American Politics during the Obama Presidency

The left wing media is quick to blame Fox News, Rush and Sara for 'hate speech' and inciting acts of violence.

How quickly the left wing media forgets their constant rants for 8 years when Bush was president. The level of vile speech and images depicting violence against Bush and the Republicans is far and away greater than anything Obama / Democrats have experienced in the last 2 plus years. There is no compairson no matter how you spin it.

If we were to take what the left wing media is saying now about the conservatives now and apply it to them during the Bush years it is a wonder Bush escaped alive! Guess it is the double standard again.

Those wonderful peace loving liberals were going to convert you even if they had to beat your brains out with a 2X4 to do it. Jackson is right – the fastest way to get killed is to cross a peace loving liberal!

They were right.

8 years of fucking up the country.

Now we have to bail you out!

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 415043]The left wing media is quick to blame Fox News, Rush and Sara for 'hate speech' and inciting acts of violence.

How quickly the left wing media forgets their constant rants for 8 years when Bush was president. The level of vile speech and images depicting violence against Bush and the Republicans is far and away greater than anything Obama / Democrats have experienced in the last 2 plus years. There is no comparison no matter how you spin it.

If we were to take what the left wing media is saying now about the conservatives now and apply it to them during the Bush years it is a wonder Bush escaped alive! Guess it is the double standard again.

Those wonderful peace loving liberals were going to convert you even if they had to beat your brains out with a 2X4 to do it. Jackson is right – the fastest way to get killed is to cross a peace loving liberal! [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 415047]They were right.

8 years of fucking up the country.

Now we have to bail you out! [/QUOTE]Don't do us any more favors, please. In two years, Dems have managed to spend so much that the entire country's debt rating is now in question.

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/business/economy/14place.html?_r=1[/url]

But, of course, Moody's, S&P, and the bondholders who will refuse to refinance our debt are all partisans, too. Hey, at least all that spending kept unemployment under 8 percent, just like the President's team promised.

Thank goodness for the mid-terms. We'd be far worse than Greece with another two years of that Congress. Unfortunately, it's going to take longer than two years to undo the damage wrought by one-party control, especially since that one party still controls the Senate and the Presidency.

At least the Dems were smart enough not to re-elect Nancy Pelosi. Oh wait, they not only re-elected her, she's still their leader along with Harry Reed, even after the biggest mid-term shellacking in a generation. Those who don't learn from their mistakes. . . .

[QUOTE=Rock Harders; 414867]

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/14-states-may-target-birthright-citizenship[/url]

Mongers-

I just encountered this article on yahoo news concerning the status of children born to illegal immigrants in the United States. My opinion on this matter is that it is about time that some level of government do something to deal with this clearly out of control situation. Children born to LEGAL immigrants, meaning those holding permanent residency papers should automatically be granted birthright citizenship. Children born to ILLEGAL immigrants or visitors temporarily in the United States on either tourist, work or other non-immigrant visas should absolutely not be given birthright citizenship. If I had just happened to be born in Switzerland while my parents just happened to be working there I would NOT have been granted citizenship. In addition, when foreigners enter US medical facilities they should be required to demonstrate their legal presence in the country (entry stamp on passport, green card, copy of student, work, or other visa etc) OR face automatic arrest and deportation AFTER medical services are administered. In addition, in order to attend public schools, proof of LEGAL residency for non-US citizens should be required. These measures would lessen the incentive for potential illegal immigrants to live, work, and have families in the United States illegally. If the US government were to give amnesty and automatic permanent residency to any illegal immigrants currently in the national territory provided they present proper identity documents and can pass a criminal background check in their home country as well as the USA I would not have a problem with that. But the line has to be drawn somewhere.

Suerte,

Rock Harders[/QUOTE]Normally, I never comment on this thread as I am not a US citizen or a resident. But I was simply SHOCKED to read the above note! Why so much hatred for the immigrants? Isn't this a fact, just that some people are born in a country with a favorable passport which allows him/her to go and live/work any where of his choice. While the poor illegal immigrant with a unfavorable passport is treated like shit and has to look for ways to travel to another country where he/she would like to work and live!

So it all ultimately boils down to citizenship and the passport one holds on to! And henceforth the illegal immigrant or even a tourist uses the "citizenship by birth" option for his/her child in order that the child does not have to face the hardships which his/her parents did, because he/she was born in a country with a Tier 4 passport.

So this point of view above, which you are 100% entitled to, shocks me simply because, this is despite the fact that you guys are currently living in a country that welcomes foreigners with open arms unlike the US.

Same approach is in places like Hong Kong and Singapore; these are two countries where just about every nationality on the planet can enter without a visa. The need of the hour is to have a more relaxed police with visas/work permits/investment visas/ retirement visas etc for the US to open doors for the new immigrants wannabe.

Propping the door wide open for foreigners provides significant economic benefits; people are more likely to visit (and spend their money) in a place where they are treated well, and they’re more likely to do business in a place where they feel comfortable. You guys on this forum are great examples!

The exact opposite end of the spectrum is the United States… and to a growing degree, the UK. Foreigners who arrive to the US are subjected to discourteous, disrespectful measures and made to feel like lowlife criminal terrorists.

For many, it’s an absolutely horrific experience. Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Patrol division takes itself way too seriously, and its uniformed chimpanzees are convinced of their own righteousness… that their actions are actually defending the homeland.

Rather than wasting taxpayer ( you guys) dollars such nonsense, the US government should be rolling out the red carpet for all nationalities with welcome signs saying “Thank you for spending your hard earned savings in our economy… and while you’re at it, please consider mopping up our excess housing inventory!”

I mention housing because it’s such a massive problem; the latest census data shows that there are 19 million vacant homes in the US… and climbing. There are only a handful of ways to clear out this surplus.

First, the country can wait it out until a new generation of Americans ( your kids?) comes of age, moves away from mom, and establishes a new household. Given the country’s anemic growth rate over the last decade, this option will take years. And years.

Second, the excess inventory could be consumed by a sudden surge in Americans’ wealth that sends them on a shopping spree for second and third homes.

Considering that the government has spent a few trillion dollars to create a few hundred thousand temporary and low-paying jobs, however, this seems unlikely.

Third, foreigners could provide the much-needed influx of people and capital that are required to purchase and fill the surplus of homes. Given the way that the government has so distastefully mistreated foreigners over the last several years, however, those cries would likely fall on deaf ears.

Just ten to fifteen years ago, if the US housing market had been in a similar situation, foreigners from all over the world would have been lining up to buy cheap property in the states; there was no greater status symbol than having a home in New York, San Francisco, or Florida.

Today, foreigners understand that the world is a big place, and that there are dozens of other countries that will treat them like human beings, and offer attractive incentives to boot.

Though the immigrants from 3rd world countries are still heading for the US, the smart ones understand that their are other opportunities outside the US.

Meanwhile, the US government will continue to treat visitors like criminals, scare citizens about terrorist threats, and wrap itself up in a blanket of righteousness… all while failing to realize that instead of protecting the homeland, these policies take an active role in the destruction of the economy.

Captain, I don't agree with you entirely, but you bring up some good points that I can't refute. All the same, there are some circumstances and events behind the behavior that you're condemning; I don't offer them as defense of that behavior, but the people behaving that way would use them as "excuses".

Let's address the TSA and Homeland Security. I'll start my "explanation" with a question: When was the last time somebody hijacked airliners and crashed them deliberately into buildings in one of your country's largest cities? Or when somebody tried to blow up an airliner flying into your country?

The Department of Homeland Security was hauled together in response to 9-11-2001, and continues by "virtue" of our nation's government perceiving itself as running around with a big bullseye painted on its backside. Their increasingly-intrusive restrictions are responses to increasingly-subtle attacks: box-cutters, explosives in shoes, liquid explosives in soda bottles, explosives sewn into undergarments. [i]I don't say this to defend or justify their actions or the policies behind them. [/i] But any nation has the obligation to defend its people and its territory from attack, or at least has to be perceived as defending its people and territory from attack.

What's the answer of "officialdom," of our elected representatives in Congress?"To The Barricades!" Put a whole lot of security, scanners, sniffers, pat-downs, in front of the gates to the airplane. But don't be caught "profiling", you have to treat Grandma and little Susie the same way you treat the nervous young man with the Muslim name and Middle Eastern passport. Otherwise you're "violating the rights of minorities" and that will get the Government sued in court.

As for the "uniformed chimpanzees," they have got a miserable job at the point-position of this obnoxious and intrusive "homeland security" system. I don't like having my toys groped, at least not by "officialdom"; but how would you like the job of doing these "enhanced pat-downs" on a Federally-mandated proportion of air travelers, every goddam day? I'm actually sorry for the poor sods.

Is the USA going about this the wrong way? Could be. But our elected nobility can go back to the pee-pul and say,"Look at all we're doing to protect you! Those rotten terrorists won't get by us NEXT time!"

As I said, not defense, just an explanation of "excuses."

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 415047]They were right.

8 years of fucking up the country.

Now we have to bail you out! [/QUOTE]Technically, I think was 7-1/2 years of strong economic growth, and 6 months of "fucking up the country".

Of course, many people choose to focus on the last 6 months of the Bush presidency alone because it serves their political agenda, never mind that the Dems played a major roll in the events that caused the housing / mortgage bubble, but that too is ignored by some individuals while chanting their mantra that Bush alone "fuck[ed] up the country".

Thanks,

Jackson

Captain,

Please learn the difference between the word "Tourist" and the word "Immigrant".

A tourist is an individual who is visiting a country on a temporary basis, with the permission of that country, and in accordance with its laws.

Tourists are not immigrants.

An immigrant is an individual who is or has permanently moved into a country, with the permission of that country, and in accordance with its laws.

The members of this forum whom you referred to who moved to Argentina are legal immigrants.

An "illegal immigrant" is an individual who has in fact moved into a country surreptitiously, without the permission of that country, and in complete disregard for its laws.

Illegal immigrants are criminals.

Get it?

Thank you,

Jackson

Captain,

Your pious attitude regarding US Immigration policy is most amusing when compared to India's position regarding the illegal immigration into India from Bangladesh over the years.

Here's a partial quote from wikipedia:

[quote]In Assam, agitation against immigrants started as early as 1979, led by All Assam Students Union. Their demand was to put a stop on the influx of immigrants and deportation of those who have already settled. It gradually took violent form and ethnic violence started between Assamese and Bengalis, mostly Muslim. It eventually led to the infamous Nellie massacre in 1983 due to a controversy over the 1983 election. In 1985 Indian Government signed the Assam accord with the leaders of the agitation to stop the issue. As per the accord [B][U]India started building a fence along the Assam-Bangladesh border which is now almost complete[/U][/B].[/quote]


From: [url]Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_in_India[/url]

Here's a couple more for you:

[url]http://mishingrenaissance.blogspot.com/2008/08/bangladeshi-illegal-infiltration-north.html[/url]

[url]http://www.ukasian.co.uk/blog/103/demographic-invasion-of-assam-by-bangladeshi-muslim-immigrants/[/url]

So it would appear that many of your fellow countrymen do not share your stated "open borders" position, repeated as follows:

[quote]Propping the door wide open for foreigners provides significant economic benefits; people are more likely to visit (and spend their money) in a place where they are treated well, and they're more likely to do business in a place where they feel comfortable.[/quote]Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson; 415063]Technically, I think was 7-1/2 years of strong economic growth, and 6 months of "fucking up the country".

Of course, many people choose to focus on the last 6 months of the Bush presidency alone because it serves their political agenda, never mind that the Dems played a major roll in the events that caused the housing / mortgage bubble, but that too is ignored by some individuals while chanting their mantra that Bush alone "fuck[ed] up the country".

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]How dare you contaminate these highly emotional issues with FACTS?

And it's even worse to regard them LOGICALLY!

No, no, no, you are supposed to strike out BLINDLY against the Eee-vils of the Other Side!

The Democrats are going to see problems as "the fault of those dirty Republicans." The Republicans are going to see problems as "the fault of those dirty Democrats." Both sides are going to wave their arms and holler at each other, and steadfastly IGNORE any dirty laundry on their own side of the aisle. It's the Amurrican Way.

Jackson-

The simple fact about the Bush Administration is that he (they) were handed a massive federal budget SURPLUS and managed to turn it into an even more massive budget DEFICIT. He (they) engaged the US in two opened ended wars which will NEVER have the desired outcome and which are still ongoing and are still draining the federal coffers. The easy sleazy credit that the Bush Administration put into place after the post-9/11 mini recession was responsible for the so-called growth you are referring to; this was in fact not growth at all, just a giant bubble that burst at the end of his (their) administration. The vast majority of US citizens were worse off at the end of the Bush Administration than they were when it began. The economy, and country as a whole, were indisputably worse off at the end than they were at the beginning of the Bush Administration.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

[QUOTE=Jackson; 415064]Captain,

Please learn the difference between the word "Tourist" and the word "Immigrant".

The members of this forum whom you referred to who moved to Argentina are legal immigrants.

An "illegal immigrant" is an individual who has in fact moved into a country surreptitiously, without the permission of that country, and in complete disregard for it's laws.

Illegal immigrants are criminals.

Get it?

Thank you,

Jackson[/QUOTE]Mr Jackson,

I do understand the difference between a immigrant and a tourist ( its not Rocket science after all). From what I know their are both legal immigrants and tourists participating on this forum. And I guess all are accepted with open arms here. In fact the illegal immigrants from Bolivia and Paraguay are also treated pretty well here. Many of them end up getting legal papers eventually.

I do not (personally) agree that a illegal immigrant is a "criminal" similar to a "criminal" who becomes a criminal in literal meaning of the word. Many times he / she (illegal immigrant) is just desperate to relocate to a place where he / she can make a living by working hard in a country where their may be more opportunities than his own. And by the virtue of the passport he / she holds, he / she may not be allowed to. This is pretty harsh as compared to citizens of first world countries with tier 1 passports who can walk in just about any country in the world and many times just stay put there or use the 3 month exit rule to do visa exits every 3 months and live "legally" there for rest of his life.

In the above described scenario, the only difference between the "criminal immigrant" and the "first world passport holder immigrant" is the difference in the passports they hold by virtue of where they were born!

And hence to break free from this bad luck allocated by virtue of one's birth place, its fair enough the illegal immigrants or the tourists or those on work visas should endeavor that at least children break free from this.

I know you would not agree with this. Its just my viewpoint.

Thanks

[QUOTE=Captain;415068]In fact the illegal immigrants from Bolivia and Paraguay are also treated pretty well here. Many of them end up getting legal papers eventually.[/quote]If that's the immigration law that the Argentines want to enact and enforce, then that's their right.

[QUOTE=Captain;415068]Many times he / she (illegal immigrant) is just desperate to relocate to a place where he / she can make a living by working hard in a country where their may be more opportunities than his own.[/quote]First, that's not a justification for violating the laws of another country, and second, perhaps they should be exerting their energies towards improving their own country.

BTW, how are all those illegal Bangladeshiins in Assam working out for the Indian people? Did the border fence the Indians built eventually work?

[QUOTE=Captain;415068]In the above described scenario, the only difference between the "criminal immigrant" and the "first world passport holder immigrant" is the difference in the passports they hold by virtue of where they were born![/QUOTE]No, the difference between those two groups is that one group is adhering to the laws enacted by the citizens of the host country, and the other group is willfully choosing to violate them.

Thanks,

Jackson

Any business that perpetualy loses money is forced to close its doors.

Individuals who spend more than they earn become insolvent.

Businesses and individuals usually get their houses in order - not by spending more but by spending less.

However, this does not apply to the Frankenstein called government.

The issue is not a lack of taxes, the issue is spending money like drunken sailors.

And who are the most vocal proponents of this reckless spending. You guessed it. People not paying taxes and the liberal politicians pandering to them. Their brains are programmed to say dame, dame, dame- give me, give me, give me. Just like an 8 track tape playing the same music over and over again.

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 415070]Any business that perpetualy loses money is forced to close its doors.

Individuals who spend more than they earn become insolvent.

Businesses and individuals usually get their houses in order. Not by spending more but by spending less.

However, this does not apply to the Frankenstein called government.

The issue is not a lack of taxes, the issue is spending money like drunken sailors.

And who are the most vocal proponents of this reckless spending. You guessed it. People not paying taxes and the liberal politicians pandering to them. Their brains are programmed to say dame, dame, dame- give me, give me, give me. Just like an 8 track tape playing the same music over and over again. [/QUOTE]The top spending cut chosen was "Reduce Social Security for wealthy" at 63%.

The question on taxes which got 9% support was a generic "Pay more in taxes". There was another choice "Both" (cut spending and raise taxes) for combined 18% support for tax increases. Still a low number, but this poll is lacking.

Such a non-specific question on taxation fails to delve into details on whether some forms of taxation may be preferred over others. Last week I posted another poll showing 61% support for raising taxes on the wealthy. Taking both polls together, [b]most Americans think it is appropriate to shift wealth away from the wealthy[/b].

This is the single most important thing we can do in the US - transfer more of the economic burden to the rich. And it is entirely justified because the wealthy have received the vast majority of new wealth in this country for decades.

The next time Warren Buffet takes over a company which is nearly bankrupt thanks to out of control spending and noncompetetive products Warren might benefit from Esten's business plan.

Straightaway

1) increase the out of control spending, and

2) raise the prices of the noncompetetive products.

This should put the company out of its misery in quick order.

[QUOTE=Esten;415071]And it is entirely justified because the wealthy have received the vast majority of new wealth in this country for decades.[/QUOTE]Once again, you are incorrect.

In America, it is the Middle Class that has "[I]received the vast majority of new wealth in this country for decades[/I]".

That's right, America's middle class has seen their individual wealth, and their total percentage of the country's overall wealth, increase dramatically in the past 100 years.

In other words, in the past century, America's middle class has seen dramatic increases in their standard of living, and since their numbers vastly outnumber the "rich", the combined wealth of America's middle class greatly exceeds the combined wealth of the "rich".

Please check the stats before you start spewing socalist propaganda.

Esten, just like WW said, you're "[I]like a bird that keeps flying into a window[/I]", and I'm starting to think it's because you preceive that all the "wealth" is just on the other side of the pane.

Thanks,

Jackson

This was so sad that it was funny.

It's a 3 minute interview between a liberal caller and a radio talk show host regarding illegal immigration.

[quote=Copied from the USA site]Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Here's a prime example of who voted Obama and the rest of the psychologically disturbed Democrats.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiGYIicuAns&NR=1[/url][/quote]

[QUOTE=Jackson;415075]America' s middle class has seen their individual wealth, and their total percentage of the country's overall wealth, increase dramatically. [/QUOTE]Jackson's statement is akin to an Argentine saying "we are one of the richest countries in the world." It used to be true and then something changed!

The US Census Bureau official data tracks the nation's aggregate income for various segments of the population and the distribution of wealth. That data documents that Jackson is incorrect – not Esten – about income and wealth trends in the US.

Since the late 1960's, it is the wealthiest Americans who have seen their share of income and wealth increase dramatically, while the poor and the middle class have lost ground.

Here are the numbers, starting with aggregate share of annual incomes:

The percentage of aggregate income that went to the poorest fifth of Americans fell from 4 percent in 1967 to 3. 4 percent in 2008 – a drop of 15 percent.

The percentage that went to the fifth of Americans in the lower middle class fell from 10. 8% in 1967 to 8. 6% in 2008 – a drop of 20. 3 percent.

The percentage that went to the fifth of Americans in middle class fell from 17. 3% in 1967 to 14. 7% in 2008 – a drop of 15 percent.

The percentage that went to the fifth of American in the upper middle class fell from 24. 3% in 1967 to 23. 3% in 2008 – a drop of 4 percent.

While, the wealthiest fifth of American income earners saw their share increase from 43. 6% in 1967 to 50% in 2008 – an increase of 15 percent.

Like the trends in the share of national income, over the past 4 decades, the wealthiest has garnered more of the nation's wealth, at the expense of everybody else.

Here are the numbers on wealth distribution:

Between 1969 and 2007, the share of American wealth owned by the lowest 99% fell 5 percent, while the share of the wealthiest 1% rose 11 percent.

In 1969, the bottom 99% of Americans owned 68. 9% of the nation's wealth, while the top 1% owned 31. 1 percent. In 2007, the bottom 99% of Americans owned 65. 4, while the wealthiest 1% owned 34. 6 percent.

The Great Recession is significantly reinforcing the negative trends for poor and middle class Americans, while the investor class is doing very well – thank you very much. Job losses, falling real estate values, diminished savings and so on have moved millions of Americans out of the middle class into poverty – and not because they are lazy slugs!

OF COURSE FACTS ARE NO SUBSTITUTE FOR IDEOLOGY!

[QUOTE=Jackson; 415064]Captain,

Please learn the difference between the word "Tourist" and the word "Immigrant".

A tourist is an individual who is visiting a country on a temporary basis, with the permission of that country, and in accordance with its laws.

Tourists are not immigrants.

An immigrant is an individual who is or has permanently moved into a country, with the permission of that country, and in accordance with its laws.

The members of this forum whom you referred to who moved to Argentina are legal immigrants.

An "illegal immigrant" is an individual who has in fact moved into a country surreptitiously, without the permission of that country, and in complete disregard for its laws.

Illegal immigrants are criminals.

Get it?

Thank you,

Jackson[/QUOTE]Had you been born a few miles south of the border, you could easily have been the sous chef for a well known NY restaurent, not sitting under the catus in Chihuahua. However, you will still be a illegal immigrant.

Of course, you will deny that you wlll ever break any US immigration laws and that youu will remain in Mexico and try to improve that country's economic conditions. Talk is cheap until your children is going hungry every night.

Sorry, Jackson how did I miss this one.

'Tourist."

As You Say.

I LOVE THIS WORD.

We are All Tourists.

"The World goes on, We are only here for a short stay. WE ARE TOURISTS."

Jackson Get a Massage from Nailea / Patricia. I Will Pay.
You Need One!!

[QUOTE=Captain; 415068]Mr Jackson,

I do understand the difference between a immigrant and a tourist (its not Rocket science after all). From what I know their are both legal immigrants and tourists participating on this forum. And I guess all are accepted with open arms here. In fact the illegal immigrants from Bolivia and Paraguay are also treated pretty well here. Many of them end up getting legal papers eventually.

I do not (personally) agree that a illegal immigrant is a "criminal" similar to a "criminal" who becomes a criminal in literal meaning of the word. Many times he / she (illegal immigrant) is just desperate to relocate to a place where he / she can make a living by working hard in a country where their may be more opportunities than his own. And by the virtue of the passport he / she holds, he / she may not be allowed to. This is pretty harsh as compared to citizens of first world countries with tier 1 passports who can walk in just about any country in the world and many times just stay put there or use the 3 month exit rule to do visa exits every 3 months and live "legally" there for rest of his life.

In the above described scenario, the only difference between the "criminal immigrant" and the "first world passport holder immigrant" is the difference in the passports they hold by virtue of where they were born!

And hence to break free from this bad luck allocated by virtue of one's birth place, its fair enough the illegal immigrants or the tourists or those on work visas should endeavor that at least children break free from this.

I know you would not agree with this. Its just my viewpoint.

Thanks[/QUOTE]

Personally, I don't know why we have controls at our borders in the first place. In fact, why do we have borders? Aren't we all one human family. Come and go as we please. As John Lennon said 'ímagine there are no countries, no borders too'

It is time we become good citizens of the world. It is time we realize that whoever wants to live in the United States has a right to live in the United States. It is especially important we make a special effort to attract drug dealers, gangsters. convicted felons, terrorists and the mentally challenged - especially the unstable mentally challenged with fully loaded, locked and ready automatic weapons in their luggage.

It is our duty to share our health care, welfare, food stamps, child care, educational system (including free rides to the Ivy League college of their choice) and, just for good measure, voting rights with the world. Isn't that what being an American is all about?

And for crying out loud, let's not be cheap about it. The least we can do is use taxpayer money to insure that our guests (me bad, new citizens of the USA) arrive rested and in comfort. I say free first class airfare (one way of course, we wouldn't want them to leave) and at least a free weeks stay (OK, a free 6 month stay with an additional free 6 month option) at the 5 star hotel of their choice. Unlimited free outcall from top escort services and free junkets to Disney World go without saying.

I have no doubt that the citizens of the United States will gladly throw child labor laws under the bus as well as put in 80 hours work weeks at half the minimum wage, forego all vacations and holidays (don´t even think about taking a weekend off) and donate another 20 hours of unpaid weekly overtime to fund this venture. It is the least we can do and I have personal assurances from more than 99% of unions that they are fully onboard with this plan.

I don't know about the rest of you but I am on the verge of foregoing my retirement and working until the day I die to insure that every citizen of the world has the opportunity to live in the United States.

In fact, I am toying with the idea of eliminating alltogether the concept of vacations, holidays, weekends and retirement in the United States. We should all be overjoyed at the prospect of working everyday for the rest of our lifes in order that every creature in the world has the opportunity to live in the United States.

You may say,
I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day
You'll join us
And the world will live as one

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 415083]We should all be overjoyed at the prospect of working everyday for the rest of our lifes in order that every creature in the world has the opportunity to live in the United States.

[/QUOTE]Very funny rhetoric indeed. Had a nice laugh after a very very long time. I am not sure that the smart world citizens are looking for such an opportunity when they very well know there are far better pastures, many times in their own backyard.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;415080]Talk is cheap until your children is going hungry every night.[/QUOTE]That's a tragic situation.

Here's an idea: Don't have children you can't afford to feed.

[QUOTE=Esten; 415020]

[QUOTE=Jackson;414991]Every proposal I've ever seen for any kind of national sales tax has always included the government sending a monthly rebate check to every citizen in the amount of the estimated sales tax paid on the first portion of their purchases every month. For example, if the national sales tax was 20%, then the government might send a monthly check in the amount of $200 to every person in the country to reimburse them for the national sales tax that they paid on their first $1,000 of purchases in the previous month. This is specifically intended to "curve" the tax burden by reimbursing low income individuals so that they effectively pay no national sales tax.[/QUOTE]Jackson,

Thank you for that highly relevant detail on the rebate check (prebate). I enjoy some research and fact checking, and have begun to study this "Fair Tax" in more detail. I will report back later. It looks like it may not be so bad for the poor, and possibly even beneficial. In fact it looks like it might benefit everyone. Are you a supporter of this "Fair Tax", and how do you explain it appears to potentially benefit everyone, while still raising the same revenue as the taxes it replaces?

[QUOTE]What kind of poll is that? Asking people if they are in favor of [U]someone[/U] [U]else[/U] Paying the country's entire tax burden? Yea, that's certainly an unbiased poll regarding "fair" tax.

"[I]Democracy is not 9 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. [/I]"[/QUOTE]What kind of poll is it. The kind of poll that can and often does influence politics and policy. It is "we the people" deciding what services they want from their government and how it should be paid for. Some may not agree with the decisions that are made, but that is democracy. What's your proposal for how decisions should be made? [/QUOTE]There are a number of benefits to consider in the concept of migrating from the income tax and to a national sales tax, among them:

1. First, and to me the most important, is that we STOP the class warfare which so bitterly divides our country as it pits one group against another as one side tries to get "the other guys" to pay all of the country's tax burden.

2. We eliminate the annual "confession" in the form of the income tax return, and thus we restore some of our personal freedoms and our right to privacy.

3. The underground economy will no longer avoid paying taxes, and thus we'll have a whole new group of tax contributors.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson;415088]Don't have children you can't afford to feed.[/QUOTE]I concur 100% on that. Been shouting this from rooftop, but the world is NOT listening!

[QUOTE=Jackson; 415088]That's a tragic situation.

Here's an idea: Don't have children you can't afford to feed. [/QUOTE]And provide clothes, medical attention, education, safe and clean place to live, etc.

A Republican governor came up with a novel idea, say NO to increasing the Federal debt ceiling and here is the novel part – prioritize spending. (Well it's not all that novel since it's been around the business world for a long time but it is novel for the Federal Government).

Just think NO defaults on current debt, NO government shut down, NO to all of Timmy G's boogieman stories. You service the current debt, make payroll ect and you suspend spending on project which have not started (read Stimulus et al here) , you stop increasing spending on current programs, you scrap the crap (foreign aid to folks who hate us maybe?) and DON'T SPEND the money in the first place. It will work. I know the liberals are going to have a conniption fit, but getting out of this mess is not going to be without pain and it's time we start.

Get ready for China to give it to Obama up the old Hershey Highway this week on trade and currency imbalance issues. Did you catch the Chinese Big Boys calling the Dollar based economic system outdated and stating the new world financial system should be based on China's currency?

If Obama really wanted to get tough all he has to do is start targeting Chinese goods with tariffs which would bring their prices in line and negate China's manipulation of its currency. It would have a secondary effect of making American goods more competitive at home, increasing domestic production and growing the economy (It JOBS, STUPID) JIMHO

Unfortunately, to a politician the only "job" that means anything is his / her own. The siren song of Being In Charge drowns out anything the "little people" might be saying. This is especially important when you're speaking of a political party-line that prizes emotion over reason,"dreams" over reality, and "hope" over fiscal prudence.

I've been reading David Kahn's [u]The Codebreakers[/u], and I found an interesting quote that was talking about a much different political crisis over fifty years ago. It seems to me it applies today, and every day:

"No human being has ever had difficulty in finding an excuse to overlook an unpleasant fact."

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 415096]A Republican governor came up with a novel idea, say NO to increasing the Federal debt ceiling and here is the novel part – prioritize spending. (Well it's not all that novel since it's been around the business world for a long time but it is novel for the Federal Government).

Just think NO defaults on current debt, NO government shut down, NO to all of Timmy G's boogieman stories. You service the current debt, make payroll ect and you suspend spending on project which have not started (read Stimulus et al here) , you stop increasing spending on current programs, you scrap the crap (foreign aid to folks who hate us maybe?) and DON'T SPEND the money in the first place. It will work. I know the liberals are going to have a conniption fit, but getting out of this mess is not going to be without pain and it's time we start.

Get ready for China to give it to Obama up the old Hershey Highway this week on trade and currency imbalance issues. Did you catch the Chinese Big Boys calling the Dollar based economic system outdated and stating the new world financial system should be based on China's currency?

If Obama really wanted to get tough all he has to do is start targeting Chinese goods with tariffs which would bring their prices in line and negate China's manipulation of its currency. It would have a secondary effect of making American goods more competitive at home, increasing domestic production and growing the economy (It JOBS, STUPID) JIMHO[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Jackson; 415075]Once again, you are incorrect.

In America, it is the Middle Class that has "[I]received the vast majority of new wealth in this country for decades[/I]".

That's right, America's middle class has seen their individual wealth, and their total percentage of the country's overall wealth, increase dramatically in the past 100 years.

In other words, in the past century, America's middle class has seen dramatic increases in their standard of living, and since their numbers vastly outnumber the "rich", the combined wealth of America's middle class greatly exceeds the combined wealth of the "rich". [/QUOTE]Jackson,

This is not the argument. We all agree, the middle class grew and prospered over the past century and it is a great achievement of capitalism. However, most of this progress occured up until the 1970's, over which period upper income tax rates were at historic highs.

The argument is about what has happened [i]over the past 3-4 decades[/i].

Over this period, we had major tax cuts under two Republican presidents. And the data shows that over this period, the progress of the middle class has been anemic, while the rich have prospered tremendously. There are many economic stats and analyses that demonstrate this, I'll followup later whether this holds true on just a per-capita basis or also a total wealth basis. But review the following:

[url]http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3220[/url]
[url]http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2908[/url]

This data shows:
- Income gaps between the very rich and everyone else more than tripled in the last three decades.
- Between 1979 - 2007, after-tax income grew +25% for the middle fifth, +95% for the highest fifth, and +281% for the top 1%.
- Between 1979 - 2007, the share of after-tax income for the bottom four-fifths decreased from 58% to 48%, while the share for the top 1% increased from 7% to 17%.
- Between 1976 - 2007, economic gains between rich and all else were wildly lopsided compared with the more even growth experienced between 1946 - 1976.

Liberals recognize that the world has changed. Their opinions about the growth and negative consequences of economic inequality are based not on 'wealth envy' but on data, statistics and facts.

"[i]An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all Republics. [/i]"

[QUOTE=Slipknot;415093]And provide clothes, medical attention, education, safe and clean place to live, etc.

[/QUOTE]I repeat, talk is cheap. We all know that the love of a father and mother has no limits to what they will sacrifice. In dysfunctional America, that is becoming extinct.

Shrinking the governemnt starts with US the taxpayer who funds it all. The people who will yell the loudest are the ones who are on the receiving end of all the benefits. Not the Taxpayer who pays the bill.

The polls are pretty clear, people want less spending and smaller government. Esten can only cobble together less than 18% by perverting a poll and then calling the poll flawed. Flawed because it does not come up with what you wanted to see no matter how you try to bend the numbers?

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 415111]Shrinking the governemnt starts with US the taxpayer who funds it all. The people who will yell the loudest are the ones who are on the receiving end of all the benefits. Not the Taxpayer who pays the bill.

The polls are pretty clear, people want less spending and smaller government. Esten can only cobble together less than 18% by perverting a poll and then calling the poll flawed. Flawed because it does not come up with what you wanted to see no matter how you try to bend the numbers? [/QUOTE]Well said. Anyone paying taxes should wonder whether the recipient of those taxes are good stewards of their money. The answer is obvious. The government spends our money like drunken sailors. Only worse.

The issue is not income. If the government can not live on what it extorts from us it only emphasizes what fiscal morons they are. The issue is spending. The taxpayer probably receives less than 5 cents of value for every dollar extorted by the government.

I will say it here. Don't raise the debt ceiling. It will only encourage government to continue its wasteful spending. We used to call it tough love. Well, with the government there is no love involved. Now we we call it 'get the fuc* out of our wallets'.

P.S. The scare tactic against not raising the debt ceiling is that wasteful government spending is essential to the economy. What bull sh**.

Not raising the debt ceiling will not effect businesses. Businesses are fiscally conservative and have to be to survive. Businesses are probably as fiscally solvent now as they have ever been

Not raising the debt ceiling will not affect individuals. Individuals already know they cannot spend money they don´t have.

The only entity that will be affected by not raising the debt ceiling is that corpulent, obese, fat ridden 2000 pound slob known as the government.

´The business of America is business´ Calvin Coolidge. Let´s get lean and mean again and quit bowing to those #@$%$#*@&# Chinese.

It's far too early to count chickens. Nonetheless, if one were to approximate chickens, this is a pretty good indication that Republicans will need to gain just 2-3 more seats in 2012 to take back the Senate. [url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/01/18/analysis_what_conrads_retirement_means_for_2012_108573.html[/url]

Dorgan's retirement means there are 22 other Dems who will be running in 2012, and only 10 Republican seats (including Hutchinson's). Translation: It will be very hard for Dems to make any gains, and much easier for Republicans to pick off, say. 10% of the remainder.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;415111]Shrinking the governemnt starts with US the taxpayer who funds it all. The people who will yell the loudest are the ones who are on the receiving end of all the benefits. Not the Taxpayer who pays the bill.[/QUOTE]More conservative drivel. Benefit programs like Social Security and Medicare have plenty of support from taxpayers. Do you know why? Because taxpayers paid into those programs and expect them to be in place if and when they need them.

[QUOTE]The polls are pretty clear, people want less spending and smaller government. Esten can only cobble together less than 18% by perverting a poll and then calling the poll flawed. Flawed because it does not come up with what you wanted to see no matter how you try to bend the numbers?[/QUOTE]No, adding 9% and 9% is not less than 18%, it's 18%. And it is not perversion, just simple addition of two separate groups which both favored raising taxes as part of their preferred approach to lowering deficits. Your arguments in the past were filled with errors, and I see nothing has changed.

That 18% becomes 33% when the poll question is if they are willing to pay more taxes, rather than what is their preferred approach.

Just so you know, nobody is disputing that most people want less spending. I am in that group as well.

But another key point is that most people want the rich to contribute more to balancing budgets. We saw that in the earlier poll showing 61% support for raising taxes on the rich (consistent with prior polls). And we saw that in El Alamo's poll showing 63% support for reducing Social Security for the rich.

The polls are clear on how Americans feel when asked about the rich. I have no need to distort them, they speak for themselves.

It started at 1. 3 billion or less and did not end at trillions? Something like O'Bama's inherited 1. 3 trillion debt.

Or are You, Senile or Do You Have Alzheimer's? Just like Fox has a Racist Republican Policy, which is a Racist

Package,

The "Health Care Package for All" Is not the "O'Bama Health Care Package" as Fox Calls It.

What does it cost you to visit to an Argentine Doctor?

I went 3 or 4 times, and I paid US$35-40.

The USA has to pay 3-4 times more than Europe.

So many other posts in the last few days:

[quote]The simple fact about the Bush Administration is that he (they) were handed a massive federal budget SURPLUS and managed to turn it into an even more massive budget DEFICIT. He (they) engaged the US in two opened ended wars which will NEVER have the desired outcome and which are still ongoing and are still draining the federal coffers. The easy sleazy credit that the Bush Administration put into place after the post-9/11 mini recession was responsible for the so-called growth you are referring to; this was in fact not growth at all, just a giant bubble that burst at the end of his (their) administration. The vast majority of US citizens were worse off at the end of the Bush Administration than they were when it began. The economy, and country as a whole, were indisputably worse off at the end than they were at the beginning of the Bush Administration.

Rock Harders[/quote]

[QUOTE=Rock Harders; 415067]The simple fact about the Bush Administration is that he (they) were handed a massive federal budget SURPLUS and managed to turn it into an even more massive budget DEFICIT. He (they) engaged the US in two opened ended wars which will NEVER have the desired outcome and which are still ongoing and are still draining the federal coffers. The easy sleazy credit that the Bush Administration put into place after the post-9/11 mini recession was responsible for the so-called growth you are referring to; this was in fact not growth at all, just a giant bubble that burst at the end of his (their) administration. The vast majority of US citizens were worse off at the end of the Bush Administration than they were when it began. The economy, and country as a whole, were indisputably worse off at the end than they were at the beginning of the Bush Administration.

Suerte,

Rock Harders[/QUOTE]I have to admit that I am I complete agreement with Rock Harders. I don't think Bush could have fucked up anymore than he did. Especially with those 2 wars. I wish Obama would step up to the plate and pull the plug on that disaster called Afghanistan.

The interesting issue is why some people with conservative views vote for Democratic while others with a liberal leaning vote Republican. Probably the same reason some people are Yankee fans and others are Red Sox fans. We have three pasttimes that occupy the masses - sports, religion and politics. Take your pick.

And at the end of day it really doesn't matter who we elect because we never receive what we expect. Clinton turned out to be the most fiscally prudent president since Eisenhower. Bush spent money like a drunken sailor thanks to his compulsion (gracias a Cheney) to send troops to every corner of the globe.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 415124]It started at 1. 3 billion or less and did not end at trillions? Something like O'Bama's inherited 1. 3 trillion debt.

Or are You, Senile or Do You Have Alzheimer's? Just like Fox has a Racist Republican Policy, which is a Racist

Package,

The "Health Care Package for All" Is not the "O'Bama Health Care Package" as Fox Calls It.

What does it cost you to visit to an Argentine Doctor?

I went 3 or 4 times, and I paid US$35-40.

The USA has to pay 3-4 times more than Europe.

So many other posts in the last few days:It started at 1. 3 billion or less and did not end at trillions? Something like O'Bama's inherited 1. 3 trillion debt.

Or are You, Senile or Do You Have Alzheimer's? Just like Fox has a Racist Republican Policy, which is a Racist

Package,

The "Health Care Package for All" Is not the "O'Bama Health Care Package" as Fox Calls It.

What does it cost you to visit to an Argentine Doctor?

I went 3 or 4 times, and I paid US$35-40.

The USA has to pay 3-4 times more than Europe.

So many other posts in the last few days:

[quote]The simple fact about the Bush Administration is that he (they) were handed a massive federal budget SURPLUS and managed to turn it into an even more massive budget DEFICIT. He (they) engaged the US in two opened ended wars which will NEVER have the desired outcome and which are still ongoing and are still draining the federal coffers. The easy sleazy credit that the Bush Administration put into place after the post-9/11 mini recession was responsible for the so-called growth you are referring to; this was in fact not growth at all, just a giant bubble that burst at the end of his (their) administration. The vast majority of US citizens were worse off at the end of the Bush Administration than they were when it began. The economy, and country as a whole, were indisputably worse off at the end than they were at the beginning of the Bush Administration.

Rock Harders[/quote][/QUOTE]Hello! Our country was ATTACKED on 9-11-01, remember? We were dragged into a war with an international organization that had vowed to attack us again, remember? Our economy was instantly paralyzed, remember?

Duh!

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson; 415127]Hello! Our country was ATTACKED on 9-11-01, remember? Our economy was instantly paralyzed, remember?

Duh!

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]If you went back and researched the actual statistics on the impact of the 9/11 attacks on the US economy in late 2001 and into 2002, you would note they were minimal and of very short duration, even in New York City, with the exception of the area around ground zero.

The Bush decision to attack Iraq and create the money sucking, mostly useless Homeland Security behemoth is how he began the destruction of the sound fiscal inheritance that Clinton had bequeathed him. He completed the destruction with his tax cuts for the super-rich and a trillion dollar give away to big pharma disguised as a drug program for seniors.

You are a fucking idiot plain and simple who mouths foolish dogma and wouldn't know a fact, if one appeared in your bed one night. (This last comment is in keeping with the tradition of ad hominem attacks perfected by the right wing over recent years!)

Esten, I have NEVER said Medicare or Social Security should be cut for the exact reason you stated, people paid in for the benefit. What I have said needed to be axed was MEDICAID and WELFARE, government vote garnering programs invented by the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

Esten, you and your liberal friends please keep your rose colored glasses on and remain in denial until after November 2012 and the conservatives sweep your folks in Washington from office. Even Democrats admit it was about cutting spending and shrinking government – at least the ones that are left. Get a grip big guy

For those interested, this is a pretty good early rundown of what's in store in the Senate in 2012:

[url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/01/20/assessing_the_2012_senate_battlefield_108599.html[/url]

Regardless of what else happens, Democrats are extremely vulnerable there.

It is way too early to predict the outcomes of these elections. The link above just gives an early glimpse of which way some of the battlefields tilt. The jockeying will start in about 10 months as the primaries begin to gather steam, and the elections themselves are just a year after that.

As most already know, the effort to "repeal" ObamaCare outright is largely symbolic until after the next election. They may be able to kill individual pieces of it; they can delay and deny funding some of it; they might even get a vote on the individual mandate, which would be a huge win, but which would be met with a veto regardless. But, there's no shot at repealing all of it until after 2012. It may get struck down legally, but it won't be legislatively repealed before the next election.

The important thing, though, is to hold Democrats' feet to the fire so that they're held to account in 2012. The interesting thing will be to watch the squirming of those Democrats who are listed as "Vulnerable" or "Potentially Vulnerable" on that link. Their machinations and doublespeak will increase exponentially in relation to the proximity of the election, just as it did this last go-round.