10:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sail (anonymous) says...

-Now your in my arena,Jan 3rd 2007 barney fffa frank took over the house financial services committee and chris dood took over the senate banking committee,The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy? BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!! bush may have been in the car but the demms were in charge of the gaspedal and steering wheel of the car they were driving off the cliff.IF YOUR STILL NOT CONVINCED THAT BOTH THE DEMMS AND REPU ARE BOTH TO BLAME ,ITS OK TO GO BACK TO SLEEP.

October 4, 2010 at 10:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

marko (anonymous) says...

Seems like the politicians and pundits can find enough blame to go around to about everyone, just short on solutions that don't just line the pockets of their favorite group.

October 4, 2010 at 11:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

How true marko. As long as they can keep heaping all the blame on the other guy maybe we won't take notice of their own pockets bulged with cash. I still wonder however if tax cuts to the rich is the magical mystery cure....Where is it?

October 4, 2010 at 11:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

George W. Bush's tax cuts all took place in 2001, 2002, and 2003. They are still in place today.
So if Barnie Frank and Chris Dodd's policies can destroy the economy in fifteen months....Why hasn't President Bush's tax policy been able to improve it in almost ten years?

October 4, 2010 at 12:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sail (anonymous) says...

rewba: Its fun to ping ea other with quips and pokes.We both agree there are issues that need addressing ,Who knows we might even find common ground on some issues. So far on the issues you have stated.if I ageed with you ,we would both be wrong..

October 4, 2010 at 12:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

biscuit - I have repeatedly said on here I definitely lean more on the conservative side of things. But I have also put alot of blame (rightfully so) on the GOP. So when you say "as to open_eyes neutrality"....... well, people can figure it out.
I just don't operate under the notion that everyone opposed to my ideology is inherently evil or an idiot. Unlike many.

The Fannie/Freddie thing has been done to death. Those laws impelling bad loans were put into place by a majority GOP congress & Dem president. But then a GOP president tried to reign them in and, on a strict party-line vote, was shot down in committe let by Barney Frank, who claimed there was nothing wrong with F&F.

So I blame everyone. At different times, some more than others. But nobody has the right to point fingers and say its ALL their fault.

But it didn't take 15 months. More like a decade. I don't know what calendar your looking at when you come up with that.

October 4, 2010 at 1:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

BTW - unemployment was 4.7 in 2001, then over the next 2 years went to 6% ( no doubt something that happened on 9/11 had something to do with the economy for awhile) - and then steadily dropped each year to 4.6 in both 2006 & 2007, before going back up to 5.8 in 2008, when the meltdown began.

The GNP also grew by an average of 6% per year from 2003 to 2007. (The 7% in 2004 was the largest since 1988 & 89).

Anyone see any "improvement" in there? Any?

Some of that may have been (as it often is in economics) due to policies that in the long term weren't as beneficial (and you can say the same about pretty much everyone's) - but to infer that there was no improvement is dishonest. Not to mention we were entering a recession when Bush took office, and then 9/11 dropped the bottom out of things.

October 4, 2010 at 1:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

And actually, your statement that the regulatory changes "allowed (not demanded)" loans to lower-income people is also not entirely accurate. I posted this some time ago, but there were restrictions placed on banks that did not show enough loans on their books, to lower-incomes. Any plans they had for mergers, acquisitions, etc, could be blocked by the CRA based on that fact. Which for some institutions would be critical to their survival in changing markets. They may not have been forced, but they were certainly pressured in many situations. And then others would need to also comply to compete.

Unless they were forced to by suits, of which one can find many. Obama also represented ACORN when he sued Citibank to force them to make bad loans at one time.

October 4, 2010 at 2:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Well open_eyes....I am glad to see you finally got back so we don't have to keep going back several days to cover points. My response about your neutrality was in direct response to a remark made by seriouslyfolks. I full well understand that you at times place blame on the Repubs when you feel it is deserved......but by your own admission you are partisan....every bit as partisan as I am. And you can not be partisan and neutral at the some time. Please lighten up a little.

By the same token...the fifteen months figure was carried over from another poster and restated in my post as a comment on his post. Do you ever read any other peoples post or do you just go through reading mine looking for things to disagree with. If he used an inaccurate figure and I just replied to that figure, how is that my having my information all wrong.

So while we are quibbling over semantics I said the banks were not forced to make the loans. That remains technically correct. If you want to point out that there were leverages in place to "encourage them to do so", all well and good. But they were still not forced to make the loans by the enabling legislation. Lawsuits were a different matter. My decision not to include anything about the leverages was an elective one. You should recognize that...you have done it yourself at times.

October 4, 2010 at 2:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

And you are not the only one that says both parties have committed their share of wrongs. I said the same thing repeatedly in post on this very thread......sometimes in the very same post you are now challenging me on.

October 4, 2010 at 2:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

"......but by your own admission you are partisan....every bit as partisan as I am. And you can not be partisan and neutral at the some time."

Before you challenge this on some technicality that you are not wedded to any party, I will rephrase it.

".....but by your own admission you are conservative...every bit as conservative as I am liberal. And you cannot be conservative nor liberal and be politically neutral at the same time."

October 4, 2010 at 2:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Biscuitboy - I realize your comment about my neutrality was in response to seriouslyfolks remark. The exact quote was "some Republicans will admit to the problems their party has caused like open-eyes".
First of all, I'm Independent, not Republican, but freely admit my ideology and the majority of my votes go that direction. But I see nowhere in that statement that seriously implied I was neutral. Quite the opposite, I was actually labeled a Republican.

As for the 15 months, you are correct - I skimmed over but didn't catch that, went back and saw the reply. I don't believe Barney & Dodd brought this down in a mere 15 months. The seeds were sown long before.... but they were instrumental in helping nurse it along for a long time - as were many from both sides of the aisle.

As for forcing loans..... well, you must have some lawyer background in you, trying to wiggle out on a technicality - LOL. Kindof like how our HCR won't force anyone to buy from any particular insurance company - knowing full well they are forcing them out of business so that in the end, they WILL be the only option.

Score 1.5 to 1.5 - LOL

I've also said repeatedly I am in favor of raising taxes on the extremely rich. Not exactly a GOP party-line sentiment there, is it?

October 4, 2010 at 3:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Again, please explain to me, in great detail if you will, how seriouslyrfolks statement ""some Republicans will admit to the problems their party has caused like open-eyes", implies that I am neutral?

October 4, 2010 at 3:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I didn't figure I would be able to slip that neutrality thing past you that easily but I gave it a try.

I know what seriouslyfolks said, it was what he didn't say that irritated me. While jumping to point out your fairness he at the same time accused me of being partisan and unfair. This despite the fact that I have frequently pointed out things done wrong by the dems......several of them on this thread. Things like giving Congressional approval to the TARP program. The truth is we are both ideological. And though we both at times point out errors made by our sides....we always do so in a way that in the end remains true to the team. Seriouslyfolks however chose to ignore that. I guess it was another selective omission of facts. But I chose the word neutrality in an attempt to blow off steam about what I just said in as few words as possible. Actually I was just trying to express my displeasure with his obvious lack of neutrality with out making a big deal out of it.

But there it is now in its big deal format.

October 4, 2010 at 3:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

This is one of those cases where an off-hand remark made about a very minor incident has all of a sudden mushroomed into a great big deal.

I am sorry now I didn't go into my big deal format right away but I never dreamed you would take such umbrage about an off-hand remark.

I apologize OK.....now get over it!!!

October 4, 2010 at 3:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

My remark about them not being forced
to make the loans was another incident of selective omission of facts. We all do it, I just openly admit to it when caught.

I can recall a couple of times when I have caught you at it also. We present the information that works best for us.

October 4, 2010 at 3:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I believe it was your statement "Get real. Bush did it that way so he wouldn't be the only one blamed....." that seriously is referring to when he stated "anything that appears to be a naughty no no that comes from your party is just something the other party tricked your party into".

Which was the real point. I don't think anyone "tricked" anybody into anything. I think both parties had plenty of hands in it and change their tune everytime the wind changes direction. As seriously said, "if the Republicans had been the fiscal conservatives they claim they are".....

October 4, 2010 at 3:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Selective omission of facts - now that sounds like what passes for news on most of the media these days..... ;-)

Or to be more accurate, selective omission of news stories, and coverage of such. Of course, anyone that covers what nobody else wants to is instantly accused of "trumping up" a story, or whipping people into a frenzy.

Or it could be that people get pissed off that other outlets didn't report it at all or downplayed it, since it wasn't favorable to their particular slant. There's a reason the ratings these days are what they are. ;-)

October 4, 2010 at 3:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Speaking of ratings I read and interesting little snippet somewhere recently (I don't remember where). It was talking about various political pundits on the news programs.

First it described Bill O'Reilly as the most fair and balanced of all the personalities at FOX. But it also described Glen Beck, FOX and Friends, and a couple of their other programs as "empty calories". It defined empty calories as programs with ratings through the roof but dismal failures as revenue producers. It said the Beck show was a real problem for Fox because despite his audience numbers, he was considered "toxic" to advertisers. FOX reportedly can't hardly give spot time away on his show because he is so inflammatory and controversial.

It also had some very unkind things to say about "The Ed Show" on MSNBC. Also toxic ad sales and an aggressive personality that has threatened co-workers and management.

Then I am sure everybody has heard about Rick Sanchez's melt-down over at CNN that cost him his job.

October 4, 2010 at 4:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tbluma (anonymous) says...

open_eyes
Would you please explain to me why you would be in favor of raising taxes on the extremely rich? ( your 3PM post)
Also explain to me who is extremely rich, ie at what income level does this kick in?
Why should someone who makes $50,000,000 pay a bigger % than someone who makes $50,000?
Makes no sense to me!
It's time everybody paid their own fair share.
What do I call fair you ask?
If $50M pays 25% then $50K pays 25%.
Is that fair? (I hate that word by the way)
I don't know, but I beleive the % ought to be the same for everyone.
Let the bashing of me begin.

October 4, 2010 at 4:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I would pretty much say your last post, has some valid points, biscuit. Even though I may agree with some of those you mentioned, sometimes in the way they present it turns me off. However, I can understand that ANYONE regarded as "controversial" - by either side - is going to be considered "toxic" by a large segment of advertisers. They care about overall numbers, not the faithfullness of those that do turn in.

October 4, 2010 at 4:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

tbluma, I have no interest in bashing your opinion. Its valid and many people agree with you, and I respect that. Many people go too far in the other direction, I disagree with both extremes, but respect opinions, as long as the reasoning took some thought and makes sense, instead of just "they're rich and I'm not - so gimme!!!!" type attitude.

I read a study once where they asked the very rich at what point, as their income increased, they saw no increase in their standard of living beyond that, or how they lived, freedom to do as they pleased, etc. The figure was roughly $5 million/year. So first of all, someone raking in over $5 million/year is not going to notice any difference in their personal lifestyle if they get taxed heavier beyond that rate. Secondly, this country, and its businesses, thrived and prospered just fine back when top execs made, on the average across all businesses, somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-40x what the average employee under them made. Now in the last 20 years, that multiple has shot up to in the neighborhood of 400x, and I have no doubt is only increasing as more and more jobs are sent overseas to cheaper labor.
Now I see a company taking company profits and re-investing them, expanding research, growing in size, etc, and that being a good thing. However, I don't see individuals raking in 50M a year at the expense of gutting the company as anything but pure greed. And I don't care how many people they put to work building a yacht for them. Perhaps if they realized that beyond a certain amount it made no difference to their standard of living and they weren't going to get to hog it all anyway they might decide what the heck, let's divide 45 of the extra 50 million among the employees this year instead of it all going to me. Or lets spend it keeping the jobs in America. (I know, pipe dream, but one can only wish). Unfortunately, it seems greed begets greed, and the more you let the super-rich rake in, the greedier they get. So they don't have my sympathy.

And lastly, I believe that to those whom more is given, more is expected. (the Bible). If you have made it big in America I think your responsibility to society is more. And I don't mean more by just a flat rate, either.

Now I don't think it should be a steady rate over the entire spectrum, I think middle-class business and persons deserve to raise their standard of living based on the wealth they've earned and worked for. Its just when it makes no difference at all and becomes obscene that I think its time to raise their responsibility to society. However, I am ALSO not in favor of the scale continually increasing. Somewhere in the middle, an increasing scale above a certain point, but still capped at some point.

Just my opinion.

October 4, 2010 at 4:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I hear what you are saying about my remark about Bush and the TARP money, but I believe that was as much his motivation for doling what he did as any other reason that has been given.

But whether I am right or wrong about that is irrelevant. The remark is no more out in left field (or unproven) than many made on these boards every single day by conservatives (including seriouslyfolks) about Obama and the Democrats.

It's like I asked a poster on here yesterday......Why was it alright for her to say Obama is destroying this country...then accuse me of being a terrible partisan because I said the Republicans were better at manipulating the political process than the Democrats. Both statements are opinions...neither is provable....but mine is guaranteed to raise the ruckles of the conservatives (including you) while hers go totally unchallenged by any one but me. The I am again called so terribly partisan for calling her out on it.

I guess it proves the conservatives can dish it out much better than they can take it. Go Figure!

October 4, 2010 at 4:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

To put it another way, different people paying the same flat rate doesn't affect them the same.

Someone making $20,000/year, paying 25%, takes a huge hit in their standard of living, and what they can provide their families.

Someone paying $50,000/year still lives at a lower standard of living than they would have had to without giving 25%.

Someone making $500,000 - well, at this point, sympathy starts to wane, I agree, but still - they've earned it, and 25% per year, even though we may not think so, could still figure into what they want to buy and how they spend their money.

But, according to the study I saw, after roughly $5M/year, no difference - there's basically nothing they want to do or spend their money on that they are limited in by money. And if you've made it that big, I'm not in favor of doing anything that would "put a crimp in your lifestyle".......that you would notice. But at that point I think, as the Bible says, your responsibility to others is greater.

I'm reminded of the parable of the rich man who went into the temple, opened his purse, and poured out a bunch of gold coins. Then a poor woman came in and gave 2 small coins - all that she had. Who gave the most? Even if it was a strict 25%, or any percentage, and the poor woman only got change & gave 1/2 coin - who gave the most?

October 4, 2010 at 4:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

open_eyes

I agree with your 4;49 p.m. post 100 percent completely. And that won't happen very often.

October 4, 2010 at 4:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

open_eyes...How do you do it?

tbluma posted at 4;31 p.m.. Exactly eighteen minutes later you had posted twice...one of them being a rather long well thought out and detailed post. It would have taken me eighteen minutes just to gather my thoughts enough to begin writing the second post. Never mind the first one. I'm impressed.

October 4, 2010 at 5:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I know it took me 3 posts to say it all, but I wanted to explain my reasons clearly.

I don't agree with socialism, communism, or any ideology that just simply redistributes wealth for the sake of making us all even. It never works. Once hard work pays the same as laziness then what's the point?

But nor do I agree with unrestrained capitalism, because those at the bottom will always inevitably be taken advantage of.

I've said this before, but NO system of government is perfect, because people are not perfect. If people were, then ANY system would work. Communism would work just fine because nobody would be lazy, or live off of someone else. Pure capitalism would work fine because those at the top would always be generous to a fault to those who had not "made it" for whatever reason. But we always end up with 2 extremes, the very greedy and rich who use/abuse all they can, and the lazy and unmotivated who game the system to live off of others.
The trick is, minimizing both extremes as much as possible. And forcing it (socialism/communism) doesn't work, because even though it sounds good in theory, it inevitable promotes the latter. Pure capitalism doesn't work either, because even though it sounds good in theory, somebody always gets screwed. The reason I lean more towards the latter is I believe strongly, as someone who had to work hard my whole life to achieve what I do have, that overall, it is better to create an environment where you can dangle a carrot in front of those who can, and let those who pursue it enjoy the fruits of their labor, than to just thow carrots to everyone. I believe for those that can, things work best with incentives. You take care of those who can't, and the lions share of responsibility for those lies with those who have made it big.

I only hope to make it big enough someday that the lion's share will fall on me.

October 4, 2010 at 5:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

LOL biscuit, just now reading what has been posted while I was typing. Like I said...... fast fingers (and I don't bother to spell check - LOL).

Which is why I try not to bash (most of the time) people with a different economic ideology than me too severely (unless they strike a nerve). I think for the MOST part, people on both sides want the same thing. We just disagree on the best way to achieve it. And I also don't think the same thing works at all times. Different times call for different guidance. Problem is right now, I fear we are heading down a path we cannot reverse - that we cannot easily modify & change to fit the needs if we have to. Once we're locked in far enough there is no getting out. And that, I fear, is the vision of some of our current leaders. To them, "fundamental change", means something for the most part undoable.

October 4, 2010 at 5:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

And by the way, biscuit, when I said I "try" not to bash different economic views too hard, that doesn't mean I am always very successful at it - LOL ;-)

October 4, 2010 at 5:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I agree totally with everything you just said in all three post. And that (listen up everybody) includes the part about the folly of socialism and communism and the failing of capitalism due to human nature.

So why are you a conservative and I am a liberal? I guess it all comes down to how "You take care of those who can't".

October 4, 2010 at 5:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Well, who knows for sure on TARP. We'll never know is the only thing I'm sure of.

One thing that I do find ironic is that much of the complaint of Bush's handling of TARP funds was lack of oversight, lack of foresight on how to regulate it, it was rushed thru, etc. Obama was rather harsh on the former admin's handling of it (rightfully so).

By the same folks that openly made remarks concerning HCR (and the stimulus package), that it didn't matter. Just push it through, we know there will be some waste, we'll iron out the details later, no time to delay, its a work in progress, we'll read it all later, etc....

Doesn't matter which party actually said which, I can never tell which side either is on most of the time anymore.

October 4, 2010 at 5:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I've always believed we need to take care of those who truly can't. And that the majority of that responsibility lies with the most wealthy. I really don't know any conservatives who disagree with that.

Except Mr. Lukert, (original author of this article) - who has printed trash here before like Republicans like to kill babies & old people, and more Dem lawmakers have kids in the war than Repubs (fact is t totally the opposite - and I proved it). Unfortunately there are people like him, Rev Phelps, etc.... :(

Well, for one, I'm supportive of (and give credit to) Clinton and the GOP congresses Welfare reform. Despite all the cries from liberals that people were going to be dying in the street, starving, etc. When in fact, many of the people..... simply went to work. Those that were gaming the system found it harder to do so, those who truly couldn't, and deserved assistance, still got it.

I saw an interesting study the other day on extending unemployment benefits. In Denmark I think it was, at one time, it was 5 years. They noticed a huge increase in people getting jobs right after 5 years of unemployment. So, once they started having budget problems, they cut it in half. Again, they jump in employment happened... in 2 1/2 years. Now I am not against unemployment - but I know (even at this present time) too many people that are making enough off of it they won't look for jobs, or find excuses not to take them. Much like the Community ReInvestment Act (housing for those who can't afford it) - its a good idea, but too easy to misuse. I don't have all the answers except our elected officials need to do a better job of figuring out how to keep good ideas from being exploited.

October 4, 2010 at 5:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I too have seen the abuse and the way some of these programs work to kill initiative to get off them.

I have always wondered why we can't utilize a sliding scale of benefits to encourage them to help themselves by not stopping their benefits totally the minute they get a minimum wage job. Some kind of reduced benefit that eventually disappears as they become fully independent.

Much of the problem now is caused by the fact that taking a two hundred dollar a week job will cost you one hundred ninety dollars in benefits. It's not hard to see where that math leads.

October 4, 2010 at 5:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

"I've always believed we need to take care of those who truly can't. And that the majority of that responsibility lies with the most wealthy. I really don't know any conservatives who disagree with that."

Nor any liberals either.

October 4, 2010 at 5:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

True, biscuitboy, on your last statement. There are extremes at both ends that DO want it too much in either direction. But too often each side gets a blanket label based on those. (Sounds like a certain grass-roots movement I know of ;-)

I've thought the same thing at times, a sliding scale of benefits. Don't know all the ins and outs of how it would be implemented but that's why we pay our totally worthless representatives the big $$, to figure things like that out. But, in a way, our system does implement things like that. There are all sorts of different programs available to assist those making under a certain $$, not just for the totally unemployed alone. But I agree, unemployment benefits could be applied as well. How to do it without making it exploitable would be the next hurdle.

Unfortunately, every gov program only ever seems to expand, so I would see that snowballing as well. Next thing you know they'll make it where adults (not kids) can stay on their parents health insurance until they're 26. What's next? 30? ;-)

And those rare instances where things DO get rolled back - well, remember all the screaming and dire predictions when welfare reform went thru? Scroll down to the section labeled "Tallying the Media Scorecard" for a refresher. Good example of how ideologies differ on the best way to go about reaching the same goal.

http://www.mrc.org/oped/2002/noyes080...

Those bad old uncaring, unfeeling, selfish Republicans......

http://www.heritage.org/research/repo...

October 4, 2010 at 7:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Here is just a little snipet of news, to show those who refuse to believe or fail to see just how money buys or at least attempts to buy government legislation and laws and this has been exposed in just one State, but this sort of thing is rampant in all levels of government, not only in our own country, but all over the world !
And is done under the guise of necessary and beneficial lobbying !

Ala. senators, casino owner accused of vote buying

source : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39501068/...

October 4, 2010 at 7:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tbluma (anonymous) says...

open_eyes/bisquit
You both stated that it is the responsibility of those that can should take care of those who can't ( more or less). Up to a point I can agree.
But as far as I'm concerned the liberal point of view has the base line for those who can't way to high and those who can way to low.
As far as the person that said after $5M he/she didn't notice the difference in the tax because it didn't effect their life style I call bullsh##t. They are evidently a bleeding heart liberal who feels guilty and didn't/doesn't have to work for the money.
If I made 5M and got taxed 50% I would more than likely give a lot less to my church or any other needy charity than if I got taxed 25%.
I would like to be the person who choses where my money goes, ie cancer research, starving kids in any country, a homeless center etc, etc.
The government just pisses it of on studies of the mating habits of purple frogs or more locally by giving grants to put in artificial turf or making a green space out of a soon to be abandoned packing plant.
IMO it doesn't make any difference what you make, whether you're a business or a individual the tax should be the same.
Your arguement that 25% of a smaller amount has more impact on the poor doesn't hold water with me because of all the freebee's the poor are eligible for.
Call me cold hearted, whatever, but my 25% of 50K is just as hard to stomach as somebody else's 25% of 10M or 30K if we/they work for it.
25% of a dollar is 25% of a dollar no matter how many you make.

October 4, 2010 at 9:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

tbluma - your summation of the liberal point of view having the baseline for those whe can't way too high and those who can way too low - that I agree with.
But I also don't agree with going to the opposite extreme either.
Also, it was not 1 person that said after $5M they didn't notice much difference. It was a study and the average consensus was among the group that they didn't really experience any rise in their standard of living after $5M/year like they experienced at each step up to that point. In other words..... it kinda leveled off. Once they got to a certain point, they didn't notice any difference after that. In general, as an average.

Which reminds me of a discussion I had with some friends - the old "what would you do if you won the lottery" talk. Well, after paying off all debts.... paying off all the family debts... buying new house for self, family....land.... new cars....fancy toys, boats, etc..... we added it up and we were all under $5M. Beyond that we didn't really know what we would do with the money. Give alot to charity and invest the rest, I suppose. And most of that < 5M was ONE-time expenses. Didn't plan on buying a new house/boat/land every single year, nor getting self & family out of debt every year.
I, too, get fed up at times with "bleeding heart liberals who don't have to work for the money". But that includes alot of rich people, liberals and conservatives alike - who never really worked a day in their life. Paris Hilton, exactly what have you done to contribute to society and earn your wealth?

And that's a good point about giving less to church or charities. I agree. We've all seen the studies showing conservatives give alot more money to charities than liberals, donate more time, and give more blood. I agree, I would alot rather give my money to somewhere I knew it would be put to better and direct use than to a grossly inefficient government. And if everyone did that, fine. But they don't. The richer people get it seems the greedier they get. Which is why I think tax-deductions for money given to charities is a good thing. If they want to give the money directly, I'm all in favor, instead of taxes. They'll definitely get more "bang for the buck" that way. But I look around me and see a whole lot of rich people who exhibit nothing but pure greed. So if they want to donate to charity, fine. If they want to be a tightwad about it, then I say tax 'em. Maybe that will prod them to give more to charities, do you think?

October 4, 2010 at 10:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

And I don't need any study or parable for this one. I can tell you from my own experience, When I worked my way thru college, and made alot less than I do now, I paid a lesser tax rate, and it still affected my spending habits alot more than the higher tax rate I am in now does. Guarantee you it did. My $16,000/year job made me budget and scrimp for every penny, and taxes were a hit every April. Or every paycheck. I pay more now in taxes, both a higher percentage, and a total, and it doesn't affect me nearly as much. Yeah, the poor may be eligible for some freebies, but a 60" widescreen and jetski weren't among them. As I've worked thru my career my salary has increased and at the same time so has my tax bracket, but at each step of the way, my standard of living increased and the effect taxes had on me decreased.
That's pretty much my continuing career goal - make it into higher and higher tax brackets ;-)

And I'll continue to respectfully disagree with the last 2 statements. I see Bill Gates & Warren Buffett are trying to convince a group of billionaires to give half their fortune away to charity.
I seriously doubt it will be as hard for them to stomach, living on a mere $30 billion, as it will for you & I to give half our wealth to charity. And I know damn good and well I'll be better off giving half mine away than someone making $16,000/year. That would have flat broke me then. Government freebies aside. Free cheese and foodstamps - livin' it up. Now I think that's a great idea - I'll give them all the tax deductions for that they deserve. And they're talking about giving away 1/2 of their total wealth - not just yearly income. I can't afford that. Can you? Apparently they can..... without any "hit" to their standard of living whatsoever. But again.... I agree with you - I'd prefer their route. I'm sure their money will do alot more good than, as you say, studying the mating habits of tree frogs. Or going towards something I disagree with, like funding partial-term abortions. But, if only the world was all in black and white, and every rich person had a heart of gold.....(sigh)....

October 4, 2010 at 10:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

tbluma, I'm really not that far apart from your thinking. I'm somewhere in the middle. If it was left up to liberals, I'm sure soon every person on welfare would receive that 60" TV and jetski, because not to would "damage their psyche". And every rich person would be taxed at 100% over $5M. (Except the politicians, of course - cabinet members would still cheat on their taxes, and the richest member of Congress, John Kerry, would still dock his boat in a state to avoid higher taxes). I don't agree with, say, what was the top tax rate at one time during FDR's term, something like 94%? I just don't agree with flat capping it at 40% max no matter how much a person makes, either. I think the curve for raising tax rates needs to start a little higher up the curve, and increase a little longer, than it does now. (When I say higher up the curve, I mean not kick in until you get farther up the income chain). As I said, somewhere in the middle between the 2 extremes.
Problem with the current admin is that even if they don't raise the income tax rates, they're going to tax every single other thing to where it will be the same. And THAT will hit people much lower down the income chain than raising income tax rates on the very top would. As I've said before - I just don't think a flat tax is viable, without alot of special workarounds and such. Basically making it as complicated as our current system.

October 4, 2010 at 10:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

And finally, when it comes to free programs and aid for those who can't, it all boils down to gaming the system. We're all sick and tired of seeing someone drive up in a fancier car than we have, get out wearing nice clothes, expensive sunglasses, etc, walk into the store and use their food stamps to buy a bunch of junk food. But that doesn't make me against all forms of welfare and aid. Just against policies (usually liberal) of making it too easy to get. (I have to take a urine test to get a job, why doesn't everyone have to do the same to get ANY government aid, including unemployment?)

There's no perfect way or system to handle it, because again, people aren't perfect. Problem is...... the more imperfect people become....... the more likely it is they run for office, and the more imperfect they become....... the more likely they get elected, it seems. And the worse and more corrupt they get..... the higher their chances for re-election. ;-)

October 4, 2010 at 10:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

Oh Dear!!! Sail, just when do we leave for NZ? This is way over my head-maybe I can just pull the covers up over my head, think!! Afraid though, it won't go away.! In reality, is there ANYONE out there that is truly worthy of our vote??? Are we doomed?????????? Long day and this gal is tired-darn!!! no one to rub my back, RATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-) Good luck guys.

October 4, 2010 at 11:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

As usual though, open_eyes, agree with each and every word you've written. Yes, at one time I would get so very mad when going to the grocery store and living on a limited income because we were fighting our way trying to get "educated", buying hamburger with cash and the person in front of me would be buying T-bone steak with foodstamps. Using cloth diapers because we couldn't afford disposables, The list goes on. This also goes back to having pride and I feel our government has made it much to easy for people to "sale out". We so need to get back to having some pride!!!!

October 4, 2010 at 11:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

open_eyes and tbluma.

Well I am either not near the liberal every body calls me or you two are making some real broad assumptions about what liberals think....

I believe a society has an obligation to help those that truly can't help themselves. That being the old, the in firmed, the very young, and the feeble minded. No where in that list did I mention able bodied people of any sex or age (except of course the elderly and children. Nor do I believe help should come in the form of 60-inch HDTV's. How rampant such abuses are in the system now I suppose is any body's guess.

To what extent those abuses do exist primarily seem to stem from our attempts to help the children. The classic cases of the "welfare mom" were to a large extent eliminated with the welfare reform laws passed by President Clinton and a Republican (no partisanship here) controlled Congress. But since the children receiving the aid are still in the hands of the mothers or fathers it becomes problematic as to just how well that money is spent for it's intended purpose.

The point is any government program is bound to have those that will take advantage of it...will figure out a way to cheat if you will. And this ranges all the way from exorbitantly priced military hardware, to bridges to nowhere, to misuse of money paid to some Cretan who sells off the vision card to buy drugs.

As with all crooks, it is a constant battle to stay ahead of them. Every time you change the rules they figure out a way to beat the new rules. We like to claim they don't work, but for the cheats this is their job...their profession so to speak....and they work hard and full time at it. But because these people exist doesn't in my mind justify throwing the baby out with the bath. It just means we must always work to stay ahead of them....and punish them severely when we catch them. I believe this comes much closer to the way most so-called liberals think than the descriptions you guys were making...in a non-partisan sort of way of course.... :-)

October 5, 2010 at 5:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

As to the taxes. I have in the past supported a flat tax very similar to what tbluma proposes, believing it to be far superior to what we have now. If you want to see people cheating the government on a scale much larger than 60-inch HDTV's look at tax fraud. This crime cost the government more than warehouses full of HDTV's and is perpetrated almost exclusively by the rich.

But in my heart I have always believed that the best way was a plan similar to that open_eyes so beautifully outlined last night....and for the same reasons. Ironically, when I have tried to express those same ideas on these boards in the past it has been met with shrieks of derision about "redistribution of the wealth and turning the country socialist." Why that happens that way will remain the topic of another discussion for another day. But here is a hint. It has everything to do with partisan mind-set blinding people so they only see and hear what they want to see and here from the people they want to see and hear it from. In fact, I will almost bet that sometime today somebody will refer to my thoughts on taxes as liberal socialist garbage while praising open_eyes for his moderate conservatism.
As to tbluma's concern about such taxation reducing the charitable giving of the very rich....that's easy to solve. Allow them to reduce their tax burden dollar for dollar with charitable contribution. Of course human nature being what it is it wouldn't be long before we would see contributions being made to the rich guy's wife's foundation to help poor and needy bed bugs. Like I said crooks and cheats are every where. They don't stop at the boundary to the ghetto.

October 5, 2010 at 5:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sail (anonymous) says...

Open Eyes, loved the comment about urine testing,what a great way to reduce taxs for the people of Kansas.If I were on drugs and state aid, I would either have to give up drugs or move .Wonder what our elected state reps views are on this? I would bet a beer at the Town Royal that REP Peggy Mast would be for testing and rep don hill would find a reason why he is against it.

October 5, 2010 at 7:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

biscuit - once again, we agree very closely, only differing on a few shades of degrees. Now the remark about liberals getting everyone on welfare a jetski and 60" tv - was meant as sarcasm - but the problem is I see them always pushing things further in the direction of making it easier to get and cheat the system. As I pointed out above - the outcry over Clinton's welfare reform is a perfect example. As tbluma put it, they want to put the bar for those who can't way too high, and for those who can way too low (well put, tbluma).
And I completely agree with your statements on cheaters. It doesn't matter what system we put in, and who puts it in. Its like computer security - its always a matter of staying one step ahead of the hackers who eventually figure out a way around it. But again, refer back to the outcry over welfare reform. It seemed most liberals weren't battling, or willing to battle, to stay one step ahead of the cheaters. Instead, it was the conservatives that were going to "starve everyone in the streets".

As for taxes - in the past we have had higher tax rates on the super-rich. I simply believe at the top end, the rates need to go back up somewhat for a bit. Not to the 94% we had under FDR, but not at the point that they have been rolled back to now. And when I say super-rich, I don't mean the bar is at $250,000. I'd put it much higher. Say, something like an increasing scale once you hit $1M/year and increasing up to, say, a cap of 55%. I believe that is where it has been in the past - and our economy did not tank as a result. Nor did those in that tax bracket see any detriment to their way of life. One of the big problems with taxes on the wealthy - as has been pointed out before - is the many loopholes that need to be closed.

October 5, 2010 at 8:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Warren Buffet said this in 2007:

"Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation."

THIS is what I really refer to when I say the super-rich aren't paying their fair share.

And again, if someone wants to donate it to charity, I'm all for that - but those laws already exist - charitable donations ARE tax-deductible....... so for those who give enough to greatly lessen their tax burden, great. For the super-rish misers who don't....... then they owe it.... IMO

October 5, 2010 at 8:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Again I agree with open_eyes that one of the big problems with a flat tax is that it would have to be free of "special workarounds " to make it equitable. It would have to be applied with out exemption, write-offs, depletion's and all the other myriad ways the rich use now to defer paying their taxes.

From a political standpoint that would be almost impossible to get passed. It would probably be easier and more productive to take the route proposed by open_eyes.

Yes...the maximum rate charged to the very rich under FDR was 94-percent. We could accomplish a great deal of good with rates far--far lower than that.

October 5, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

One of the problems when having these discussions is how different people define rich. 100-thousand dollars to 500-thousand dollars a year is not rich as I use the term. It's nice...I wish I had it...but it is not rich. I agree with open_eyes that rich doesn't even start until over a million dollars per year and for the purposes we are discussing here would be higher that that.

Your Warren Buffett story was a testimony to every thing that is wrong with our current tax system. Oh that we had more rich people like Buffett to be honest about it rather than always setting on the pity pot crying about the taxes they pay.

October 5, 2010 at 8:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

This old "liberal has also never understood what the big deal was about requiring drug test for people on assistance and unemployment. To save money it wouldn't have to be every person for every check. A certain number of random checks would help if for no other reason than being able to eliminate the assistance for those that failed it.

October 5, 2010 at 8:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Actually, you misunderstood me on the flat tax - I don't see how it would really be fair without some special work-arounds. I think we discussed this before, in relation to farmers, etc. The problem is, as already stated, the super-rich are very good at taking advantage of well-intentioned work-arounds and exploiting them beyond their intent.

For all the billionaires that Gates talks into giving away 1/2 their fortunes to charity, I'm ALL for that being a tax-exemption, and them paying ZERO taxes in return, when they do that. Bravo to them.

October 5, 2010 at 8:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I have NO doubt whatsoever that the same people who are screaming racial profiling in immigration would find a way to complain the random drug checks were profiling.......

October 5, 2010 at 8:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

And we must not forget, that the " very " rich also are allowed to " Hide " a " goodley " part of there income, " that is not taxed, at all " in foreign and aff shore banks, dummy corps., etc.. And allowed to do so by the government, " politicians and political parties ", who by the way are also " profiting" by allowing the " very rich " to do so,,, and are hiding " taxable " income in some of the very places the " very rich " are hiding their " tax free " income/wealth !

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?...

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesame...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12565...

The above three sites are very interesting and informative and deal with " hiding income/wealth", " who rules America " and what is being done to discover and tax hidden income/wealth of the very rich .

October 5, 2010 at 9:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant by workarounds...and we have had this conversation before.

Part of the misunderstanding might stem from the mixing of business taxes and personal income taxes. Business...and especially farmers....do have some legitimate need for various deductions. I was differentiating between business taxes and personal income taxes which I think could work fine under a flat tax with no exemptions.

The problem arises in those cases where the profit from the business, in a real and direct way, is the personal income of the owner. Then the potential for abuse once again starts to rear its ugly head And as we both know...if there is potential for abuse...there will be abuse.

October 5, 2010 at 9:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Folks, the only way you are going to put the governments of this or any country, back into the hands of " We the people " , is to abolish the " Rich/Wealthy " practice of buying control of government thru so called " Legal Lobbying ", which I believe is nothing more than " Racketeering " of the worst kind .

October 5, 2010 at 9:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Well, that's the rub. I don't really know how, for instance, a small farmer separates what is business taxes and what is personal income. If 100% of your living comes from that farm, for example. I understand business expenses but income? What if you have a drought and hence a loss that year, and you've still paid a flat tax on everything? I just think a flat tax is one of those things that is a good concept but I'm just not sure it could be implemented that easily in a way that was fair. Just my opinion.

Buffet claims he didn't even try to avoid higher taxes. Imagine what he would have ended up paying if he had....... something is wrong with a system like that. Definitely need to plug some holes.

October 5, 2010 at 10:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Here is another site that has some interesting info on State and Local government " oversized " salaries . Thought this might be of interest to some people.

http://redtape.msnbc.com/2010/10/20-g...

October 5, 2010 at 10:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

As I see and understand the situation !
Government waste, salaries, corruption and taxes is totally out of control, in all levels of government .

October 5, 2010 at 10:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

openeyes,

I may be wrong, but I believe a flat tax on just " Income ", not everything, would be the fairest of fair income taxes, If and this is a very big " IF " , wealthiest income earners were not allowed to " hide " income/wealth and made to pay the same flat tax rate on their " True " income as everyone else !
Therefore if anyone had a bad or low income year the rate of income tax would still be the same as in a good year .

You and biscuit were discussing " Income tax ", correct and not property tax , sales tax, etc ?

October 5, 2010 at 10:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Yes methusla...income tax, both business and personal. Not the others.

October 5, 2010 at 10:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sail (anonymous) says...

With the local gov reaching deeper in our pockets, the state increasing sales tax and expecting us to provide them more revenue, and now the big fed debt of 13 trillion plus and growing.... do ya think we can keep this BS up much longer w/o great pain to our economy.With more and more tax consumers and less and less tax payers how do you think this will end.? Lets pray the next congress will not let us down.

October 5, 2010 at 11:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Actually I thought the "flat-tax" was applying to everything a person bought, not a flat-tax on incomes. (Which I don't agree with - a flat rate on incomes). I just see a flat, say 25% - hammering lower incomes much more than higher incomes. When I say hammering, I mean adversely affecting ones standard of living. Regardless of what "freebies" lower-incomes qualify for. Even if the rich couldn't "hide" it to where, like Buffett, they don't even pay as much as others - I believer their responsibility is greater - when you get to the super-rich, those who can give away half their fortune, and never know or see any difference at all. As biscuitboy said, when I say super-rich, I'm not talking about, say, folks/businesses making 500,000/year, even though most of us think of that as very wealthy. A heavy tax still affects their standard of living, whether you or I think it is warranted or just is not the point. The point is when I say tax the super-rich heavier is those to whom it makes no difference. Or they can give it to charities directly & avoid the tax if they prefer (I'd prefer they did, too).

October 5, 2010 at 11:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Also, as I mentioned earlier, it looks like our current admin is going to do the sleight of hand of taxing the crap out of everything else to make up for not raising income taxes. No difference to my pocket in the end, unless it's negative.

October 5, 2010 at 11:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

And as for advertisers finding Beck on FoxNews too "toxic".... well, I looked into that a little. It isn't the advertisers themselves. Beck has been targeted by a left-wing, group caleld "ColorofChange.org" which is a black political activist group. They claim (of course) to promote all regardless of race but if you actually check out some of the things they say they are far from their claim. Racism works both ways. Anyway, they have a campaign to have Beck removed from the air, and have pressured advertisers. Based mostly, apparently, when Beck called Obama a racist once. Which he has since apologized for. (Well, gee, the gal that worked for the Ag Dept has apologized for her racist leanings and actions, why aren't they targeting her?)
But the fact remains that (referring to the Justice Dept) - this administration does promote some racist policies, so Beck's statement, at the very least, deserves valid debate.

October 5, 2010 at 1:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Meant to add - looks like that left-wing political propaganda/pressure that you are always bemoaning can't hold a candle to the GOP's is doing quite well in that area. I don't watch Beck much but I have caught his show once in a while and I don't see what all the hubbub is about, other than he says things the left doesn't like to hear, and thus want to shut him up (you know, they support the 1st Amendment & all). One show of his that I did catch (and have seen other similar instances of on other shows, most recently last week with a black woman conservative) - was panel discussions with black conservatives talking about how ostracized they are within the black community for their political beliefs. The hatred directed their way is amazing. They are "traitors to their race" and "gone white" and so on.

Now what was that you mentioned earlier about the tea party? People not voting a certain way because they didn't "look like you did"?

Anyway, its obvious why this group has targeted Beck, and those "traitors" he has honest and open discussions with. They don't want any of that.

October 5, 2010 at 1:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

I believe this "Flat-Tax Rate" has been discussed for years. Even tho, open_eyes I see where you are coming from concerning it hitting the lowest incomes the most, what happens now?
If everyone paid a staright percent of their earnings with no writeoffs allowed, wouldn't this truly be the "fairest" to all?
The poor usually don't have the "write-offs" that those in a higher level do so they are still heavily taxed compared to the richer who many times pay NO taxes. It has been said for years that it is the "middle-class" that carry the weight of our government. Again, just look or recall those that our head of state appointed to various positions that hadn't paid their taxes, how many of these are out there? Tighter regulations and like the problem with illegals, DO SOMETHING about it!!!!!

October 5, 2010 at 1:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

sandman, I don't think that a flat rate with no writeoffs would be the fairest. As I said earlier, 25% of $20,000/year is a major, major hit on finances. 25% of someone making $500,000 isn't going to hurt them as much, but noticeable. 25% of someone making $50M - are they truly going to have a reason to complain? Is it going to adversely affect them the same as those making 20K or 500K/year?

tbluma mentioned earlier that the poor wouldn't be adversely affected because of the free programs & aid available to them. But then also talked about government waste. Well, if that's the case, instead of giving them $3,000 worth of aid (which was originally $30,000 collected in taxes, but because of government waste, fraud, and plain inefficiency) - wouldn't it make more sense to give them $3,000 worth of aid in the form of directly taxing them $3,000 less? Instead of taxing someone else $30,000 and blowing $27,000 of it on fancy cigars, trips to Italy, and studies on the mating habits of tree frogs, and eventually the last 3,000 of it trickling down to the poor?

I know, it sounds like I, too, and contradicting myself, and to a point, that is true. But SOME taxes have to be paid, we have certain things the government DOES need to handle. Its just that the government never knows where to stop and draw the line. And if they do, you can be sure...... every time we turn our back they'll take the opportunity to nudge it a little farther - unless we call them on it.

October 5, 2010 at 2:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

Yes, open_eyes, I understand what you are stating BUT I truly believe we live in such a corrupt nation at this time, that $27,000 will go for fancy trips etc and with only $3,000 going where it originally was planned. This not only applies to Federal but State, city, county etc.

I guess my main "wonderment" is IF those same people hadn't been appointed to an office, just how long would it have been that they wouldn't have paid their taxes. Again my question arrises, what as a nation can we do to make those "dead beats" be correctly responsible?? I believe if I hadn't followed the correct path and paid mine, they would be knocking on my door! Why??? where would they have the most to gain? me or someone higher on the totem pole?????

Oh! the web we have wroven. Also, how many of the illegals live off the system but pay NO taxes? At one time I had heard that many of the mexicans working here do not pay state or Fed. taxes? They are given a time period to work here then they go back to their country for a period of time and then come back. During the time they are here shipping much of the money back to their country so it truly doesn't aid our nation in anyway.

October 5, 2010 at 2:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Most low, to middle income earners are already paying 20% to 30+ % in income taxes every year. While the high income earners, those who make $200, 000 and up per year are paying only around 15.5% to 17.7 % income tax rate per year and after " write offs and hiding large amounts of income, that is not taxed, " at all " , are more than likely only paying 5% to 8% income tax per year.

No you cannot convince me that a flat rate income tax would hit the poor or lowest income earners any harder than they are being hit now !

October 5, 2010 at 3:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I'm not saying a flat rate would hit the low earners any harder than they are now. I'm all for closing the loopholes for the rich. I'm just saying I think the scale should slike upwards a bit when you get to the super-rich. And NO LOOPHOLES.

October 5, 2010 at 3:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

What I'm trying to say is, even with a flat rate, and if there were NO loopholes, the flat rate still hits lower incomes harder than it does upper. So I think at some point the scale needs to slide up a bit.

October 5, 2010 at 3:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

But, open_eyes here is the " catch " to all of this tax question .... Just how far do you slide the scale for the rich and super rich and not have the rich and super rich hide even more income, so they will not have to pay income tax on their " mega incomes " ?

And with the wealthy/super wealthy controlling government, just how do you stop what they are doing, have been doing and will continue to do ... " Hide Income " in order to keep from paying taxes on their true income ?

Would a national sales tax of, oh , say 10% on anything and everything purchased, whether it is purchased in the U.S. or from a foreign country or business and just eliminate income tax altogether be a better and more equal solution ?

And then again, how do you keep some dishonest/unscrupulous buisness owner from holding back a portion of the national sales tax for his own ends ?

October 5, 2010 at 3:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Well, methusla, those are the questions that will bug us no matter what system we use. How will we keep unscrupulous and rich people who pay off the right politicians from gaming ANY system, including a flat tax? What's to keep them from hiding income from one any more than the other? What's to keep people from "swapping" to avoid a national sales tax?
As I've discussed before, national sales tax sounds fine in theory, but when I examine it more, I don't think it would pan out as nicely as people think it would. I've discussed this before, but, for example, a family of 4 with kids that need clothes, food, etc.... could end up paying more than a filthy rich couple with no kids who live well within their means. What about businesses, farmers, etc., who may have to spend $400,000/year to make a net income of $40,000? How do you separate what is business and what is "personal income/expense" when that IS their ownly livelihood - if you somenow separated the 2?

October 5, 2010 at 4:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

Meth, I understand what open_eyes is saying, that dollar for dollar it would hit the low income more because they would have much less to spend on tangible products to begin with and would do so even more.

What ever is done, we so need to make sure that ALL follow suit not just a few. I so agree that the rich are able, dollar for dollar to carry more of the burden of our nation then they should be made to do so. A few try but not the majority. Being on the outside looking in, I feel that to the majority it is a game to see just how much more they can "rip" off and the lower class will pick-up after them. The problem being, the lower or middle class can no longer be their "maids"for we are played out.

October 5, 2010 at 4:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

There's a line in there to be walked for sure, between just "soaking the rich because we can", and giving to lower incomes without them having to work for it like the rich (some of them, anyway) did. I am NOT for "income redistrubution". I simply think that, up to a point, the wealthy bear a greater burden and responsibility to the less fortunate (not lazy, less fortunate) in society. But that scale doesn't continue indefinitely, and that point should not be placed to where it is counter-productive or not worth ones time to strive to exceed. In the past, its been too high at times, and too low at times. I think right now, at the current time and rates, at the extreme upper end, it is too low.

Just my opinion. And I've given my reasons why, not just some emotional rant about either the hapless poor being skewered by the rich or the lazy poor bums taking advantage of the hard work and success of others.

That is one of the big problems, sandman - to see that ALL follow suit. But its not JUST those rich who find loopholes and ways to get around it - if Buffett is to be believed, he paid less even though he didn't look for any extra tax breaks.

Now something is wrong with that system.

October 5, 2010 at 4:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

Yes, the rules of the game!!! So depends on who are making those "rules". Believe it has been said that "money talks" and Buffett didn'tneed to look for they were written for him and others. Yes!!! a major problem. I in NO WAY am tearing Buffett down but stating how I feel the system works. The "ole" saying "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" seems to fit the game.

October 5, 2010 at 5:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

My dad always said it this way: "The rich get richer and the poor have kids"

;-)

October 5, 2010 at 7:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

One way to look at it!!!! Never did for felt our children paid us back in spades plus an Ace in the hand, GRAND-CHILDREN!!!! I sure understand where he was coming from. At one time knew the figure that was approx. spent from birth to age 18, now 2l/22 (college) In our day, if a child went to college they were aided by the parents, not sent and once they married, that went out the window.(aid). Am I complaining?? You bet not!!!!!! A "new" unit was formed and it was up to that unit to figure how they were going to achieve their goals.

October 5, 2010 at 10:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

open_eyes, aren't you glad you said that?? :-) Memories of parents, how very wonderful!!!! Plus a "duel" family, something that so many of our nations children will never know, makes me so sad.Oh! on another topic, no,no, no!

October 5, 2010 at 10:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

Went this evening to the Vo-tech to listen to candidates for the upcoming election, speak. Was so very interesting and sure helped me in making a much more "educated" decision. Time will tell.

October 5, 2010 at 10:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sail (anonymous) says...

Lets be honest about revenue enhancement,Just love that word when a politician uses it,we are all for any revenue enhancement that we dont have to pay.

October 6, 2010 at 7:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

If the old adage, " The Rich get Richer and the Poor have Kids " . If this were a trueism and it very well may be, Why do you suppose the poor have kids ? Could it be because of the tax break they get when they have kids ?

October 6, 2010 at 10:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

Meth, you may be absolutely correct but boy! are they in for a shock after the first six months of the childs birth.Let us hope and wish that it was because they truly love the child and cost/savings doesn't come into the picture.

At one time believe it was thought they had children to help on the farm, an extra set of hands. This could be proven by the orphans that were put on trains in the east for the mid-west and many were taken in just for that reason, sad.

October 6, 2010 at 10:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

Sail, you are very correct, that is why, especially the ladies, we love "sales".
Though I would imagine, as open_eyes pointed out, that the higher up the income the less that comes into being as important. He also pointed out that yes, the system needs a major overehaul and those that can, should but aren't.(majority,not all)

October 6, 2010 at 11:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I might also add, that when I say I don't believe that those at the extreme top end are not paying their fair share, I mean that in RELATIVE terms.

In other words, when most of the middle class is paying between 20 and 35%, I don't agree with the filthy rich being capped at only 39 I think it is. Should be higher relative to what the middle pays.

BUT..... what I would PREFER....... is that if the tax rate on the majority of the middle class dropped, say down to 5-20%, then I'm fine with leaving the cap where it is. It's all about proportion.

Now I fully realize nearly half of Americans pay no tax whatsoever. And at the current rate our economy and debt is heading, I imagine many of those in the 20-35% range are going to find themselves down in the 5-20% range soon. :-(

October 6, 2010 at 7:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )