Categories
Blog

10 Tea Party Extremism Cartoons

Are members of the tea party extremists? Cartoonists differ about the tea party, but most agree that they’ve shaken up Washington.

Are members of the tea party extremists? Some pundits seem to think so, pointing to the last couple of months where they were successfully able to hold Congress and President Obama hostage in order to get their demands passed.

One thing’s for certain – tea party members have certainly shaken-up the corridors of power in Washington. Whether that’s a good thing for the country remains to be seen.

Cartoonists are never afraid to weigh in on the tough questions, and it’s no different with the tea party. Here are 10 political cartoons that explore the notion of the tea party, and whether or not we should think of them as extremists.

 

Bill Day notices some striking similarities between Muslim extremists and the tea party…

Monte Wolverton explores what the tea party is spewing…

Florida Today cartoonist Jeff Parker thinks the tea party has gone overboard on what they’ve thrown overboard…

Caricaturist Taylor Jones thinks Eric Cantor points the way forward for the tea party…

Buffalo News cartoonist Adam Zyglis thinks we should change the spelling of “tea”…

R.J. Matson of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch shows the reaction the tea party has to the word “compromise”…

Dutch cartoonist Joep Bertrams thinks the tea party have performed a hold-up…

While Eric Allie thinks Democrats and the main stream media have misrepresented the tea party all together…

Some still point to race, as Brian Duffy does with his cartoon…

While Hartford Courant cartoonist Bob Englehart thinks they’re just out to wreck the country…

By Daryl Cagle

Daryl Cagle is the founder and owner of Cagle Cartoons, Inc. He is one of the most widely published editorial cartoonists and is also the editor of The Cagle Post.

446 replies on “10 Tea Party Extremism Cartoons”

The “Tea Party” is easy to categorize/demonize in different ways.  Much of the initial money behind it came from identifiably wealthy right wing sources (somewhat similar to the John Birch Society of the days of old).  Much of the membership, however, is made up of working class people of relatively modest means, fearful for their future.  Initially, in the 1930’s, the National Socialist Party in Germany exhibited somewhat similar characteristics.  Both movements made a good deal of nationalism, scape-goating and nativism.

That said, it is obvious that many good people liked the slogans and other public expressions of the Tea Party along the lines of ‘it’s all their (democrats, immigrants, blacks, socialists) fault.’  We are being cheated, et cetera, et cetera.  Since much of the ideology expressed is illiberal, the movement is held in some contempt by many educated citizens.  More of a problem is their simplistic economic creed of lower taxes to solve all problems which is neither useful nor useable.

The tea party is only the weird stepchild of the GOP .And having created this weirdness they are now saying they want nothing to do with them.Too bad,kinda stuck now.It’s interesting that 60% or more of these people reside in the south,a section of the country that has always been a bed of secession, hot headedness and trailing in the overall intelligence of the country as a whole.And recently they have added another battle ribbon to their standard,that of being the most obese in the Nation. So what do you expect from the fat and stupid?

I thought cartoons were supposed to be funny. Long live the Tea Party so
that these nutty cartoonists have something to do.

Where in the world did you get the idea that the Tea Party was mostly confined to the south? Take a look at the national Congressional and Governor races in the 2010 election and you will not that the Tea Party is wide spread. It contains nuts as well as smarts, just like the Democratic and Republican Parties. You call them the uneducated class, yet you criticize them for having too much money. Does that mean that the smarter you are, the more you need financial assistance.

Tea Party.  There is a stark simplicity to their answers & positions which is very appealing to the common mind.   Lower middle-class voters with minimal educations & lower intellectual standards. 

People who live way off the intellectual grid, who don’t read, don’t eat with utensils, don’t care, don’t know HOW to care, & have never really evolved their own intellectual curiosity much beyond The-Walk-Upright-And-Don’t-Drool stage.  They are “guiding” America.

go to any search engine and look for yourself.I didnt make up what I wrote its out there for anyone to see.The $ they have is from the GOP who gets it from the wealthy 1%.All are pawns, both democrats and republicans.The Tea party represents the brownshirts of the GOP.The smarter you are,the more you realize this.

Actually more of a Libertarian brain child in the Spring of 2008, but after the poor showing of Rep. Paul in the Primaries, we merged. Many shared ideas.

Remind me Monday to post the top 19 contributors to both Political parties since 1991. That link is on my work computer. I think 17 of the 19 were unions contributions to dems.

 Yes what better way to keep people fighting among themselves? Give $ to the Unions.My basic premise is that both parties are owned by the wealthy 1%.When someone emerges from our society that espouses something else besides Democrats and Republicans and isnt in cahoots with either one(tea party) and has more brain power than approximately one peanut(palin,bachmann) they will be worth listening to.No doubt they will be killed by a ”lone gunman” or whoever soon after that. Thats how you will know they are for real.

Other than the one peanut. I would counter with weeny, bawney, and chollie. I can agree with that. Heard barry charged 38K a plate at his birthday bash, and expects to hit 1 billion for his run in 2012. Glad to see he included the little people in his celebration.

I am a Licensed Professional Engineer.  I am sure that I am far more complex than the “Great_1”.   And, I am a member of the Tea Party.

obama and boehner,bachmann,palin,paul et al are pawns.They mean nothing.I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in the meeting that took place in Colorado earlier this year with the top ten billionaires of the country attended also by Cantor and an undisclosed Democrat. Gee,wonder what they were discussing? Probably gladness in the stupidity of americans no doubt and a strategy to continue it. So far its working like a charm.”dancing like a puppet on a string,held by all those big shots”/Don Corleone

Ron Paul wants to bring all the troops home, end American imperialism, and drastically cut the defense budget.  Is this a Tea Party position, or is Ron Paul a closet liberal/commie?  I, a radical egalitarian and pacifist, support Ron Paul’s position on defense.  Does that make me a member of the Tea Party?

You can’t have it both ways, bitterspill.

I found this at Opensecret.org.  The top 15 contributors are: 

ContributorTotal ContribsTotalDem%Repub%Total1  Chartwell Partners$2,159,400$159,4000%100%$2,000,0002  TRT Holdings$1,030,800$30,8000%100%$1,000,0003  Goldman Sachs$842,610$842,61030%70%$04  Honeywell International$820,957$820,95729%71%$05  AT&T Inc$760,800$760,80034%66%$06  National Beer Wholesalers Assn$714,000$714,00045%55%$07  Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers$683,650$683,65098%2%$08  American Crystal Sugar$643,000$643,00054%46%$09  Lockheed Martin$635,506$635,50639%61%$010  New York Life Insurance$609,450$609,45043%57%$011  Credit Union National Assn$591,400$591,40047%53%$012  Comcast Corp$590,325$590,32550%50%$013  General Electric$583,031$583,03151%49%$014  PricewaterhouseCoopers$582,455$582,45530%70%$015  Perry Homes

All the Tea Party “terrorists” were asking for in the debt negotiations was for the government to stop borrowing in record amounts and pay for what it spends. President Obama was FOR that principle before he was against it:

“And I’ve personally asked the leadership in
Congress to pass into law rules that follow
the simple principle: You pay for what you spend — so that government acts
the same way any responsible family does.” 
— Pres. Obama, “Change that you believed in”, Apr 29, 2009

“The ‘pay as you go’ rule is very simple. Congress
can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere.”

— President Obama; June 9, 2009

The latest reports I could find on Tea Party rallies was from Aug 6, where less than one hundred TEa Party protesters showed up in Hudson, Wisconsin.  They were outnumbered by anti-Tea Party protesters.  At the fairly recent Palin Rally, where she had a few thousand (thank you Fox news), the anti-Palin protesters outnumbered the Tea Party types.   Draw you own conclusions.  The Tea Party is a disaster hated by both parties and increasingly losing support from gullible citizens.

In his recent fundraising drive Obama out raised the Repubs 3 to 1; 98% of Republican fundraising was from wealthy donors (ave 2000 bucks) compared to the half a million who contributed an average of $69 to “barry.”  

Those who have no evidence or logic advance their cause by mocking people’s names.  This is the tactic of the schoolyard bully.  

anyone who believes that the 2 party system and not the elite wealthy 1% own and control this country is a ”gullible citizen”
”propaganda,all is phony” /Bob Dylan

Oh, that doesn’t matter. You disagree with “Great_1” so you must be a drooling idiot. Anyone who disagrees must be. Tolerance, apparently, is one-way street.

Your stereotype of liberals is they are fiscally irresponsible.  From Truman to Bush, all Democratic Presidents decreased the debt/GNP ratio whle all the Republican Presidents INCREASED  the debt/GNP ratio.

Progressives and Ron Paul libertarians agree we must be fiscally responsible by cutting the 1.4 trillion defense budget.  We could reduce the deficit and invest in job creation, the only strategy that reduces govt costs and increases revenue. 

All these govt workers being laid off go on unemployment and other costly govt programs and their tax contributions dry up.

Fiscal responsibility is the legacy of Democratic Presidents; wild spending is a Republican heritage.  I challenge you to look this up and verify it for yourself.

Does the Tea Party want to cut defense spending drastically?  If so, I support them, but except for Ron Paul, all I have heard say “hand’s off.”  War is the root of our indebtedness.  Where does the Tea Party stand on this?  

What on earth does a site related to child abuse have to do with the topic. Man, you guys are good at these logical fallacies! wrote Ken. 
 Ken, you must have confused your porn site with opensecret.org, which describes its mission as being “a nonpartisan guide to money’s influence on US elections and public policy.”

Your error is beyond logical fallacy.  You must be out of your mind.

Thanks for a good laugh!  Anyone interested can google opensecret.org and learn a lot about the influence of money on politics.  Sorry, no child abuse.  Ken has lost his senses!

 Well, have YOU anything of substance to say, Ken?  I’m waiting…so far, just a lot of chest beating. 

Joe, in general you are right, but the Big Brush leaves out important details which indicate that not everyone has been captured by big money.  I would refer you to people like Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich, both independent and fierce fighters for ordinary people.  Both are still alive and fighting like hell to represent the people who elected them.  

It is true that corporate donors prefer Republicans, who consistently work to reward them, but they will support Democrats when it is clear that Democrats are winning, in order to influence the winner, of whatever party.  The 75 members of the Progressive Caucus will stand up to corporations and serve the general welfare, and on the Republican side, Ron Paul, who has the right views on defense waste but supports corporations otherwise, entertains independent ideas.  

Broad generalizaitons obfuscate critical distinctions between parties, politicians, and policies.  The solution: get all corporate money out of politics (at one time, all states had laws to prohibit corporate money influencing politics, including prison sentences for offenders.)  A liberal SC or an Amendment prohibiting bribes could enable a mitigation of the evil effects of declaring that corporations are individuals and that money is free speech.

Corporations are not individuals (anyone want to argue that?)….if they were, they could run for office, go to prison, serve in the military, etc.  And money is power, not free speech.  If money is free speech, the corporations can drown out the voice of the actual individuals that the Bill of Rights grants the right of free speech.
That would be plutocracy, not democracy….and that is what we have.  Plutocracy is, by definition, a form of tyranny of the few over the many.  The Koch bros are spending millions to defeat Democrats in Wisconsin; I have sent $5 several times.
However, all is not lost: the people united will never be defeated.

The plutocrats know this and so they work to divide the people against each other with wedge issues like guns and gays and God.  In the Gangs of NY, a pol says:
“The poor won’t revolt. We can hire half of them to kill the other half.”  This is the pure vision of plutocracy.  

Not so much the bully, but the one who took out the bully. Pretty much a cake walk after that. Damn fine chicken for 39K a pop. KFC should try it. 

Ken says “You shall find out in 2012” (how powerful the Tea Party is).

Words are cheap; predictions based on desire but lacking (or in this case, contradicting) facts (recent polls, recent anemic Tea Party rallies) are empty boasts.  No one can predict the future, but surely a movement which is losing public support is a bad bet to dominate future elections.  

The Tea Party is, 100%, Republican.  Can you name one independent or Democrat who belongs to the Tea Party leadership?  

I will post the corrct one sometime Monday. Definately the seiu, asfcme, and teamsters were on the list I think 17 or 18 of 20 were unions. It either went back to 1991 or 1988. We shall see Monday.  

Nah, HST was a wonderful POTUS as was JFK for the very short time he was in office. He also knew cutting taxes was the best way to stimulate the Economy.

 Yes, that’s true, Ken.  Money shouldn’t count.  Everyone with an ounce of sense will vote against the tea party candidates, now that we’ve seen what their true colors are.

Joe, your comment is right on.  The top elite funds whomever they think will win elections in order to have “influence.”  The Republicans are totally owned by the corportocracy, while the Democrats are partly owned, with some independent voices, such as the Progressive Caucus and folks like Sanders and Kucinich.  

If I had to choose the lesser of two evils, I would choose the lesser evil.  If effective campaign funding  reform were instituted  and the winner-take-all electoral scheme were  eliminated, we could have a more diverse set of parties and break the 2 party duopoly, reducing every issue to A or B.  We need C,D,E,F, and G to choose from, especially when A and B are about 1% apart.  

Ken wrote, “You will find out soon enough.”

Ken, that’s what you wrote in your last post.  Your imperatives are empty; repeating empty predictions does not make them  true.  And if it does, I will retort with your logic.

The Tea Party spells the death of Republican hopes to win in 2012.  You will find out soon enough.     

I prefer to admit I cannot predict the future but my expectations will be based on facts, polls of public support, and the fact that the Republican party is bitterly split as a result of the Tea Party. Splitting a party is hardly the way to electoral success.  IMHO.

Putting Obama (a man I have great disagreements with but whose intelligence and knowledge I acknowledge) in the same boat as Palin is the logical fallacy of 
using only one giant brush to blur all distinctions.  

Total cynicism leads to apathy, a form of voter suppression which favors the Republicans.  Healthy skepticism is open to differences, and  asserting all politicians are equally bad leads you to a form of hopelessness which favors the worst.

I appreciate your posts and your critical intelligence, but try using a few smaller brushes to deliniate differences.  As I said before, if forced to choose the lesser evil, I will choose the lesser evil.  Bachman? Obama? Bernie Sanders?  All the same, all meaningless?  Any idea (our politics is corrupted by money) if driven to the extreme (all politicians are corrupt) is absurd.  

Look at who was in charge of spending during the times that the Democratic Presidents decreased the debt and the Republican Presidents increased it. Let’s see, I believe Republicans were in charge during Clinton’s time and Democrats were in charge during Bush’s time. Don’t look at the Presidents, they don’t control spending the money. It’s the Congress.

Bitter….as I said, bullies make fun of people’s names and when called on it, say:  

“He started it.”  You claim you “took out the bully,” thus proving my point.  “I’m not the bully; barry is!”
I am onto you: this is brilliant satire and I thank you for making my point crystal clear.and you wrote….” Damn fine chicken for 39K a pop. KFC should try it.”  Obama is raising funds.  What’s your point?  That democrats also take money from wealthy donors.  I think we all know that.  Why is that worthy of your sarcasm?  Or is it satire, you sneaky liberal/pinko?  

BTW, the price of admission to the fundraiser was 30K, not 39K.  Again, even when you have a point, you blow it by blowing up the facts.   

You oversimplify by stating Congress controls spending.  Bush doubled the debt with two programs: the war in Iraq and the TARP.  In both cases, congress was originally opposed, but in the case of Iraq, Bush distorted the intelligence to frighten congress into authorizing force (link to Al Quada, WMD–both disputed within intelligence and widely outside).  

In the case of Tarp, Congress voted it down; then Bush sent in Paulson to tell congress that if they didn’t cough up 800 billion right now, they would be responsible for causing a worldwide depression.  Frightened, they authorized the funds.  

My point:  Congress is not in control when the information on which they base their decisions is false or twisted.  To their discredit, many Democrats as well as Republicans caved into the fear-mongering and extortion.  Significant opposition to the Iraq War occurred worldwide, both before and during the initial2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States, United Kingdom, and smaller contingents from other nations, and throughout the subsequent occupation. People and groups opposing the war include the governments of many nations which did not take part in the invasion, and significant sections of the populace in those that did.
Rationales for opposition include the belief that the war is illegal according to the United Nations Charter, or would contribute to instability both within Iraq and the wider Middle East. Critics have also questioned the validity of the war’s stated objectives, such as a supposed link between the country’s Ba’athist government and the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, and its possession of weapons of mass destruction “certified” by the Niger uranium forgeries. The latter was claimed by the United States during the run-up to the war, but no such weapons have since been found.
From wikipedia: 

For more info, consult wiki and check out:    
3 Opposition in the United States3.1 Popular opposition3.2 Opposition from national security and military personnel3.3 Opposition from soldiers3.4 Congressional opposition3.5 Opposition from presidential candidates3.6 Opposition from Lawyers Specializing in International Law4 Opposition in European countries5 Opposition throughout the world6 Religious opposition7 Protests against war on Iraq
Here is the House vote (note Dems who voted against more than for)
United States House of Representatives
PartyAyesNaysPRESNo VoteRepublican215602Democratic8212601Independent0100TOTALS29713303Here is the Senate: 

PartyAyesNaysNo VoteRepublican4810Democratic29210Independent010TOTALS77230
Summary: more Dems voted against Iraq War than for by 145 to 111. Only 7 Republicans, of 273 voting.  Had Dems been in power, we would not have invaded Iraq and we would be trillions ahead.  War is the root of our indebtedness.

Now tell me the parties are all the same.

Re Tarp, there was no Tea Party to protest it, as the TP was started only after Obama was elected.  From a Tea Party site: “Anyone who knows anything about the current Tea Party movement knows that it originated from sending tea bags to the White House to protest TARP. Watch the following YouTube Video, dated April 15, 2009.”

The claim that the Tea Party opposed Bush’s TARP is revealed as a total lie. Some TP’s justify this claim by asserting TARP was Obama’s idea.  You lie!

What is true that both parties, in the final Senate vote, supported Tarp:

In the Senate, H.R. 1424 passed with the following breakdown of votes:Democratic 41 Yea; 10 NayRepublican 33 Yea; 15 Nay

Who says there is any difference between the parties? And where was the Tea Party then?

Clinton had the greatest economic growth, incl 23M job, with Republican congress from 94 on.  However, his successful program of spending cuts (much in the defense budget) and tax increases for the top 1.2%, was opposed by Republicans, and only Gore’s vote in the Senate permitted it to pass.  To credit those who opposed his deficit cutting program to those who actually opposed it indicates a lack of knowledge of the politics of the time.

But your worst error is to “believe” that Democrats were in charge during the Bush era.  In fact, the Republicans controlled all branches of govt (including the SC) until 2006.  Did they cut the budget? NO, they increased it 80%; only for the last 2 yrs were Democrats in control.  

And now that Republicans are in control of the House, where spending originates, and can block the Democratic majority in the Senate with the filibuster (as they, for example, blocked the House approved public option (approved by 80% of the public)), why are Republicans blaming Obama for the economy?  The truth is that against Republican opposition, he reversed the Bush 700K a month job loss in a perfect V curve, reaching positive job growth within one year.  And last week, the Republicans rejected his 4 trillion deficit reduction plan (which was 3T in spending cuts and 1T in taxes on the top 1%) for a much more anemic plan.  And in so doing, they also caused the S & P to downgrade the credit rating, based on
the idea that there was no new revenue.

The S and P, of course, said those toxic mortgages were Triple AAA..so how credible are they.  And when the White House pointed out a 2 trillion error in their calculations, they said:  oh, it doesn’t matter.

We have thus reached the border of Alice in wonderland.

MarkZandi of Moodys, a McCain economic advisor,  (Moodys is another credit rating agency) says the Republican spending cuts (Boehner said: “We got 98% of what we wanted.”) will cost 700K jobs in 2012.

Ben Bernake, the Republican head of the Fed Reserve, who said in 2007 that the economy was in good shape, says the job losses will not be that bad.  But everyone agrees this will cause job losses, which is exactly what the Republicans were elected to fix.  The switch and debate to cutting the debt, exactly when govt stimulus spending is required to create demand and thus jobs, will result in a much higher unemployment rate.  But the Republicans plan to blame it all on Obama, since a bad economy is their only hope to win in 2012.  They have engineered economic regression, seeing it as their ticket to the White House.

Are the American people this stupid?  The polls indicate otherwise, with Republicans at 21% (vs Obama at 43%) job approval.  And the Tea Party, which S and P blames for blocking an effective budget plan which includes revenue increases, is at 22%, down from 37% just a few months ago.  The American people, now that they can see what the Republicans and their Tea Party cohorts are up to, are beginning to see the swindle, that their votes for jobs has been twisted into a job-killing spending cut with no added revenue.  And guess what, when jobs are lost, whether public or private, the cost of govt goes up (unemployment benefits) and their revenue goes down.  This is no way to get out of a hole; this is digging deeper.   

And now Panetta is fighting back against our only hope, cuts in the bloated defense budget (1.4T), acting like the Republican he once was.  Where is the Obama of 2008?  We need him now.  Things are bound to get worse, as spending cuts produces job cuts which produces govt deficits.  That worker who loses his job was paying taxes; now he is not AND he is collecting benefits, maybe foodstamps, and medicaid.  Spending creates jobs; cutting spending cuts jobs.

But that is the Republican strategy to take back power.  And if the American people are stupid enough, it will work.  Tough times ahead for ordinary Americans, but the corporations and the 1% richest are doing just fine.  

Clinton had the greatest economic growth, incl 23M job, with Republican congress from 94 on.  However, his successful program of spending cuts (much in the defense budget) and tax increases for the top 1.2%, was opposed by Republicans, and only Gore’s vote in the Senate permitted it to pass.  To credit those who opposed his deficit cutting program to those who actually opposed it indicates a lack of knowledge of the politics of the time.

But your worst error is to “believe” that Democrats were in charge during the Bush era.  In fact, the Republicans controlled all branches of govt (including the SC) until 2006.  Did they cut the budget? NO, they increased it 80%; only for the last 2 yrs were Democrats in control.  

And now that Republicans are in control of the House, where spending originates, and can block the Democratic majority in the Senate with the filibuster (as they, for example, blocked the House approved public option (approved by 80% of the public)), why are Republicans blaming Obama for the economy?  The truth is that against Republican opposition, he reversed the Bush 700K a month job loss in a perfect V curve, reaching positive job growth within one year.  And last week, the Republicans rejected his 4 trillion deficit reduction plan (which was 3T in spending cuts and 1T in taxes on the top 1%) for a much more anemic plan.  And in so doing, they also caused the S & P to downgrade the credit rating, based on
the idea that there was no new revenue.

The S and P, of course, said those toxic mortgages were Triple AAA..so how credible are they.  And when the White House pointed out a 2 trillion error in their calculations, they said:  oh, it doesn’t matter.

We have thus reached the border of Alice in wonderland.

MarkZandi of Moodys, a McCain economic advisor,  (Moodys is another credit rating agency) says the Republican spending cuts (Boehner said: “We got 98% of what we wanted.”) will cost 700K jobs in 2012.

Ben Bernake, the Republican head of the Fed Reserve, who said in 2007 that the economy was in good shape, says the job losses will not be that bad.  But everyone agrees this will cause job losses, which is exactly what the Republicans were elected to fix.  The switch and debate to cutting the debt, exactly when govt stimulus spending is required to create demand and thus jobs, will result in a much higher unemployment rate.  But the Republicans plan to blame it all on Obama, since a bad economy is their only hope to win in 2012.  They have engineered economic regression, seeing it as their ticket to the White House.

Are the American people this stupid?  The polls indicate otherwise, with Republicans at 21% (vs Obama at 43%) job approval.  And the Tea Party, which S and P blames for blocking an effective budget plan which includes revenue increases, is at 22%, down from 37% just a few months ago.  The American people, now that they can see what the Republicans and their Tea Party cohorts are up to, are beginning to see the swindle, that their votes for jobs has been twisted into a job-killing spending cut with no added revenue.  And guess what, when jobs are lost, whether public or private, the cost of govt goes up (unemployment benefits) and their revenue goes down.  This is no way to get out of a hole; this is digging deeper.   

And now Panetta is fighting back against our only hope, cuts in the bloated defense budget (1.4T), acting like the Republican he once was.  Where is the Obama of 2008?  We need him now.  Things are bound to get worse, as spending cuts produces job cuts which produces govt deficits.  That worker who loses his job was paying taxes; now he is not AND he is collecting benefits, maybe foodstamps, and medicaid.  Spending creates jobs; cutting spending cuts jobs.

But that is the Republican strategy to take back power.  And if the American people are stupid enough, it will work.  Tough times ahead for ordinary Americans, but the corporations and the 1% richest are doing just fine.  

Ken, can you name one TEa Party leader (other than Ron Paul, who predates the Tea Party as a libertarian) who has called for drastic cuts in the military and ending US troops in 150 nations and American imperialistic aggression.    Every Tea Party leader I have heard has said hands off of defense.  Please supply some Tea Party leaders who want to cut defense deeply.  They can join the progressives in common cause, but I think you are deluded in thinking they exist.  I stand to be corrected if you can tell me who they are.  

As the defense budget is the single largest source of spending (1.4 Trillion all told)
liberals who want to cut that bloated, unsustainable, bankrupting spending (400 Billion a yr just to repay debt on previous wars) are fiscally responsible.  Sadly, our new Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, is arguing against cutting defense.

From Truman to Bush II, the wild spending has all been the Republican Presidents: all increased the debt/GNP ratio.  All Dems (I am leaving out Obama for now) President have decreased that ratio.  

Obama,like FDR, has inherited a broken economy.  Hoover was for spending cuts and no new taxes.  It failed.  FDR borrowed, spent, and cut unemployment drastically. Then in 37, the Repubs took control of congress and forced him into a deep spending cut program: the economy tanked again.  ONly WWII, with massive borrowing/spending/high taxes and strict govt regulation was able to create jobs, and when the War ended, the Us took off on a 30 yr period of growth, high employment, and prosperity for both business and ordinary workers.  This is the classic stimulus example:  the prosperity of the post war yrs produced the surpluses which were used to pay down the debt.  But first you have to spend, put money into the economy, and create jobs.  Clinton proved that raising taxes on the rich, along with cuts in defense, creates jobs (23M, compared to Bush’s 3M, with tax cuts for the rich.). 

We have had 12 yrs of tax cuts for the rich.  Where are the jobs?  
Repeating what has failed and expecting success is madness.  

Ken, just to show how wrong you are about people you call liberals, the liberal journals have denounced the Libya engagement on both constitutional and motive grounds.  Do you know how many civilians Khadaffi has killed?  500?(Compare to Syria, where 500 a day are being killed, peaceful protesters are being killed by shells from tanks).  And do you know who is fighting alongside the rebels?  Al Quada.  Big mistake.  Nothing like Iraq (with hundreds of thousands killed and pushing Iraq into league with Iran) but
a blunder nevertheless.

The Republicans(like McCain and other leaders) first criticized Obama for NOT going to war against Libya, then when he did, they criticized him for doing so.

That leaves a few true independents like Ron Paul on the right and Kucinich and Sanders (and the 75 Progressive Caucus members) who have consistently opposed this aggression.  Where do you stand?  Should we bring all troops home and cut the defense budget deeply?  Did you support the invasion of Iraq?  

The Tea Party is about to implode.  A CBS july poll showed that 66% of Tea Party supporters favored compromise.  But when the compromise was reached, tea party activists and leaders across the country denounced it, as accomplishing nothing.
One leader said: “We got squat.” (compare to John Boehner saying” We got 98% of what we wanted.”

I suspect that the Tea Party, half of whom have been Republican activists and almost all of whom have voted Republican, is a fabricated movement with severe internal contradictions.  Ron Paul is the “godfather” of the Tea Party, but what other Tea Party leaders want, like Paul, to bring all our troops home, cut defense drastically, and end the era of American imperialist aggression?  

And if deficit reduction is the main thing, why did the Tea Party not arise until after Obama was elected, with not a whimper of protest against the TARP bailout or the Bush doubling of the budget?  I suspect the Tea Party, which has attracted many sincere people, is a front, promoted by Fox News (it called the big rallies it covered Fox News Tea Party Rallies) and funded by far right billionaires like the Koch bros, 
a new name and face for the old and rejected Republican Party (21% approval).
The Tea Party challenged some establishment Republicans, to be sure, but in supporting extremists like Angle and Paladino, they cost the Republican Party control of the Senate, making the House victory meaningless.  Sp the Republican leaders hate the TEa Party, the Dems hate the Tea Party, Independents are
losing respect for the Tea Party, and within the Tea Party, 2/3 wanted a compromise but leaders and activists condemn the compromise.  This can’t end well, unless you are a Democrat, for just as the TP prevented the Repubs from controlling congress, they are about to destroy the Republican chances of electoral victory in 2012, despite a terrible economy which will be blamed on the Dems.

I am reminded of another movement/party which arose out of the Republican Party: the Progressives.  Few know that the progressive movement was a Republican movement, calling for shared prosperity (McKinley) and anti-trust activism and environmental protection (T Roosevelt).  How sad to see the decline from Republicans like Lincoln, trustbusters like TR, and anti-war and defense spending like Eisenhower.  Nixon?  Bush SR.  Bush Jr.   A pathetic lot compared to former Republican greatness.

The only moderate, progressive Republican today is, ironically, Obama.  

Bitter, I found the list you are talking about at opensecret. org. which shows that of the top 25 donors, 19 are unions.  The problem is that this  does not compare a smaller group of unions, with high donation levels, to the total of corporations and pacs.

I will quote the same opensecret.org to substantiate this claim: 

“The broadest classification of political donors separates them into business, labor, or ideological interests. Whatever slice you look at, business interests dominate, with an overall advantage over organized labor of about 15-to-1.
Even among PACs – the favored means of delivering funds by labor unions – business has a more than 3-to-1 fundraising advantage. In soft money, the ratio is nearly 17-to-1.”The list of top donors does not include pacs, soft money, and most recently the anonymous contributions the Supreme Court now allows as “free speech:”  Opensecrets, your source, states clearly that: WHATEVER SLICE YOU LOOK AT, BUSINESS INTERESTS DOMINATE WITH AN OVERALL ADVANTAGE OVER ORGANIZED LABOR OF ABOUT 15 TO 1.”I think that clarifies the issue and makes it clear that business interests dominate by a gross margin over unions.  The reason is simple: unions are smaller than ever and businesses are richer than ever.20 major unions give a lot, but thousands of corporations, in various ways, give about 15 times more.,Comparing 20 unions to 20 corporations is a misleading way to assess the true landscape of political donations.  Comparing all union donations (most of which goes to Democrats) to all corporate and PAC and soft money donations (most of which goes to Republicans ) yields the 15-1 advantage of business interests over unions.I thank you for leading me to this data thru opensecret.org, which Ken thinks is a child abuse site.

Bitter, I found the list you are talking about at opensecret. org. which shows that of the top 25 donors, 19 are unions.  The problem is that this  does not compare a smaller group of unions, with high donation levels, to the total of corporations and pacs.

I will quote the same opensecret.org to substantiate this claim: 

“The broadest classification of political donors separates them into business, labor, or ideological interests. Whatever slice you look at, business interests dominate, with an overall advantage over organized labor of about 15-to-1.
Even among PACs – the favored means of delivering funds by labor unions – business has a more than 3-to-1 fundraising advantage. In soft money, the ratio is nearly 17-to-1.”The list of top donors does not include pacs, soft money, and most recently the anonymous contributions the Supreme Court now allows as “free speech:”  Opensecrets, your source, states clearly that: WHATEVER SLICE YOU LOOK AT, BUSINESS INTERESTS DOMINATE WITH AN OVERALL ADVANTAGE OVER ORGANIZED LABOR OF ABOUT 15 TO 1.”I think that clarifies the issue and makes it clear that business interests dominate by a gross margin over unions.  The reason is simple: unions are smaller than ever and businesses are richer than ever.20 major unions give a lot, but thousands of corporations, in various ways, give about 15 times more.,Comparing 20 unions to 20 corporations is a misleading way to assess the true landscape of political donations.  Comparing all union donations (most of which goes to Democrats) to all corporate and PAC and soft money donations (most of which goes to Republicans ) yields the 15-1 advantage of business interests over unions.I thank you for leading me to this data thru opensecret.org, which Ken thinks is a child abuse site.

Please see my post citing opensecrets. org, the source of your list, which does not count all contributions of all corporations in its many forms.  Business interests, according to the same opensecrets. org that you cite, dominate unions 15-1, when you take all corporations and forms of donation into consideration.  

This is another example of how statistics can be rigged to draw false conclusions.
There are few unions and many corporations; you have to compare all of them, and all the ways they donate.  Then the truth emerges of who dominates political funding in the US of A.  See the opensecrets.org quotation at the source or in my other post.

actually it came from the RNC in a nice ad they sent us here in Va.So,yeah I guess you could say it was in a way the ”comedy channel”.Laugh it up baby.

so I guess you missed all the sentences that said there is no difference between the parties,and they are both owned by the wealthy.I’m not a liberal or a conservative,I have no voting pattern.I’ll bet you cant say that,and I know hate and ignorance talking when I hear it.I know exactly what the T party stands for and its not for  the ”common welfare” of anyone but them.

Schreiber,
Government spending last year was 157% of revenue.
In the past 2 years, we’ve increased the debt by $3.4 Trillion.

Suggesting that we need to cut spending does not equal reducing it to the size of a postage stamp.

Even if we were able to reduce spending to revenue, we would still be spending over 2 Trillion dollars.
That’s a big postage stamp.

Of course, extremism takes many forms.  One of those forms is when someone calls opposition to 157%-of-revenue-spending as being ‘duped by the Koch brothers’, ‘misled by Fox’, and tools of those who want world domination.  That type of rhetoric is actual extremism.

“Tea Party.  There is a stark simplicity to their answers & positions
which is very appealing to the common mind.   Lower middle-class voters
with minimal educations & lower intellectual standards. ”

Putting aside your snobbery for a moment about anyone who thinks differently then you, the position of “Spend less” has actually been re-enforced by Standard & Poor.  Are they similarly uneducated?
Or are they looking at our spending over the past two years, and coming to the conclusion that our debt is too big?  That its actually 100% of the GDP?

This is what you don’t get, Great1; two years ago, some of us saw this coming a mile away.  But people like you?  You chose to call us names instead of listen.
When we said that we were spending too much, you told us that we needed to spend $787 billion to keep the unemployment level below 8%.
We said it wouldn’t work.
We were right.  Yep, us.  Us ‘neanderthals’. Us, who don’t eat on plates.
Its gotta hurt your pride to have to admit that we were right.  So instead of admitting it?  You just ignore, and forget history.

The S&P figured out that our spending is out of control.  What will it take to get you to admit it?

“Your stereotype of liberals is they are fiscally irresponsible.  From
Truman to Bush, all Democratic Presidents decreased the debt/GNP ratio
whle all the Republican Presidents INCREASED  the debt/GNP ratio.”

You’re ignoring who has been in charge of CONGRESS during those administrations.
Here’s a better picture.
US DEBT:
Jan/2001 $5.7 Trillion
Jan/2007 $8.6 Trillion

In the 6 years of Republican control, the debt was raised by 2.9 Trillion.  Outrageous, right? 0.5 Trillion a year of debt!

Jan/2009 $10.6

From 2007 to 2009, the debt rose by $2 Trillion.
2 Trillion.
In 2 years of Democrat control of congress.

Now that was NOTHING compared to the drunken spending that would ensue after a Democrat took the presidency.

Jan/2011 $14.0
By this year, last January, our debt is 14 Trillion.

In two years, the president and congress have raised the debt by 3.4 Trillion.  Or roughly $1.7 TRILLION a year.

Now if all fairness, you could argue that has changed.
Oh wait.  You can’t.
Because all democrats have done during this debate is argue that we can’t cut more spending.  So who do you think you’re fooling?

“And the Tea Party, which S and P blames for blocking an effective budget plan which includes revenue increases,”

You are literally just making shit up now.
No where, and I mean NOWHERE in the S&P document does it even MENTION the Tea Party, much less blame it for “blocking an effective budget plan”.
For that matter, the document SPECIFICALLY talks about the need to reduce entitlements… which the Democrats opposed:
“In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.”

Huh.  Sounds like the S&P is calling out congress for not addressing entitlements… wouldn’t you say?

“You oversimplify by stating Congress controls spending.”

As opposed to the people who say that the PRESIDENT is in control of all spending?
C’mon!

“Bush doubled
the debt with two programs: the war in Iraq and the TARP.”

You are SOOOOO far off.
The entire estimate of the Iraq AND Afghan war, since it STARTED, is estimated to be $1.2 Trillion.
Last year ALONE, we added $1.7 TRILLION to the debt.  Now how can you say that Bush DOUBLED the debt with $1.2 Trillion???
The debt was 10.6 Trillion when he left office.  Take away 1.2 Trillion, and you get 9.4 trillion.  How does that equal a doubling of the debt?
Wait… you said TARP… right?
Most of TARP has been paid back.  So Barack should be running a surplus.  Right?

As far as who PASSED Tarp?
You left out the vote of the House.  I’ll help you out.

The first vote on the bailout was September 29th, and the final tally is as follows:

AyesNoesPRESNVDemocratic14095Republican651331IndependentTOTALS205228 1

The second vote on the bailout was October 3rd, and that tally is as follows:

YeasNaysPRESNVDemocratic17263Republican91108IndependentTOTALS263171

huh.
It seems as though the Republicans were really, really against it.  And that the Democrats, once again, pushed for the spending.

No, S and P blamed the bickering and lack of revenues, which were blocked by the Tea Party.  They didn’t have to mention bllocked adding revenues to the package.
Obama proposed a 4 trillion cut, with 3, including entitlements, and !T in added revenue thru raising tax on top 1% by 4%.  The Tea Party made this deal impossible, and S and P thus blames the Tea Party for making a compromise with larger cuts and revenues impossible. 

The  Bush wars have cost more than 1.2 Trillion (and will cost much more including debt repayment and VA health for veterans), and you ignored the tax cuts which cost over a trillion in ten years.  Add it up, and you find over half the new debt. Now add the 800 billion bank bailout Bush/Paulson engineered and you find that 2/3 of the debt was war/tax cuts/bailout.

I couldn’t care less who started it (Reminds me of barry blaming Bush) It is who finishes it that matters.  

I couldn’t care less who started it (Reminds me of barry blaming Bush) It is who finishes it that matters.  

At least with the recent SCOTUS ruling the playing field has been leveled. About time dontcha think?

At least with the recent SCOTUS ruling the playing field has been leveled. About time dontcha think?

Not reall. That was why we were so determined to win the House last Fall. Hadn’t you noticed nancy’s wild frivolous shopping spree since January of ’07?

And HC is now said to cost 2.3 trillion over 10 years. Take into account less qualty care and much longer to get, and I prefer GWB’s spending. At least we did have 8+ years with no new concerted terrorist strikes on CONUS. 

And HC is now said to cost 2.3 trillion over 10 years. Take into account less qualty care and much longer to get, and I prefer GWB’s spending. At least we did have 8+ years with no new concerted terrorist strikes on CONUS. 

And HC is now said to cost 2.3 trillion over 10 years. Take into account less qualty care and much longer to get, and I prefer GWB’s spending. At least we did have 8+ years with no new concerted terrorist strikes on CONUS. 

And HC is now said to cost 2.3 trillion over 10 years. Take into account less qualty care and much longer to get, and I prefer GWB’s spending. At least we did have 8+ years with no new concerted terrorist strikes on CONUS. 

And HC is now said to cost 2.3 trillion over 10 years. Take into account less qualty care and much longer to get, and I prefer GWB’s spending. At least we did have 8+ years with no new concerted terrorist strikes on CONUS. 

Yes they did, but they really looked at 14.5 Trillion with another 2+ Trillion coming in the next 1+ years. That was the kicker.

Yes they did, but they really looked at 14.5 Trillion with another 2+ Trillion coming in the next 1+ years. That was the kicker.

Yes they did, but they really looked at 14.5 Trillion with another 2+ Trillion coming in the next 1+ years. That was the kicker.

Yes they did, but they really looked at 14.5 Trillion with another 2+ Trillion coming in the next 1+ years. That was the kicker.

Yes they did, but they really looked at 14.5 Trillion with another 2+ Trillion coming in the next 1+ years. That was the kicker.

Kinda how I view unions and their loyalty to dems. Especially the unskilled unions. like the asfcme and seiu.

Kinda how I view unions and their loyalty to dems. Especially the unskilled unions. like the asfcme and seiu.

Even a cake takes 25-35 minutes to bake. This one still has about 15 months to go. We were spot on though last Fall. Hell, I only missed on 2 Senate picks. I really thought Fiorina would topple babs, and had Joe Miller in Alaska.

How about that Governor McConnell? Helluva job dontcha think? I visited the VA state capital this afternoon. The History in that building is awe inspiring. Same thing for Hollywood Cemetery.

It is just that the dems are owned by the wealthiest unions who force their members to pay higher dues.  

Oops, NO I did not like it.

So much for the intelligence of those elitist well educated types. The past 4 years is such a glowing example. So when do Y’All plan to campaign on all your successes rather than attacks on the oppositin?

The bank bailout was Bush/Paulson’s plan, and they said if it was not passed, worldwide depression would follow.  In the Senate, 33 Repubs voted for it; 15 against.  This one belongs to Bush.

The bank bailout was Bush/Paulson’s plan, and they said if it was not passed, worldwide depression would follow.  In the Senate, 33 Repubs voted for it; 15 against.  This one belongs to Bush.

:”Let’s start with the official, nonpartisan analysis issued by the CBO on Jan. 6. The agency said repealing the new law would produce a large change in the deficit, but not in the direction Republicans claim.  CBO said repeal would “likely” cause “an increase in the vicinity of $230 billion.” That’s for the 10 years ending in 2021. It follows that leaving the law in place will reducethe deficit by $230 billion, according to CBO’s official scoring., “=
This is the CBO estimate: reduce deficit by 230 billion. Republicans disagree, but CBO rejects their analysis.  

Spin. I am quoting opensecret.org, the source that bitterpill used.  The statement opensecret makes speaks for itself.  I offer no spin.

No, the absurd claim that corporations are individuals and that money is free speech has led to a situation which will expand corporate money in politics by allowing it be both anonymous and unlimited.  This tilts the 15-1 advantage of business interests even more.

You ignored my question, to name a Tea Party leader who is an independent or Democrat.  And as for last election, cycle, the Tea Party cost the Repubs the Senate, which makes the House victory fairly meaningless, as the Senate can block the House.  Counting all Tea Party candidates at all levels, 37% won their races.
Support has fallen from 37% to 22%.  Dream on………………

Just the fact that they were Indy or dem pretty much counts them out on any leadership roles. However, we do count many indy, and some dems now in our ranks,

Almost as much of a fall as barry. No problem though. 80% are fed up with all of Congress, and nearly 70% want a Balanced Budget. We still cling to that. libs do not.  

After 2006 and 2008, we might need it. barry hopes to raise 1 billion. Good money after bad, but maybe this time they will learn.  

Did you happen to notice the party receiving the bulk of those union contributions. Oh well, if the members are willing to waste that much, they deserve what they get. Maybe corporations should offer a deal to not contribute if unions do likewise. That way it will be a wash, and we will not have to absorb those costs in higher prices.

And within 6 weeks of the bill being signed, they projected the cost at about 2.3 trillion over 10 years. This jives with GOP estimates during the Fall of 2009. That is why there was such haste to get it passed. (Before the revised CBO estimates.) I expect much more with a much lower quality, but hey, I am just the Corporate Compliance and Revenue Officer.

I agree, the CBO did initially say it would reduce the deficit, but that was before they read the full bill, and rechecked the numbers. I think their revised costs came out the first week of May 2010. About the same time CAT, Deere, AT&T, Verizon, and Valero revised profits down and said the bottom line would be less employees or higher costs for all products and services.    

Will give you that one. It was a sack of crap coming down the line regardless of who was POTUS. All goes back to the CRA, and subsequent housing and banking regs legislated in the 90’s when home prices were still climbing near 8-12% per annum. Add in the extra House spending in 2007 early 2008, and you see the results. However, TARP has mostly been paid back. Unlike the spenduless, it wasn’t gratis. President Bush even let barry dictate who would receive the remaining funds in Dec. of 2008. I was against TARP as much as the spenduless. Actions should have consequences.

How many dems voted for it?

Will give you that one. It was a sack of crap coming down the line regardless of who was POTUS. All goes back to the CRA, and subsequent housing and banking regs legislated in the 90’s when home prices were still climbing near 8-12% per annum. Add in the extra House spending in 2007 early 2008, and you see the results. However, TARP has mostly been paid back. Unlike the spenduless, it wasn’t gratis. President Bush even let barry dictate who would receive the remaining funds in Dec. of 2008. I was against TARP as much as the spenduless. Actions should have consequences.

How many dems voted for it?

Guess that just proves the dooers get rewarded more than those who think they can. Come to think of it, I didn’t even need a Masters to teach at the University level for over 10 years. They asked me to join the faculty full time, but I didn’t want the pay cut. Just one class a semester was plenty.   

And barry said if the spenduless was not passed UE would exceed 8%. Come to think of it, he also said if we did not increase the debt ceiling an Economic disaster would ensue.

Boy he did benefit from Reagan Bush I policy. A good thing though that the GOP took the House & Senate in 2004. That saved his butt the last 6 years.

You ignored the question to name a Tea Party leader who is not a Republican. I take it, since you responded twice without naming one, that you cannot. Therefore, you are acknowledging that the Tea Party is just a part of the Republican Party.  All elected Tea Party candidates are Republicans.  

Case closed.

You wrote: “I couldn’t care less who started it….”   meaning  you have no interest in responsibility or justice, which concern who is guilty of misbehavior.  Bush started two immoral wars, with hundreds of thousands of civilians deaths, bailed out the banks, and brought the economy to total collapse.  He is responsible for that; Obama is responsible to work with congress (he can’t do it alone) to fix the problems.  Not caring who “started it” is to deny the concept of morality and responsiblity.  I suspect you voted for Bush, and now you don’t want to take responsibility for supporting a terrible President who left us a disaster.  

It does matter who started it.  War crimes and economic disasters cannot be waved off with a “I could care less.”

Don’t ignore that opensecrets says that, when you take into consideration all the corporations and all the ways they contribute, business interests outweigh unions by 15-1 in plowing money into politics.  When money is free speech, the wealthy corporations rule.  

“you will find out soon enough.”  Did you also believe Iraq had WMD and was linked to Al Quada?  Using your logic, I respond:  “YOU will find out soon enough.”

Argument by imperative is a logical fallacy.  It’s akin  to the schoolyard boast:

I’ll show you.!

No one can predict the future.  Pretending you can is pathetic.  It is an admission of lack of evidence to assert that you know the future without supplying any evidence.  It is an empty boast.

the Tea Party support of extremists cost the Republicans the Senate, making the House victory meaningless.  Bragging about  your ability to call races while ignoring the significance of the Tea Party support of extremist is pathetic.

Wrong again!   “By Jordan Fabian – 03/11/10 11:28 AM ETThe Congressional Budget Office released a new estimate of the Senate’s healthcare bill that showed it would save less money.The estimate released Thursday states that the Senate bill will now cost $875 billion over 10 years and reduce the deficit by $118 billion, $14 billion less than the previous CBO score. “The revised CBO score lowers the deficit reduction by less than 10%, whereas you are claiming they said it would raise it 230 billion.  You are only off by about 335 billion dollars….where do you get this stuff.  You need to start giving sources.You are so wrong it’s funny.

Wrong again!   “By Jordan Fabian – 03/11/10 11:28 AM ETThe Congressional Budget Office released a new estimate of the Senate’s healthcare bill that showed it would save less money.The estimate released Thursday states that the Senate bill will now cost $875 billion over 10 years and reduce the deficit by $118 billion, $14 billion less than the previous CBO score. “The revised CBO score lowers the deficit reduction by less than 10%, whereas you are claiming they said it would raise it 230 billion.  You are only off by about 335 billion dollars….where do you get this stuff.  You need to start giving sources.You are so wrong it’s funny.

Hardly meaningless. The debate is no longer on spenduless round 2. It has shifted 180 degrees. True a few growing pans in 2010, but we will have the kinks worked out by November of 2012. Quite a showing since our beginning in March of 2008.

They did.

No we can not predict the future, and as we saw throughout the Summer and early Fall last year, neither could joe, barry, or nancy. In July I predicted the House and still a couple seats short in the Senate. Next year I say the House and Senate, but still 50/50 on POTUS. Now if Perry or Christie enter the fray I give the edge to the GOP. All one has to do is look at how much worse off we are now than we were in 2008.   

I am mostly concerned with results. Just haven’t seen any lately. I do agree though that eric should be reprimanded for Fast & Furious, and timmy really does need to leave quietly.

ruff – What war crimes? Didn’t the libs also vote for it? All done legally. Libya is a little iffy though.

No I did not. As a former dem or indy, they do not yet rate leadership in the TEA Party. They must first prove they now realize the error of their ways. We have had a few try to infiltrate in order to disrupt, but they were quickly exposed.  

You said that the S&P blamed the Tea Party:
“And the Tea Party, which S and P blames for blocking an effective budget plan which includes revenue increases,”

They did not… as you now admit.

Now you said that Obama had a plan.
Would you please link to it?  Because I can’t find one.  I’m certain you have a detailed one on hand… just as you said that S&P blames the Tea Party for ‘blockign an effective budget plan”

Furthermore; what party was blocking further cuts to spending?
-Jeopardy music-

Yep, that was the one listing all the unions and their contributions to dems. What a waste of their members hard earned dollars. Just another reason why unions have to go. Luckily, their membership has fallen from near 40% to 12%. 

“In the Senate, 33 Repubs voted for it; 15 against.  ”

And you keep skipping past what Republicans did IN THE HOUSE.

September 28th vote:
Democrats—140—95
Republicans–65—133

October 3rd vote:
Democrats—172–63
Republicans–91–108

C’mon, ruffsoft… be a little honest.

Nope, At last look it was 2.3 Trillion over 10 years. That is if they are able to cut 500 billion from Medicare, but seeing Medicare costs for Hospice care has increased 70%. Why do you think all the bugga boo on the deficit. The libs realize the long term cost.

Yep, we did still have a few RINO’s. Why arlene even went back to the dems. ruff can not accept that the TEA Party opposed TARP. We have our boot to the neck of all idiots. Not just the libs.  

I have a friend who works as a nurse who is ALREADY affected by the health care bill.  She’s talking about how the bill has all of these compliance hoops that they have to leap through, and how she had to spend a couple of months solely on new paperwork.

Beyond that, another friend I know worked in HR.  She quit the one job because she knows that her old company was going to dump their health care since it would be taxed under Barack’s plan.

“Are members of the tea party extremists? Some pundits seem to think so”

That’s such a cowardly statement.
Look… if you feel that way… say so.  Then actually back it up.  Don’t blame it on “some pundits”.
Moreover, stop using the word ‘hostage.’ At least if you want to be taken seriously.

What war crimes? USMC asks..  

The UN Charter, which the US signed, defines invading a country as the mother of all war crimes.  Originally, the democrats voted against authorization to use force, but Bush lied to convince them that Iraq had WMD and was aligned with Al Quada, so they bought this lie and approved.  Like all dictators, he used terror to manufacture a bogus consent.  The mushroom cloud?  Nigerian uranium?  All lies, to terrify congress and the public into invading a country that posed no threat.You seem not to care that over a  hundred thousand civilians were killed in Iraq as a result of Bush’s rush to war.Many foreign leaders, the entire progressive wing of the Democrats, and millions of citizens world wide in the streets protested this unjustified war crime.  If you read Woodward’s State of Denial: Bush at War, you will learn of the way that the case for war was made by ignoring intelligence, promoting the lies of Curveball, whom intelligence described as a known prevaricator, and the utter lie about the Niger uranium.  Bush and the neo-cons were eager to go to war, and they covered up, lied, and distorted facts…..the pretended no one disputed their findings.  Woodward, based on eye-witness accounts of the participants, reveals the dishonesty of this whole build up to war.  Causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents, based on lies, and invading a country which was no threat to us, constitutes, according to the UN Charter, a war crime of the first order.  The Charter goes on to state that all acts which follow from such a criminal invasion are, by definition, war crimes.Bush cannot walk down the street in America for fear of being assaulted for his criminal behavior, and he cannot travel to many nations because several courts have judged him to be guilty of war crimes.  He is afraid to show his face in public.He is the most despised President in American history…and it will take decades to recover from his high crimes and misdemeanors.  He is guilty of war crimes, has been convicted in several national and international courts, and he hangs like a shroud around those who even know still defend his criminality.  He stole the 2000 election, with the help of voter suppression, his brother Jeb’s influence, and the actiivist Supreme Court, which stopped the vote count.  He took us into two wars, the longest in Us history, both unjustified, and he led us into economic collapse.You should be ashamed to defend this monster.  

Every newspaper and media outlet reported his plan. You couldn’t find it.  Google Obama’s 4 trillion deficit cutting plan and you will find 18 million results!!!

Here is the Bloomberg report: 

“April 13 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama vowed to cut $4 trillion in cumulative deficits within 12 years through a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, setting the stage for a fight with congressional Republicans over the nation’s priorities.
In presenting his long-term plan for closing the federal budget shortfall, Obama set a target of reducing the annual U.S. deficit to 2.5 percent of gross domestic product by 2015, compared with 10.9 percent of GDP projected for this year. He reiterated his support for overhauling the tax code to lower rates while closing loopholes and ending some breaks to increase revenue.”
This was 3 trillion in spending cuts and 1 trillion in tax revenue (4% rise on top 1%).”It was instantly rejected by the Republcans, pushed by the Tea Party zealots….and so a compromise was finally reached with much less in cuts and no new revenue.  The S and P downgraded Us credit rating, stating: “We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed.”
Obama’s proposal included both entitlement reform and raising revenues, and so it would have satisfied S and P.  Who blocked the Obama plan?  The Tea Party refused to consider revenues, the lack of which was cited in the above
quote as a reason for the downgrade.  For that reason, S and P, without mentioning names, is saying that the Obama plan would have been acceptable and that the Tea Party blocked such a plan.”
These facts contradict everything you have said, but I am sure you will dodge the issue and find a reason for denying that Obama had a plan (despite the 18 million  results I found by using Google.  Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt!

Here’s how to fix the deficit: cut defense in half, return to Clinton tax rates, and end corporate tax loopholes and subsidies, and tax capital gains (this is how billionaires pay less than secretaries and teachers) as regular income.  This would more than pay for the existing deficit, without harming the unemployed, workers, children, students, the poor and the elderly.  

The compromise reached after rejecting Obama’s 4 trillion deficit reduction plan is inadequate, will not raise revenue, and will cost a million job losses.  The Repubs will blame this on Obama (denying he had a plan) for electoral leverage.  

ONly a terrible economy will give them a chance (since 4 of 5 Americans disapprove of their job performance) to win.  And then only if the American people are very very stupid (fooled again).

So their strategy is to keep unemployment high, which serves as well their corporate masters, who increase profits and CEO salaries by cutting jobs or shippig overseas (Cisco, Merck, Ge in past 2 weeks announced major job cuts and saw their stock shoot up as a result in anticipation of higher profits).  IN my view, this is treason, hurting the Main St economy for partisan reasons.  It’s like when Limbaugh said: “I hope he fails (Obama).”  

Here’s how to fix the deficit: cut defense in half, return to Clinton tax rates, and end corporate tax loopholes and subsidies, and tax capital gains (this is how billionaires pay less than secretaries and teachers) as regular income.  This would more than pay for the existing deficit, without harming the unemployed, workers, children, students, the poor and the elderly.  

The compromise reached after rejecting Obama’s 4 trillion deficit reduction plan is inadequate, will not raise revenue, and will cost a million job losses.  The Repubs will blame this on Obama (denying he had a plan) for electoral leverage.  

ONly a terrible economy will give them a chance (since 4 of 5 Americans disapprove of their job performance) to win.  And then only if the American people are very very stupid (fooled again).

So their strategy is to keep unemployment high, which serves as well their corporate masters, who increase profits and CEO salaries by cutting jobs or shippig overseas (Cisco, Merck, Ge in past 2 weeks announced major job cuts and saw their stock shoot up as a result in anticipation of higher profits).  IN my view, this is treason, hurting the Main St economy for partisan reasons.  It’s like when Limbaugh said: “I hope he fails (Obama).”  

From factcheck: 
In fact, the last half-dozen years have shown us that we can’t have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers. The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been.”

I do blame the govt spending under Obama on bush’s policies, including 2 costly wars, tax cuts for the rich, and the TARP bailout, as well as the unfunded Medicare Prescription Drug Plan have cost trillions and will continue to cost trillions.  The Repubs blocked the robust stimulus economists said was needed by allocating less than 1/3 of the Stimulus for job creation, 250 billion, of which only 200 billion has been spent, creating 2.4 million jobs.  Over 1/3 was tax cuts and 1/3 was to pay the safety net costs of Bush’s economic collapse.

Imagine if those 2.4 million jobs had not been created!  And imagine if the whole 800 billion were spent on job creation: it would have created over 7 million jobs, reducing govt unemployment benefits, etc. and it would have added to govt. revenue.  With full employment, surpluses can be generated to pay off debts incurred to stimulate job creation.  But the Republicans blocked a robust stimulus and still ignore that less than 1/3 was for jobs and more than 1/3 tax cuts.

Did those tax cuts produce revenue? No.  Did the job creation funds create jobs? Yes.  So the rational approach would be to put all the money into job creation, but a successful stimulus would have guaranteed an Obama 2nd term, and so the Republicans sabotaged an adequate stimulus (while pretending the tax cuts didn’t happen).  I blame Bush for the wars, for the unneeded and unproductive tax cuts, and the TARP bailout. He used terror to frighten approval for  his disasterous programs on Iraq and TARP, the method of a dictator.  It will take decades to recover.  Bush is a disgrace to the nation.  

No terrorist attacks? Have you forgotten 9/11?  Have you forgotten the 6 thousand Americans (and hundreds of thousands of civlians) killed for his criminal wars?

And the revised CBO score on the HC reduced it from 118 billion reduced deficits to 104 billion saved, not 2.3 trillion cost over 10 yrs, as you claim.  That is another falsehood.  I think you have have inflated the CBO rejected Republican claim of 230 billion added cost to 2.3 trillion, an error of 1000%…..and wrong to begin with.

Could you be more wrong?

Jim Webb is the only person who has done anything for Va in years,and he did a pretty good job with the GI Bill as well.Nice to have one of your own shine.

And the Tea Party’s primary money sources are the billionaire Koch Brothers and several hedge funds.  Who owns whom jarhead?

S & P has come right out and said it: to stabilize economy, tax the rich.
Obama proposed a 4 trillion deficit reduction plan: 3 in stimulus cuts, including entitlement reform, and 1T in taxes on the top 1% (4% rise).  This would have satisfied S and P.
@5b7be18add21f482cfc87af4218ef94c:disqus 
So who are the a-holes who blocked the plan which would have stabilized the markets?  Was it those Tea Party a-holes?  Why, yes.  No new taxes.

Congresspeople take a pledge to support the Constitution, so what is this Grover Norquist pledge?  a suicide pact.

As a direct result of the Tea Party intransigence, we are all suffering great losses in the market (our pensions) and rising credit to follow. Gee, thanks Tea Party for
tanking the economy.

I know they will repond:  It were’t us who done it; it’s that Muslim commie in the White House, the guy from Kenya.

But we know who knocked out the plan that would have preserved our credit rating and equities: S and P has made it clear: those who blocked a larger cut, including tax cuts on the rich.  It  were the Mad Hatters of the Tea Party, who said: no new taxes *(all that was required was to let the extension expire) .  After 12 yrs of tax cuts for the rich, where are the jobs? And how many trillion did we just lose in the past week? 

The effort will be to shift blame to the Dems *wild spending” on “tax cuts for the middle class, unemployment benefits, and 200 billion on job creation”.  And Obama’s 4 trillion defecit reduction program?  Left in the dust in  the rush the the Republicans, held hostage by the TEa Party, to destroy the recovery.

Now let’s earn the spin, you as-holes.  It were’nt us.  We took a pledge.
It were Obama.  I am sick of economic illiterates dictating our policies, by hijacking the debt ceiling authorization, which is implicit in approving the spending anyway.

Can we recall these idiots or call out the firing squad?
 

If anyone thinks the Tea Party idiots were angry, wait until the  public weighs in on how they sabotaged a plan (such as Obama proposed) which would have kept our credit rating intact after they look at how much we have lost as a result of this Tea Party hijacking of the recovery effort. 

There will be spin, but real pain trumps BS, and the Tea Party has now doomed the Republican Party’s prospects for electoral victory in 2012, as it destroyed their chances to control the Senate and thus Congress. 

There will be pay back. 

S & P says tax raises on the rich were needed to keep our credit intact.  Who blocked that?  The Tea Party….oh what a party! 

There will be blood.

right the wealthy 1% that own everything are Im sure thrilled with the downgrade,watch the $ they have given these idiots dry up quick.

you watch too much star trek,your in orbit too,you need to get scotty to beam you down,or take a shot of jim beam or something.jeeeesssshhhhh.

you watch too much star trek,your in orbit too,you need to get scotty to beam you down,or take a shot of jim beam or something.jeeeesssshhhhh.

Oh that UN thing. I tend to adhere to the US Constitution, and as I recall President Bush asked for and received Congressional authority. Not all that concerned with the UN.

Senator Webb is a Dem I wholehertedly respect. I expect within a few years, he will probably rejoin the GOP.

We are losing employees very quickly, and once officers and managers realize they along with the facility face criminal charges for possible oversight, they are retiring or transferring back to worker bees. I am on-site at my hospital this week conducting compliance classes.

Oh never. We will be offering condolences soon on the 10 year avviversary. NO additional concerted Terrorist attacks on CONUS since 9/11. Until Ft Hood that was for 8+ years. Feel better now?

I could go for an immediate 10% to Defense. For that matter virtually every Federal agency. I would also welcome the elimination of all tax deductions, loopholes, and subsidies in return for lowered rates, Have you seen the Economy lately? There will be no tax hikes.  

Just like businesses now being able to counter unions, the Koch brothers can counter soreass and orcah.  

Proposed, but never formally written down. Sorry, but his word means squat. Oh and that 1 Trillion of tax increases was not going to happen. Hell, even Senate Dems realize that was Political suicide during these troubling Economic times.  

Proposed, but never formally written down. Sorry, but his word means squat. Oh and that 1 Trillion of tax increases was not going to happen. Hell, even Senate Dems realize that was Political suicide during these troubling Economic times.  

USMC, you ignored the totally false statement you made about the CBO revised score on the healthcare bill, where you were off a mere 2.3104 trillion.  Oh well, as the S and P says, what’s a couple of trillion in error? 

As far as the myth that there have been no attacks since 9/11, I refer you to counnterterrorismblog. org which reports:

“Readers have heard the question “why have there been no terrorist attacks in the US since 9-11-2001” bandied between counter-terrorism professionals on countless occasions. These debates are premised on the false presumption that there have not been any attacks. In fact, there have been a number of attacks and there have been additional plots that did not come to fruition”

and they go on to chronicle various attacks and failed plots.

But if terrorist have killed 3000 in the past ten years, cigarettes have killed 4 million, lack of medical treatement has killed (according to Harvard study) over one million, and……….our useless wars have killed hundreds of thousands.

Sanity is all about balance and perspective.  More Americans die every week from
cigarettes and erroneous medical prescriptions that have been killed in the last ten yrs by terrorists.  Terrorists are the least of our worries, when you look at the real killers.

Most of the debt from 2006-08 was for war and TARP, and those job-producing tax cuts for the rich, all Bush programs.

I disapprove the war in Libya, but how many americans have been killed?  Zero. Compare to Iraq –5000– and over a thousand in Afghanistan.  As wrong as Libya is, it does not compare to the evil of Iraq.

I disapprove the war in Libya, but how many americans have been killed?  Zero. Compare to Iraq –5000– and over a thousand in Afghanistan.  As wrong as Libya is, it does not compare to the evil of Iraq.

Nope, we consider a Strong Defense one of our top 4 planks, wrote USMC.

So you totally repudiate the position taken by Ron Paul.  and how will you pay for the 1.4 trillion defense budget, 25 times larger than Russia, 15 times larger than china’s?   Going bankrupt to have more miitary than the other 200 nations of earth is hardly a strong defense. 

Yes, the Federal Reserve system is a consortium of private banks, now headed by a Republican, who replaced the previous Repulican.  the head is appointed by the govt but the govt has no control or oversight.  We are ruled by large banks. 

You don’t care about that “UN thing.”  That UN thing was the solemn word of the US to honor the principles of the UN Charter.  Like paying back debts, honoring our word is not a “thing.”  It is a sacred obligation.  

When Bush “asked” for support to invade Iraq, he lied to Congress.  If someone gets your consent based on a lie, that is fraud. And the consequent invasion was a war crime.  You are complicit in that crime.

Breaking our word in violating the UN Charter, lying to frighten people into war…..these are breaches of our honor.  But you don’t seem to care if the US dishonors itself, lies, kills hundreds of thousands, violates treaties.  In short, you admit to having no integrity.  I would not like to loan you money, for you would say:   I don’t care about that debt thing.  

And what about your 2.3 trillion dollar falsehood about the healthcare bill.? You are still dodging that mistake, another sign of lack of integrity.  I see why you use the  pen name of USMC1949: it’s to mask your corrupted honor with a facade of bravery.  If others in the TEa Party are anything like you, it is a ship of fools with no honor at all.  And thanks, you Tea Party patriots,  for causing the downgrade of US credit by blocking 
tax revenues and a larger deficit reduction plan, as Obama proposed and as S and P has said would have stabilized the economy.  

We are not fooled.  We are very angry at people like you.  And there will be payback.  We are all suffering now, and we will not forget who brought about this destruction of the credit worthiness (akin to honor) of the USA.  But I see the fit.

Since most educated people are what you call liberals, it is clear that most educated people hold the rightwing and the Tea Party in contempt.  

A pissing contest about degrees will not establish that rightwingers are more educated.  The most educated people teach in universities, and the right insists that “liberals” dominate the university scene.  

You can’t have it both ways, Ken.  

And after the TEa Party obstruction of a deficit reduction plan which would have maintained our triple AAA credit rating (S and P says it had to deal with entitlements and add revenue thru taxes, exactly what Obama’s 4 trillion plan proposed), which has caused the markets to tank and cost trillions and hurt everyone, I think that most average Americans will see the Tea Party as a group of economically illiterate idiots who deserve widespread condemnation and will be hounded out of politics in the near future.  We have now seen what the Tea Party is up to: and we have seen the consequences.  And it’s very ugly indeed.

There will be payback.  You have no idea how angry ordinary Americans are for what the Tea Party has wrought.  But you will soon find out.  The Tea Party caused the Republicans to lose the Senate, thus making their House victories 
irrelevant; now you will see the Tea Party sink the Republican hopes of taking the Senate and the Presidency.  

No one can predict the future, but I suspect that the Tea Party has committed suicide, by forcing the US to destroy its credit rating and the consequent economic disaster.  The Republican establishment hates them; the Dems hate them, and they have been losing independent support by nearly half in less than a yr according to recent polls.  When only fools support the Tea Party, the only question is: how many fools are there?  After the past weeks stock market collapse, I think that most people will reject these fools once and for all.  

Since most educated people are what you call liberals, it is clear that most educated people hold the rightwing and the Tea Party in contempt.  

A pissing contest about degrees will not establish that rightwingers are more educated.  The most educated people teach in universities, and the right insists that “liberals” dominate the university scene.  

You can’t have it both ways, Ken.  

And after the TEa Party obstruction of a deficit reduction plan which would have maintained our triple AAA credit rating (S and P says it had to deal with entitlements and add revenue thru taxes, exactly what Obama’s 4 trillion plan proposed), which has caused the markets to tank and cost trillions and hurt everyone, I think that most average Americans will see the Tea Party as a group of economically illiterate idiots who deserve widespread condemnation and will be hounded out of politics in the near future.  We have now seen what the Tea Party is up to: and we have seen the consequences.  And it’s very ugly indeed.

There will be payback.  You have no idea how angry ordinary Americans are for what the Tea Party has wrought.  But you will soon find out.  The Tea Party caused the Republicans to lose the Senate, thus making their House victories 
irrelevant; now you will see the Tea Party sink the Republican hopes of taking the Senate and the Presidency.  

No one can predict the future, but I suspect that the Tea Party has committed suicide, by forcing the US to destroy its credit rating and the consequent economic disaster.  The Republican establishment hates them; the Dems hate them, and they have been losing independent support by nearly half in less than a yr according to recent polls.  When only fools support the Tea Party, the only question is: how many fools are there?  After the past weeks stock market collapse, I think that most people will reject these fools once and for all.  

Bush/Paulson frightened Congress into approving the TARP program.  Few understand the full cost of this program.  Banks have paid back most of it, right. And Geithner bragged that the US has made 10 Billion dollars on the deal.

Here are some facts from the Business Day section of the NYT:

“Published: July 24, 2011
Adding Up the Government’s Total Bailout TabBeyond the $700 billion bailout known as TARP, which has been used to prop up banks and car companies, the government has created an array of other programs to provide support to the struggling financial system. Through April 30, the government has made commitments of about $12.2 trillion and spent $2.5 trillion — but also has collected more than $10 billion in dividends and fees.

Bush/Paulson frightened Congress into approving the TARP program.  Few understand the full cost of this program.  Banks have paid back most of it, right. And Geithner bragged that the US has made 10 Billion dollars on the deal.

Here are some facts from the Business Day section of the NYT:

“Published: July 24, 2011
Adding Up the Government’s Total Bailout TabBeyond the $700 billion bailout known as TARP, which has been used to prop up banks and car companies, the government has created an array of other programs to provide support to the struggling financial system. Through April 30, the government has made commitments of about $12.2 trillion and spent $2.5 trillion — but also has collected more than $10 billion in dividends and fees.

Bush/Paulson frightened Congress into approving the TARP program.  Few understand the full cost of this program.  Banks have paid back most of it, right. And Geithner bragged that the US has made 10 Billion dollars on the deal.

Here are some facts from the Business Day section of the NYT:

“Published: July 24, 2011
Adding Up the Government’s Total Bailout TabBeyond the $700 billion bailout known as TARP, which has been used to prop up banks and car companies, the government has created an array of other programs to provide support to the struggling financial system. Through April 30, the government has made commitments of about $12.2 trillion and spent $2.5 trillion — but also has collected more than $10 billion in dividends and fees.

Bush/Paulson frightened Congress into approving the TARP program.  Few understand the full cost of this program.  Banks have paid back most of it, right. And Geithner bragged that the US has made 10 Billion dollars on the deal.

Here are some facts from the Business Day section of the NYT:

“Published: July 24, 2011
Adding Up the Government’s Total Bailout TabBeyond the $700 billion bailout known as TARP, which has been used to prop up banks and car companies, the government has created an array of other programs to provide support to the struggling financial system. Through April 30, the government has made commitments of about $12.2 trillion and spent $2.5 trillion — but also has collected more than $10 billion in dividends and fees.

Bush/Paulson frightened Congress into approving the TARP program.  Few understand the full cost of this program.  Banks have paid back most of it, right. And Geithner bragged that the US has made 10 Billion dollars on the deal.

Here are some facts from the Business Day section of the NYT:

“Published: July 24, 2011
Adding Up the Government’s Total Bailout TabBeyond the $700 billion bailout known as TARP, which has been used to prop up banks and car companies, the government has created an array of other programs to provide support to the struggling financial system. Through April 30, the government has made commitments of about $12.2 trillion and spent $2.5 trillion — but also has collected more than $10 billion in dividends and fees.

USMC…is that ALL you’ve got left, petty insults?  It is clear you did not read it, as you are adverse to new information and incapable of reading more than one sentence at a time.  

If ten people read trash, that amounts to a lot of trash.
If one person reads a detailed argument and learns something, that is improving the world a little bit.

And just to bring some perspective, some of my posts have gathered 5 and 7 “likes, while you get one person (we know who) to support you once in a while.  

Instead of falling back on insults, why not present a reasoned argument of your own views or a reasoned and documented critique?  Why not engage in discourse instead of trash talk and jealous derision?  Why not act with intelligence instead of 
contempt?

Do wish barry would have jotted everything down. We know he can not be trusted, and he hates to leave a paper trail.

They did not mention the Tea Party by name, but the reasons they gave….brinksmanship and rejection of new taxes  fall on the Tea Party.
They said a 4 trillion cut, with entitlement reform, and new tax revenue would have stabilized the economy and maintained our credit rating.  This was exactly Obama’s proposal, which the Republicans rejected, by virtue of Tea Party intransigence, because it included the very tax revenues S and P said were necessary.

Of course they would not “blame” Democrats or Republicans…that would be too partisan…but no one doubts exactly who made a compromise with larger deficit reduction including new tax revenue impossible. Nor does anyone miss the fact that the Tea Party resisted compromise and practiced brinksmanship to block just such a compromise.

If I say: I won’t name names but there is a moron who started a war costing a trillion dollars (so far).  I don’t have to name names. You know who I mean. 

Who blocked the Obama plan? Who refused to compromise?  Who had within it many members who said…Let’s vote against raising the debt ceiling and let govt default on debt….who said, no new taxes no way?    Without naming names, you know who I mean, ChicagoJohn.  For those experienced in political science, the abstract language used by economists and institutions is not difficult to decipher by reading between the lines.  

The Tea Party caused the downgrade by blocking the Obama plan and, in consequence, the stock market crash.  There will be payback.  The American people will take our their pain and losses on the Tea Party and that will badly hurt Republican success in the upcoming elections.  In the end, the established Republicans and the Dems, and now the American people, will hold the Tea Party responsible. IMHO.

They did not mention the Tea Party by name, but the reasons they gave….brinksmanship and rejection of new taxes  fall on the Tea Party.
They said a 4 trillion cut, with entitlement reform, and new tax revenue would have stabilized the economy and maintained our credit rating.  This was exactly Obama’s proposal, which the Republicans rejected, by virtue of Tea Party intransigence, because it included the very tax revenues S and P said were necessary.

Of course they would not “blame” Democrats or Republicans…that would be too partisan…but no one doubts exactly who made a compromise with larger deficit reduction including new tax revenue impossible. Nor does anyone miss the fact that the Tea Party resisted compromise and practiced brinksmanship to block just such a compromise.

If I say: I won’t name names but there is a moron who started a war costing a trillion dollars (so far).  I don’t have to name names. You know who I mean. 

Who blocked the Obama plan? Who refused to compromise?  Who had within it many members who said…Let’s vote against raising the debt ceiling and let govt default on debt….who said, no new taxes no way?    Without naming names, you know who I mean, ChicagoJohn.  For those experienced in political science, the abstract language used by economists and institutions is not difficult to decipher by reading between the lines.  

The Tea Party caused the downgrade by blocking the Obama plan and, in consequence, the stock market crash.  There will be payback.  The American people will take our their pain and losses on the Tea Party and that will badly hurt Republican success in the upcoming elections.  In the end, the established Republicans and the Dems, and now the American people, will hold the Tea Party responsible. IMHO.

They did not mention the Tea Party by name, but the reasons they gave….brinksmanship and rejection of new taxes  fall on the Tea Party.
They said a 4 trillion cut, with entitlement reform, and new tax revenue would have stabilized the economy and maintained our credit rating.  This was exactly Obama’s proposal, which the Republicans rejected, by virtue of Tea Party intransigence, because it included the very tax revenues S and P said were necessary.

Of course they would not “blame” Democrats or Republicans…that would be too partisan…but no one doubts exactly who made a compromise with larger deficit reduction including new tax revenue impossible. Nor does anyone miss the fact that the Tea Party resisted compromise and practiced brinksmanship to block just such a compromise.

If I say: I won’t name names but there is a moron who started a war costing a trillion dollars (so far).  I don’t have to name names. You know who I mean. 

Who blocked the Obama plan? Who refused to compromise?  Who had within it many members who said…Let’s vote against raising the debt ceiling and let govt default on debt….who said, no new taxes no way?    Without naming names, you know who I mean, ChicagoJohn.  For those experienced in political science, the abstract language used by economists and institutions is not difficult to decipher by reading between the lines.  

The Tea Party caused the downgrade by blocking the Obama plan and, in consequence, the stock market crash.  There will be payback.  The American people will take our their pain and losses on the Tea Party and that will badly hurt Republican success in the upcoming elections.  In the end, the established Republicans and the Dems, and now the American people, will hold the Tea Party responsible. IMHO.

They did not mention the Tea Party by name, but the reasons they gave….brinksmanship and rejection of new taxes  fall on the Tea Party.
They said a 4 trillion cut, with entitlement reform, and new tax revenue would have stabilized the economy and maintained our credit rating.  This was exactly Obama’s proposal, which the Republicans rejected, by virtue of Tea Party intransigence, because it included the very tax revenues S and P said were necessary.

Of course they would not “blame” Democrats or Republicans…that would be too partisan…but no one doubts exactly who made a compromise with larger deficit reduction including new tax revenue impossible. Nor does anyone miss the fact that the Tea Party resisted compromise and practiced brinksmanship to block just such a compromise.

If I say: I won’t name names but there is a moron who started a war costing a trillion dollars (so far).  I don’t have to name names. You know who I mean. 

Who blocked the Obama plan? Who refused to compromise?  Who had within it many members who said…Let’s vote against raising the debt ceiling and let govt default on debt….who said, no new taxes no way?    Without naming names, you know who I mean, ChicagoJohn.  For those experienced in political science, the abstract language used by economists and institutions is not difficult to decipher by reading between the lines.  

The Tea Party caused the downgrade by blocking the Obama plan and, in consequence, the stock market crash.  There will be payback.  The American people will take our their pain and losses on the Tea Party and that will badly hurt Republican success in the upcoming elections.  In the end, the established Republicans and the Dems, and now the American people, will hold the Tea Party responsible. IMHO.

They did not mention the Tea Party by name, but the reasons they gave….brinksmanship and rejection of new taxes  fall on the Tea Party.
They said a 4 trillion cut, with entitlement reform, and new tax revenue would have stabilized the economy and maintained our credit rating.  This was exactly Obama’s proposal, which the Republicans rejected, by virtue of Tea Party intransigence, because it included the very tax revenues S and P said were necessary.

Of course they would not “blame” Democrats or Republicans…that would be too partisan…but no one doubts exactly who made a compromise with larger deficit reduction including new tax revenue impossible. Nor does anyone miss the fact that the Tea Party resisted compromise and practiced brinksmanship to block just such a compromise.

If I say: I won’t name names but there is a moron who started a war costing a trillion dollars (so far).  I don’t have to name names. You know who I mean. 

Who blocked the Obama plan? Who refused to compromise?  Who had within it many members who said…Let’s vote against raising the debt ceiling and let govt default on debt….who said, no new taxes no way?    Without naming names, you know who I mean, ChicagoJohn.  For those experienced in political science, the abstract language used by economists and institutions is not difficult to decipher by reading between the lines.  

The Tea Party caused the downgrade by blocking the Obama plan and, in consequence, the stock market crash.  There will be payback.  The American people will take our their pain and losses on the Tea Party and that will badly hurt Republican success in the upcoming elections.  In the end, the established Republicans and the Dems, and now the American people, will hold the Tea Party responsible. IMHO.

They did not mention the Tea Party by name, but the reasons they gave….brinksmanship and rejection of new taxes  fall on the Tea Party.
They said a 4 trillion cut, with entitlement reform, and new tax revenue would have stabilized the economy and maintained our credit rating.  This was exactly Obama’s proposal, which the Republicans rejected, by virtue of Tea Party intransigence, because it included the very tax revenues S and P said were necessary.

Of course they would not “blame” Democrats or Republicans…that would be too partisan…but no one doubts exactly who made a compromise with larger deficit reduction including new tax revenue impossible. Nor does anyone miss the fact that the Tea Party resisted compromise and practiced brinksmanship to block just such a compromise.

If I say: I won’t name names but there is a moron who started a war costing a trillion dollars (so far).  I don’t have to name names. You know who I mean. 

Who blocked the Obama plan? Who refused to compromise?  Who had within it many members who said…Let’s vote against raising the debt ceiling and let govt default on debt….who said, no new taxes no way?    Without naming names, you know who I mean, ChicagoJohn.  For those experienced in political science, the abstract language used by economists and institutions is not difficult to decipher by reading between the lines.  

The Tea Party caused the downgrade by blocking the Obama plan and, in consequence, the stock market crash.  There will be payback.  The American people will take our their pain and losses on the Tea Party and that will badly hurt Republican success in the upcoming elections.  In the end, the established Republicans and the Dems, and now the American people, will hold the Tea Party responsible. IMHO.

They did not mention the Tea Party by name, but the reasons they gave….brinksmanship and rejection of new taxes  fall on the Tea Party.
They said a 4 trillion cut, with entitlement reform, and new tax revenue would have stabilized the economy and maintained our credit rating.  This was exactly Obama’s proposal, which the Republicans rejected, by virtue of Tea Party intransigence, because it included the very tax revenues S and P said were necessary.

Of course they would not “blame” Democrats or Republicans…that would be too partisan…but no one doubts exactly who made a compromise with larger deficit reduction including new tax revenue impossible. Nor does anyone miss the fact that the Tea Party resisted compromise and practiced brinksmanship to block just such a compromise.

If I say: I won’t name names but there is a moron who started a war costing a trillion dollars (so far).  I don’t have to name names. You know who I mean. 

Who blocked the Obama plan? Who refused to compromise?  Who had within it many members who said…Let’s vote against raising the debt ceiling and let govt default on debt….who said, no new taxes no way?    Without naming names, you know who I mean, ChicagoJohn.  For those experienced in political science, the abstract language used by economists and institutions is not difficult to decipher by reading between the lines.  

The Tea Party caused the downgrade by blocking the Obama plan and, in consequence, the stock market crash.  There will be payback.  The American people will take our their pain and losses on the Tea Party and that will badly hurt Republican success in the upcoming elections.  In the end, the established Republicans and the Dems, and now the American people, will hold the Tea Party responsible. IMHO.

Here is what I would cut:  defense budget, including the 120 billion for Homeland Security and the 130 Billion “war funds” and the 40 billion spent maintaining our 12, 000 nukes (china has 500, more than enough to deter an attack).  

I would let the 12 yr old tax cuts for the richest 1%

 (a 4% rise) expire, as we must currently borrow the money to make up for the lost revenue.  Return to Clinton’s tax rates: it worked great for business and govt.

I would cut out all govt subsidies for wealthy corporations, such as Big Oil and Big Pharma and Big Ag.  

I would close all loopholes and forms of tax evasion for corporations.

I would eliminate the giveaway to Big Pharma that Bush pushed thru, as part of Medicare, in which the govt, with a volume base of tens of millions, pays the retail price of drugs.  From personal experience, I know that if you go into a pharmacy and buy a drug as an individual, it will cost 5-10 times more than if you belong to a plan.  The cost for one drug was $108, but when I went home and joined a plan on the internet and printed out my card, I was sold the same drug for $18!!!

This corrupt deal has already cost a trillion dollars and is a clear perversion of free market principles.  The govt should get the lowest price, not the highest, which is purposely inflated to fleece the taxpayers.  This would save over 120 billion each year.

I would take part of the savings from these cuts and pay down the debt, take another part and invest in job creation, thus stimulating the economy by reducing govt costs (like unemployment benefits, foodstamps, etc) and increasing govt revenue (employment means taxes paid in).  Full employment would automatically cut the deficit.  

Why won’t the Republicans go along with all this? Because given their unpopularity (less than half the approval that Obama has), the only hope they have of taking power in 2012 is by blaming Obama for a terrible economy and high unemployment.
And so their strategy is to defeat his recovery effort and blame the failure on him.

Now, which cuts and ideas do you like and which do you not like and why?

Here is what I would cut:  defense budget, including the 120 billion for Homeland Security and the 130 Billion “war funds” and the 40 billion spent maintaining our 12, 000 nukes (china has 500, more than enough to deter an attack).  

I would let the 12 yr old tax cuts for the richest 1%

 (a 4% rise) expire, as we must currently borrow the money to make up for the lost revenue.  Return to Clinton’s tax rates: it worked great for business and govt.

I would cut out all govt subsidies for wealthy corporations, such as Big Oil and Big Pharma and Big Ag.  

I would close all loopholes and forms of tax evasion for corporations.

I would eliminate the giveaway to Big Pharma that Bush pushed thru, as part of Medicare, in which the govt, with a volume base of tens of millions, pays the retail price of drugs.  From personal experience, I know that if you go into a pharmacy and buy a drug as an individual, it will cost 5-10 times more than if you belong to a plan.  The cost for one drug was $108, but when I went home and joined a plan on the internet and printed out my card, I was sold the same drug for $18!!!

This corrupt deal has already cost a trillion dollars and is a clear perversion of free market principles.  The govt should get the lowest price, not the highest, which is purposely inflated to fleece the taxpayers.  This would save over 120 billion each year.

I would take part of the savings from these cuts and pay down the debt, take another part and invest in job creation, thus stimulating the economy by reducing govt costs (like unemployment benefits, foodstamps, etc) and increasing govt revenue (employment means taxes paid in).  Full employment would automatically cut the deficit.  

Why won’t the Republicans go along with all this? Because given their unpopularity (less than half the approval that Obama has), the only hope they have of taking power in 2012 is by blaming Obama for a terrible economy and high unemployment.
And so their strategy is to defeat his recovery effort and blame the failure on him.

Now, which cuts and ideas do you like and which do you not like and why?

Here is what I would cut:  defense budget, including the 120 billion for Homeland Security and the 130 Billion “war funds” and the 40 billion spent maintaining our 12, 000 nukes (china has 500, more than enough to deter an attack).  

I would let the 12 yr old tax cuts for the richest 1%

 (a 4% rise) expire, as we must currently borrow the money to make up for the lost revenue.  Return to Clinton’s tax rates: it worked great for business and govt.

I would cut out all govt subsidies for wealthy corporations, such as Big Oil and Big Pharma and Big Ag.  

I would close all loopholes and forms of tax evasion for corporations.

I would eliminate the giveaway to Big Pharma that Bush pushed thru, as part of Medicare, in which the govt, with a volume base of tens of millions, pays the retail price of drugs.  From personal experience, I know that if you go into a pharmacy and buy a drug as an individual, it will cost 5-10 times more than if you belong to a plan.  The cost for one drug was $108, but when I went home and joined a plan on the internet and printed out my card, I was sold the same drug for $18!!!

This corrupt deal has already cost a trillion dollars and is a clear perversion of free market principles.  The govt should get the lowest price, not the highest, which is purposely inflated to fleece the taxpayers.  This would save over 120 billion each year.

I would take part of the savings from these cuts and pay down the debt, take another part and invest in job creation, thus stimulating the economy by reducing govt costs (like unemployment benefits, foodstamps, etc) and increasing govt revenue (employment means taxes paid in).  Full employment would automatically cut the deficit.  

Why won’t the Republicans go along with all this? Because given their unpopularity (less than half the approval that Obama has), the only hope they have of taking power in 2012 is by blaming Obama for a terrible economy and high unemployment.
And so their strategy is to defeat his recovery effort and blame the failure on him.

Now, which cuts and ideas do you like and which do you not like and why?

The President offered a compromise, and it was rejected.  The compromise that we did get, which caused the downgrade and market crash, also lacks details.  

That his proposal was spoken in front of a microphone (the President of the United States is  not “any idiot.”) is irrelevant.  He made an offer and it was refused.  Then the right wing media and Republicans said that his proposal was not written down.  If they had said, ok, let’s make a deal, he would have been happy to work with them to put in writing the 4 trillion deal he had proposed.   

You are just echoing Republican talking points.  The Republicans, had they not been held hostage by the TEa Party to reject letting the tax cuts for the top 1% expire, could have taken the President up on his proposal.  All politicians make promises they cannot keep.  Obama is no different.  But he wanted this deal because he thought it would help the economy and his electoral chances and avoid a downgrade.  This was not an idle offer: this was a proposal, including reforms (to be worked out in detail in negotiations–that’s how it works) to entitlements, which he wanted to reach a compromise on.  

I’ll bet you have hated Obama since the day he took office.  I don’t think you understand politics or Obama.  I think you are prejudiced against him.  His “lies” as you call them are nothing compared to Bush’s lies which led to a war costing trillions (if you include debt repayment and VA services for the vets for the next 50 yrs) and hundreds of thousand of lives.  

Arguing that he didn’t mean it is sort of an admission that it was a good program, but he didn’t mean it, he’s a liar, etc.  You and I both know that in fact it was rejected because it included letting the tax on the rich expire.  

Rejecting a proposal because it is offered in a speech is absurd.  

And, BTW, the Dems never had a filibuster proof majority.  Obama had a proposal and it was rejected because of the taxes.   That’s the naked truth.  And unless you are a fanatic, you know it.  And that is what caused the downgrade and market crash, which the Obama plan, if taken up by the Republicans, would have satisfied S and P and spared us all.  

Ken, thank you for the clarification. I apologize for making fun of you when it was my error.  

Got it, but you are dodging the point, that business money outweighs unions by 15-1.  Picking on typos is perhaps easier than facing facts.  

Got it…you have reminded me 4 times.  Now deal with the quote I provided from opensecrets, that business interests in funding politics outweighs unions by 15-1.
That, not my typo, is the issue.  

This is really funny. The sentence which precedes your quote is as follows: 

” We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and
will remain a contentious and fitful process.”Here is the direct evidence that the controversy over the debt ceiling (Obama wanted a clean vote, without side issues, not a controversy), the issue of reforming entitlements, and “an agreement on raising revenues” were the reasons for the downgrade. Obama’s proposal addressed all these issues, but it was rejected because it included raising revenues (ie taxes). The Repubs, spurred on by the Tea Party, refused to consider what S and P clearly and literally stated as a reason for the downgrade.Lies of omission are the the most heinous; you are guilty of omitting this clear statement of the causes, including revenues, which the Repubs rejected.That this quote is the very sentence which precedes your quote makes you look like a liar caught with his pants on fire. Your quote, which omits the concrete reasons one sentence above, is the fiction, for while it is from the statement, it makes no sense without the preceding sentence, which mentions the issues I brought to your attention and which derided as a fiction. Sir, meet the whole truth. Half truths (like half quotes) are also half lies.How can I trust you when you so misrepresent what S and P actually said?

This is really funny. The sentence which precedes your quote is as follows: 

” We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and
will remain a contentious and fitful process.”Here is the direct evidence that the controversy over the debt ceiling (Obama wanted a clean vote, without side issues, not a controversy), the issue of reforming entitlements, and “an agreement on raising revenues” were the reasons for the downgrade. Obama’s proposal addressed all these issues, but it was rejected because it included raising revenues (ie taxes). The Repubs, spurred on by the Tea Party, refused to consider what S and P clearly and literally stated as a reason for the downgrade.Lies of omission are the the most heinous; you are guilty of omitting this clear statement of the causes, including revenues, which the Repubs rejected.That this quote is the very sentence which precedes your quote makes you look like a liar caught with his pants on fire. Your quote, which omits the concrete reasons one sentence above, is the fiction, for while it is from the statement, it makes no sense without the preceding sentence, which mentions the issues I brought to your attention and which derided as a fiction. Sir, meet the whole truth. Half truths (like half quotes) are also half lies.How can I trust you when you so misrepresent what S and P actually said?

Ken wrote: ” You just said that degrees don’t make an educated person and the next sentence say that the most educated teach in universities. Those who teach in universities hold at minimum a masters degree. You just disproved your own statement.”

Here is what I wrote:  “A pissing contest about degrees will not establish that rightwingers are more educated.  The most educated people teach in universities, and the right insists that “liberals” dominate the university scene.”
You mentioned your advance degrees and challenged Glen to state his degrees.
That is a pissing contest.  

How do you conclude from my comment that I said that degrees don’t make an educated person?  I said no such thing.  My point was clear: bragging about degrees proves nothing.  Degrees may or may not make an educated person; it depends on what you mean by educated.  But I didn’t say anything like that. I will let others judge for themselves if your quote (you said) is accurate.

I taught the dyslexic for 20 years.  Ken, your lack of comprehension is treatable.
And yes, many people with advanced degrees, have dyslexia.  

What makes an educated person is a grasp of knowledge, a tolerance for diverse viewpoints, critical thinking skills, and the ability to comprehend and express complex ideas, as well as the the ability to admit mistakes and make corrections.

I will paraphrase my own quote: 

Arguing about who has the most degrees will not prove that rightwingers are more educated, for, in fact, the most educated and degreed people are not rightwingers but 
those college professors that rightwingers call liberals. 

My comments were a response to what you had written, to wit: “…many educated citizens hold liberalism in contempt. I hold a masters degree and am working on a doctorate. What is your degree Glen?”

I was challenging your statement(what does “many” mean?) and your initiating a pissing contest about degrees.  

We are aware of  your contempt for what you call  liberals, so let me just say, in conclusion, that you have contempt for most educated people.

  

With wars, the total debt to be paid seems to go on forever.  I retired from the Veterans Administration in 1995.  As late as the 1980’s we were still paying pension benefits based on WWI service.  The problem during the Bush Administration is that they consistently failed to budget for Iraq and Afghanistan, and not just for the Department of Defense, but also for the Department of Veterans Affairs.  If we brought all our troops home tomorrow and cut both of our ‘sponsored’ governments off without a dime, our costs in the billions would continue on into the future anyways.

Ken, once and for all. I do not call myself a liberal. You do.  Stop putting your words in my mouth; that is a form of dishonesty and fraud.

I defend Obama when he is right and criticize him when he is wrong.  We have covert operations in perhaps 50 nations.  Would you support ending all these covert operations?

We actually seem to have a lot of common ground on foreign policy.  

I even supported Bush when he was right (as on immigration).  I have fought hard against many liberal disasters, including the war in Vietnam.  I have strong progressive values (freedom, equality, brotherhood) and am most accurately described as a left libertarian.  Liberals want to fix the system; I want to change it.
But I make common cause with liberals (or conservatives) when they are right.

MOst in the Tea Party (including on this site) are opposed to cutting defense spending.  USMC says above: “Nope, we consider a Strong Defense one of our top 4 planks.”  By “we,” he means the Tea Party.  Other than Ron Paul, what leaders associated with the Tea Party have advocated ending our wars and cutting defense?

The Afghanistan/Iraq wars are the only wars in US history in which taxes were cut. The result? 

 From the Christian Science Monitor: ” Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. “And it’s still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought.
Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. “It’s fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed,” says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
In other words, in addition to the 1.2 trillion already spent on these useless wars, the costs will continue far into the future, with a spike in VA costs in 30-40 yrs, and debt repayment (now estimated at 400 billion a yr for previous wars) continuing on and on.

The tax cuts for the rich, which have lost 500 billion in revenue (and not created new jobs), the war costs (which may total 4 trillion all told), the trillion spent on Homeland Security, and the trillion spent so far on the unfunded Medicare drug program (subsidy to Big Pharma)….were all done on borrowed money, shifting the burden to future generations.  In addition, unnecessary subsidies to the most wealthy industries, like Big Oil, Big Ag, and the Military/Industrial Complex, have taken hundreds of billions from the govt coffers.

We could balance the budget, repay SS, and invest in job creation by cutting these unnecessary and expensive programs.  And if we don’t, we are headed towards bankruptcy, disguised as austerity for the poor, workers, students, children, and seniors.
Flag

Ken, once and for all. I do not call myself a liberal. You do.  Stop putting your words in my mouth; that is a form of dishonesty and fraud.

I defend Obama when he is right and criticize him when he is wrong.  We have covert operations in perhaps 50 nations.  Would you support ending all these covert operations?

We actually seem to have a lot of common ground on foreign policy.  

I even supported Bush when he was right (as on immigration).  I have fought hard against many liberal disasters, including the war in Vietnam.  I have strong progressive values (freedom, equality, brotherhood) and am most accurately described as a left libertarian.  Liberals want to fix the system; I want to change it.
But I make common cause with liberals (or conservatives) when they are right.

MOst in the Tea Party (including on this site) are opposed to cutting defense spending.  USMC says above: “Nope, we consider a Strong Defense one of our top 4 planks.”  By “we,” he means the Tea Party.  Other than Ron Paul, what leaders associated with the Tea Party have advocated ending our wars and cutting defense?

The Afghanistan/Iraq wars are the only wars in US history in which taxes were cut. The result? 

 From the Christian Science Monitor: ” Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. “And it’s still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought.
Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. “It’s fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed,” says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
In other words, in addition to the 1.2 trillion already spent on these useless wars, the costs will continue far into the future, with a spike in VA costs in 30-40 yrs, and debt repayment (now estimated at 400 billion a yr for previous wars) continuing on and on.

The tax cuts for the rich, which have lost 500 billion in revenue (and not created new jobs), the war costs (which may total 4 trillion all told), the trillion spent on Homeland Security, and the trillion spent so far on the unfunded Medicare drug program (subsidy to Big Pharma)….were all done on borrowed money, shifting the burden to future generations.  In addition, unnecessary subsidies to the most wealthy industries, like Big Oil, Big Ag, and the Military/Industrial Complex, have taken hundreds of billions from the govt coffers.

We could balance the budget, repay SS, and invest in job creation by cutting these unnecessary and expensive programs.  And if we don’t, we are headed towards bankruptcy, disguised as austerity for the poor, workers, students, children, and seniors.
Flag

Ken, once and for all. I do not call myself a liberal. You do.  Stop putting your words in my mouth; that is a form of dishonesty and fraud.

I defend Obama when he is right and criticize him when he is wrong.  We have covert operations in perhaps 50 nations.  Would you support ending all these covert operations?

We actually seem to have a lot of common ground on foreign policy.  

I even supported Bush when he was right (as on immigration).  I have fought hard against many liberal disasters, including the war in Vietnam.  I have strong progressive values (freedom, equality, brotherhood) and am most accurately described as a left libertarian.  Liberals want to fix the system; I want to change it.
But I make common cause with liberals (or conservatives) when they are right.

MOst in the Tea Party (including on this site) are opposed to cutting defense spending.  USMC says above: “Nope, we consider a Strong Defense one of our top 4 planks.”  By “we,” he means the Tea Party.  Other than Ron Paul, what leaders associated with the Tea Party have advocated ending our wars and cutting defense?

The Afghanistan/Iraq wars are the only wars in US history in which taxes were cut. The result? 

 From the Christian Science Monitor: ” Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. “And it’s still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought.
Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. “It’s fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed,” says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
In other words, in addition to the 1.2 trillion already spent on these useless wars, the costs will continue far into the future, with a spike in VA costs in 30-40 yrs, and debt repayment (now estimated at 400 billion a yr for previous wars) continuing on and on.

The tax cuts for the rich, which have lost 500 billion in revenue (and not created new jobs), the war costs (which may total 4 trillion all told), the trillion spent on Homeland Security, and the trillion spent so far on the unfunded Medicare drug program (subsidy to Big Pharma)….were all done on borrowed money, shifting the burden to future generations.  In addition, unnecessary subsidies to the most wealthy industries, like Big Oil, Big Ag, and the Military/Industrial Complex, have taken hundreds of billions from the govt coffers.

We could balance the budget, repay SS, and invest in job creation by cutting these unnecessary and expensive programs.  And if we don’t, we are headed towards bankruptcy, disguised as austerity for the poor, workers, students, children, and seniors.
Flag

Ken, once and for all. I do not call myself a liberal. You do.  Stop putting your words in my mouth; that is a form of dishonesty and fraud.

I defend Obama when he is right and criticize him when he is wrong.  We have covert operations in perhaps 50 nations.  Would you support ending all these covert operations?

We actually seem to have a lot of common ground on foreign policy.  

I even supported Bush when he was right (as on immigration).  I have fought hard against many liberal disasters, including the war in Vietnam.  I have strong progressive values (freedom, equality, brotherhood) and am most accurately described as a left libertarian.  Liberals want to fix the system; I want to change it.
But I make common cause with liberals (or conservatives) when they are right.

MOst in the Tea Party (including on this site) are opposed to cutting defense spending.  USMC says above: “Nope, we consider a Strong Defense one of our top 4 planks.”  By “we,” he means the Tea Party.  Other than Ron Paul, what leaders associated with the Tea Party have advocated ending our wars and cutting defense?

The Afghanistan/Iraq wars are the only wars in US history in which taxes were cut. The result? 

 From the Christian Science Monitor: ” Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. “And it’s still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought.
Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. “It’s fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed,” says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
In other words, in addition to the 1.2 trillion already spent on these useless wars, the costs will continue far into the future, with a spike in VA costs in 30-40 yrs, and debt repayment (now estimated at 400 billion a yr for previous wars) continuing on and on.

The tax cuts for the rich, which have lost 500 billion in revenue (and not created new jobs), the war costs (which may total 4 trillion all told), the trillion spent on Homeland Security, and the trillion spent so far on the unfunded Medicare drug program (subsidy to Big Pharma)….were all done on borrowed money, shifting the burden to future generations.  In addition, unnecessary subsidies to the most wealthy industries, like Big Oil, Big Ag, and the Military/Industrial Complex, have taken hundreds of billions from the govt coffers.

We could balance the budget, repay SS, and invest in job creation by cutting these unnecessary and expensive programs.  And if we don’t, we are headed towards bankruptcy, disguised as austerity for the poor, workers, students, children, and seniors.
Flag

Ken, once and for all. I do not call myself a liberal. You do.  Stop putting your words in my mouth; that is a form of dishonesty and fraud.

I defend Obama when he is right and criticize him when he is wrong.  We have covert operations in perhaps 50 nations.  Would you support ending all these covert operations?

We actually seem to have a lot of common ground on foreign policy.  

I even supported Bush when he was right (as on immigration).  I have fought hard against many liberal disasters, including the war in Vietnam.  I have strong progressive values (freedom, equality, brotherhood) and am most accurately described as a left libertarian.  Liberals want to fix the system; I want to change it.
But I make common cause with liberals (or conservatives) when they are right.

MOst in the Tea Party (including on this site) are opposed to cutting defense spending.  USMC says above: “Nope, we consider a Strong Defense one of our top 4 planks.”  By “we,” he means the Tea Party.  Other than Ron Paul, what leaders associated with the Tea Party have advocated ending our wars and cutting defense?

The Afghanistan/Iraq wars are the only wars in US history in which taxes were cut. The result? 

 From the Christian Science Monitor: ” Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. “And it’s still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought.
Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. “It’s fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed,” says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
In other words, in addition to the 1.2 trillion already spent on these useless wars, the costs will continue far into the future, with a spike in VA costs in 30-40 yrs, and debt repayment (now estimated at 400 billion a yr for previous wars) continuing on and on.

The tax cuts for the rich, which have lost 500 billion in revenue (and not created new jobs), the war costs (which may total 4 trillion all told), the trillion spent on Homeland Security, and the trillion spent so far on the unfunded Medicare drug program (subsidy to Big Pharma)….were all done on borrowed money, shifting the burden to future generations.  In addition, unnecessary subsidies to the most wealthy industries, like Big Oil, Big Ag, and the Military/Industrial Complex, have taken hundreds of billions from the govt coffers.

We could balance the budget, repay SS, and invest in job creation by cutting these unnecessary and expensive programs.  And if we don’t, we are headed towards bankruptcy, disguised as austerity for the poor, workers, students, children, and seniors.
Flag

Ken, once and for all. I do not call myself a liberal. You do.  Stop putting your words in my mouth; that is a form of dishonesty and fraud.

I defend Obama when he is right and criticize him when he is wrong.  We have covert operations in perhaps 50 nations.  Would you support ending all these covert operations?

We actually seem to have a lot of common ground on foreign policy.  

I even supported Bush when he was right (as on immigration).  I have fought hard against many liberal disasters, including the war in Vietnam.  I have strong progressive values (freedom, equality, brotherhood) and am most accurately described as a left libertarian.  Liberals want to fix the system; I want to change it.
But I make common cause with liberals (or conservatives) when they are right.

MOst in the Tea Party (including on this site) are opposed to cutting defense spending.  USMC says above: “Nope, we consider a Strong Defense one of our top 4 planks.”  By “we,” he means the Tea Party.  Other than Ron Paul, what leaders associated with the Tea Party have advocated ending our wars and cutting defense?

The Afghanistan/Iraq wars are the only wars in US history in which taxes were cut. The result? 

 From the Christian Science Monitor: ” Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. “And it’s still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought.
Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. “It’s fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed,” says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
In other words, in addition to the 1.2 trillion already spent on these useless wars, the costs will continue far into the future, with a spike in VA costs in 30-40 yrs, and debt repayment (now estimated at 400 billion a yr for previous wars) continuing on and on.

The tax cuts for the rich, which have lost 500 billion in revenue (and not created new jobs), the war costs (which may total 4 trillion all told), the trillion spent on Homeland Security, and the trillion spent so far on the unfunded Medicare drug program (subsidy to Big Pharma)….were all done on borrowed money, shifting the burden to future generations.  In addition, unnecessary subsidies to the most wealthy industries, like Big Oil, Big Ag, and the Military/Industrial Complex, have taken hundreds of billions from the govt coffers.

We could balance the budget, repay SS, and invest in job creation by cutting these unnecessary and expensive programs.  And if we don’t, we are headed towards bankruptcy, disguised as austerity for the poor, workers, students, children, and seniors.
Flag

Ken, once and for all. I do not call myself a liberal. You do.  Stop putting your words in my mouth; that is a form of dishonesty and fraud.

I defend Obama when he is right and criticize him when he is wrong.  We have covert operations in perhaps 50 nations.  Would you support ending all these covert operations?

We actually seem to have a lot of common ground on foreign policy.  

I even supported Bush when he was right (as on immigration).  I have fought hard against many liberal disasters, including the war in Vietnam.  I have strong progressive values (freedom, equality, brotherhood) and am most accurately described as a left libertarian.  Liberals want to fix the system; I want to change it.
But I make common cause with liberals (or conservatives) when they are right.

MOst in the Tea Party (including on this site) are opposed to cutting defense spending.  USMC says above: “Nope, we consider a Strong Defense one of our top 4 planks.”  By “we,” he means the Tea Party.  Other than Ron Paul, what leaders associated with the Tea Party have advocated ending our wars and cutting defense?

The Afghanistan/Iraq wars are the only wars in US history in which taxes were cut. The result? 

 From the Christian Science Monitor: ” Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. “And it’s still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought.
Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. “It’s fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed,” says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
In other words, in addition to the 1.2 trillion already spent on these useless wars, the costs will continue far into the future, with a spike in VA costs in 30-40 yrs, and debt repayment (now estimated at 400 billion a yr for previous wars) continuing on and on.

The tax cuts for the rich, which have lost 500 billion in revenue (and not created new jobs), the war costs (which may total 4 trillion all told), the trillion spent on Homeland Security, and the trillion spent so far on the unfunded Medicare drug program (subsidy to Big Pharma)….were all done on borrowed money, shifting the burden to future generations.  In addition, unnecessary subsidies to the most wealthy industries, like Big Oil, Big Ag, and the Military/Industrial Complex, have taken hundreds of billions from the govt coffers.

We could balance the budget, repay SS, and invest in job creation by cutting these unnecessary and expensive programs.  And if we don’t, we are headed towards bankruptcy, disguised as austerity for the poor, workers, students, children, and seniors.
Flag

Ken, once and for all. I do not call myself a liberal. You do.  Stop putting your words in my mouth; that is a form of dishonesty and fraud.

I defend Obama when he is right and criticize him when he is wrong.  We have covert operations in perhaps 50 nations.  Would you support ending all these covert operations?

We actually seem to have a lot of common ground on foreign policy.  

I even supported Bush when he was right (as on immigration).  I have fought hard against many liberal disasters, including the war in Vietnam.  I have strong progressive values (freedom, equality, brotherhood) and am most accurately described as a left libertarian.  Liberals want to fix the system; I want to change it.
But I make common cause with liberals (or conservatives) when they are right.

MOst in the Tea Party (including on this site) are opposed to cutting defense spending.  USMC says above: “Nope, we consider a Strong Defense one of our top 4 planks.”  By “we,” he means the Tea Party.  Other than Ron Paul, what leaders associated with the Tea Party have advocated ending our wars and cutting defense?

The Afghanistan/Iraq wars are the only wars in US history in which taxes were cut. The result? 

 From the Christian Science Monitor: ” Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. “And it’s still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought.
Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. “It’s fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed,” says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
In other words, in addition to the 1.2 trillion already spent on these useless wars, the costs will continue far into the future, with a spike in VA costs in 30-40 yrs, and debt repayment (now estimated at 400 billion a yr for previous wars) continuing on and on.

The tax cuts for the rich, which have lost 500 billion in revenue (and not created new jobs), the war costs (which may total 4 trillion all told), the trillion spent on Homeland Security, and the trillion spent so far on the unfunded Medicare drug program (subsidy to Big Pharma)….were all done on borrowed money, shifting the burden to future generations.  In addition, unnecessary subsidies to the most wealthy industries, like Big Oil, Big Ag, and the Military/Industrial Complex, have taken hundreds of billions from the govt coffers.

We could balance the budget, repay SS, and invest in job creation by cutting these unnecessary and expensive programs.  And if we don’t, we are headed towards bankruptcy, disguised as austerity for the poor, workers, students, children, and seniors.
Flag

Ken, once and for all. I do not call myself a liberal. You do.  Stop putting your words in my mouth; that is a form of dishonesty and fraud.

I defend Obama when he is right and criticize him when he is wrong.  We have covert operations in perhaps 50 nations.  Would you support ending all these covert operations?

We actually seem to have a lot of common ground on foreign policy.  

I even supported Bush when he was right (as on immigration).  I have fought hard against many liberal disasters, including the war in Vietnam.  I have strong progressive values (freedom, equality, brotherhood) and am most accurately described as a left libertarian.  Liberals want to fix the system; I want to change it.
But I make common cause with liberals (or conservatives) when they are right.

MOst in the Tea Party (including on this site) are opposed to cutting defense spending.  USMC says above: “Nope, we consider a Strong Defense one of our top 4 planks.”  By “we,” he means the Tea Party.  Other than Ron Paul, what leaders associated with the Tea Party have advocated ending our wars and cutting defense?

The Afghanistan/Iraq wars are the only wars in US history in which taxes were cut. The result? 

 From the Christian Science Monitor: ” Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. “And it’s still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought.
Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. “It’s fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed,” says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
In other words, in addition to the 1.2 trillion already spent on these useless wars, the costs will continue far into the future, with a spike in VA costs in 30-40 yrs, and debt repayment (now estimated at 400 billion a yr for previous wars) continuing on and on.

The tax cuts for the rich, which have lost 500 billion in revenue (and not created new jobs), the war costs (which may total 4 trillion all told), the trillion spent on Homeland Security, and the trillion spent so far on the unfunded Medicare drug program (subsidy to Big Pharma)….were all done on borrowed money, shifting the burden to future generations.  In addition, unnecessary subsidies to the most wealthy industries, like Big Oil, Big Ag, and the Military/Industrial Complex, have taken hundreds of billions from the govt coffers.

We could balance the budget, repay SS, and invest in job creation by cutting these unnecessary and expensive programs.  And if we don’t, we are headed towards bankruptcy, disguised as austerity for the poor, workers, students, children, and seniors.
Flag

Ken, once and for all. I do not call myself a liberal. You do.  Stop putting your words in my mouth; that is a form of dishonesty and fraud.

I defend Obama when he is right and criticize him when he is wrong.  We have covert operations in perhaps 50 nations.  Would you support ending all these covert operations?

We actually seem to have a lot of common ground on foreign policy.  

I even supported Bush when he was right (as on immigration).  I have fought hard against many liberal disasters, including the war in Vietnam.  I have strong progressive values (freedom, equality, brotherhood) and am most accurately described as a left libertarian.  Liberals want to fix the system; I want to change it.
But I make common cause with liberals (or conservatives) when they are right.

MOst in the Tea Party (including on this site) are opposed to cutting defense spending.  USMC says above: “Nope, we consider a Strong Defense one of our top 4 planks.”  By “we,” he means the Tea Party.  Other than Ron Paul, what leaders associated with the Tea Party have advocated ending our wars and cutting defense?

The Afghanistan/Iraq wars are the only wars in US history in which taxes were cut. The result? 

 From the Christian Science Monitor: ” Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. “And it’s still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought.
Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. “It’s fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed,” says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
In other words, in addition to the 1.2 trillion already spent on these useless wars, the costs will continue far into the future, with a spike in VA costs in 30-40 yrs, and debt repayment (now estimated at 400 billion a yr for previous wars) continuing on and on.

The tax cuts for the rich, which have lost 500 billion in revenue (and not created new jobs), the war costs (which may total 4 trillion all told), the trillion spent on Homeland Security, and the trillion spent so far on the unfunded Medicare drug program (subsidy to Big Pharma)….were all done on borrowed money, shifting the burden to future generations.  In addition, unnecessary subsidies to the most wealthy industries, like Big Oil, Big Ag, and the Military/Industrial Complex, have taken hundreds of billions from the govt coffers.

We could balance the budget, repay SS, and invest in job creation by cutting these unnecessary and expensive programs.  And if we don’t, we are headed towards bankruptcy, disguised as austerity for the poor, workers, students, children, and seniors.
Flag

Ken, once and for all. I do not call myself a liberal. You do.  Stop putting your words in my mouth; that is a form of dishonesty and fraud.

I defend Obama when he is right and criticize him when he is wrong.  We have covert operations in perhaps 50 nations.  Would you support ending all these covert operations?

We actually seem to have a lot of common ground on foreign policy.  

I even supported Bush when he was right (as on immigration).  I have fought hard against many liberal disasters, including the war in Vietnam.  I have strong progressive values (freedom, equality, brotherhood) and am most accurately described as a left libertarian.  Liberals want to fix the system; I want to change it.
But I make common cause with liberals (or conservatives) when they are right.

MOst in the Tea Party (including on this site) are opposed to cutting defense spending.  USMC says above: “Nope, we consider a Strong Defense one of our top 4 planks.”  By “we,” he means the Tea Party.  Other than Ron Paul, what leaders associated with the Tea Party have advocated ending our wars and cutting defense?

The Afghanistan/Iraq wars are the only wars in US history in which taxes were cut. The result? 

 From the Christian Science Monitor: ” Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. “And it’s still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought.
Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. “It’s fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed,” says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
In other words, in addition to the 1.2 trillion already spent on these useless wars, the costs will continue far into the future, with a spike in VA costs in 30-40 yrs, and debt repayment (now estimated at 400 billion a yr for previous wars) continuing on and on.

The tax cuts for the rich, which have lost 500 billion in revenue (and not created new jobs), the war costs (which may total 4 trillion all told), the trillion spent on Homeland Security, and the trillion spent so far on the unfunded Medicare drug program (subsidy to Big Pharma)….were all done on borrowed money, shifting the burden to future generations.  In addition, unnecessary subsidies to the most wealthy industries, like Big Oil, Big Ag, and the Military/Industrial Complex, have taken hundreds of billions from the govt coffers.

We could balance the budget, repay SS, and invest in job creation by cutting these unnecessary and expensive programs.  And if we don’t, we are headed towards bankruptcy, disguised as austerity for the poor, workers, students, children, and seniors.
Flag

Ken, once and for all. I do not call myself a liberal. You do.  Stop putting your words in my mouth; that is a form of dishonesty and fraud.

I defend Obama when he is right and criticize him when he is wrong.  We have covert operations in perhaps 50 nations.  Would you support ending all these covert operations?

We actually seem to have a lot of common ground on foreign policy.  

I even supported Bush when he was right (as on immigration).  I have fought hard against many liberal disasters, including the war in Vietnam.  I have strong progressive values (freedom, equality, brotherhood) and am most accurately described as a left libertarian.  Liberals want to fix the system; I want to change it.
But I make common cause with liberals (or conservatives) when they are right.

MOst in the Tea Party (including on this site) are opposed to cutting defense spending.  USMC says above: “Nope, we consider a Strong Defense one of our top 4 planks.”  By “we,” he means the Tea Party.  Other than Ron Paul, what leaders associated with the Tea Party have advocated ending our wars and cutting defense?

The Afghanistan/Iraq wars are the only wars in US history in which taxes were cut. The result? 

 From the Christian Science Monitor: ” Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. “And it’s still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought.
Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. “It’s fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed,” says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
In other words, in addition to the 1.2 trillion already spent on these useless wars, the costs will continue far into the future, with a spike in VA costs in 30-40 yrs, and debt repayment (now estimated at 400 billion a yr for previous wars) continuing on and on.

The tax cuts for the rich, which have lost 500 billion in revenue (and not created new jobs), the war costs (which may total 4 trillion all told), the trillion spent on Homeland Security, and the trillion spent so far on the unfunded Medicare drug program (subsidy to Big Pharma)….were all done on borrowed money, shifting the burden to future generations.  In addition, unnecessary subsidies to the most wealthy industries, like Big Oil, Big Ag, and the Military/Industrial Complex, have taken hundreds of billions from the govt coffers.

We could balance the budget, repay SS, and invest in job creation by cutting these unnecessary and expensive programs.  And if we don’t, we are headed towards bankruptcy, disguised as austerity for the poor, workers, students, children, and seniors.
Flag

Ken, once and for all. I do not call myself a liberal. You do.  Stop putting your words in my mouth; that is a form of dishonesty and fraud.

I defend Obama when he is right and criticize him when he is wrong.  We have covert operations in perhaps 50 nations.  Would you support ending all these covert operations?

We actually seem to have a lot of common ground on foreign policy.  

I even supported Bush when he was right (as on immigration).  I have fought hard against many liberal disasters, including the war in Vietnam.  I have strong progressive values (freedom, equality, brotherhood) and am most accurately described as a left libertarian.  Liberals want to fix the system; I want to change it.
But I make common cause with liberals (or conservatives) when they are right.

MOst in the Tea Party (including on this site) are opposed to cutting defense spending.  USMC says above: “Nope, we consider a Strong Defense one of our top 4 planks.”  By “we,” he means the Tea Party.  Other than Ron Paul, what leaders associated with the Tea Party have advocated ending our wars and cutting defense?

The Afghanistan/Iraq wars are the only wars in US history in which taxes were cut. The result? 

 From the Christian Science Monitor: ” Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. “And it’s still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought.
Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. “It’s fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed,” says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
In other words, in addition to the 1.2 trillion already spent on these useless wars, the costs will continue far into the future, with a spike in VA costs in 30-40 yrs, and debt repayment (now estimated at 400 billion a yr for previous wars) continuing on and on.

The tax cuts for the rich, which have lost 500 billion in revenue (and not created new jobs), the war costs (which may total 4 trillion all told), the trillion spent on Homeland Security, and the trillion spent so far on the unfunded Medicare drug program (subsidy to Big Pharma)….were all done on borrowed money, shifting the burden to future generations.  In addition, unnecessary subsidies to the most wealthy industries, like Big Oil, Big Ag, and the Military/Industrial Complex, have taken hundreds of billions from the govt coffers.

We could balance the budget, repay SS, and invest in job creation by cutting these unnecessary and expensive programs.  And if we don’t, we are headed towards bankruptcy, disguised as austerity for the poor, workers, students, children, and seniors.
Flag

Ken, once and for all. I do not call myself a liberal. You do.  Stop putting your words in my mouth; that is a form of dishonesty and fraud.

I defend Obama when he is right and criticize him when he is wrong.  We have covert operations in perhaps 50 nations.  Would you support ending all these covert operations?

We actually seem to have a lot of common ground on foreign policy.  

I even supported Bush when he was right (as on immigration).  I have fought hard against many liberal disasters, including the war in Vietnam.  I have strong progressive values (freedom, equality, brotherhood) and am most accurately described as a left libertarian.  Liberals want to fix the system; I want to change it.
But I make common cause with liberals (or conservatives) when they are right.

MOst in the Tea Party (including on this site) are opposed to cutting defense spending.  USMC says above: “Nope, we consider a Strong Defense one of our top 4 planks.”  By “we,” he means the Tea Party.  Other than Ron Paul, what leaders associated with the Tea Party have advocated ending our wars and cutting defense?

The Afghanistan/Iraq wars are the only wars in US history in which taxes were cut. The result? 

 From the Christian Science Monitor: ” Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. “And it’s still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought.
Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. “It’s fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed,” says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
In other words, in addition to the 1.2 trillion already spent on these useless wars, the costs will continue far into the future, with a spike in VA costs in 30-40 yrs, and debt repayment (now estimated at 400 billion a yr for previous wars) continuing on and on.

The tax cuts for the rich, which have lost 500 billion in revenue (and not created new jobs), the war costs (which may total 4 trillion all told), the trillion spent on Homeland Security, and the trillion spent so far on the unfunded Medicare drug program (subsidy to Big Pharma)….were all done on borrowed money, shifting the burden to future generations.  In addition, unnecessary subsidies to the most wealthy industries, like Big Oil, Big Ag, and the Military/Industrial Complex, have taken hundreds of billions from the govt coffers.

We could balance the budget, repay SS, and invest in job creation by cutting these unnecessary and expensive programs.  And if we don’t, we are headed towards bankruptcy, disguised as austerity for the poor, workers, students, children, and seniors.
Flag

Ken, once and for all. I do not call myself a liberal. You do.  Stop putting your words in my mouth; that is a form of dishonesty and fraud.

I defend Obama when he is right and criticize him when he is wrong.  We have covert operations in perhaps 50 nations.  Would you support ending all these covert operations?

We actually seem to have a lot of common ground on foreign policy.  

I even supported Bush when he was right (as on immigration).  I have fought hard against many liberal disasters, including the war in Vietnam.  I have strong progressive values (freedom, equality, brotherhood) and am most accurately described as a left libertarian.  Liberals want to fix the system; I want to change it.
But I make common cause with liberals (or conservatives) when they are right.

MOst in the Tea Party (including on this site) are opposed to cutting defense spending.  USMC says above: “Nope, we consider a Strong Defense one of our top 4 planks.”  By “we,” he means the Tea Party.  Other than Ron Paul, what leaders associated with the Tea Party have advocated ending our wars and cutting defense?

The Afghanistan/Iraq wars are the only wars in US history in which taxes were cut. The result? 

 From the Christian Science Monitor: ” Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. “And it’s still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought.
Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. “It’s fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed,” says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
In other words, in addition to the 1.2 trillion already spent on these useless wars, the costs will continue far into the future, with a spike in VA costs in 30-40 yrs, and debt repayment (now estimated at 400 billion a yr for previous wars) continuing on and on.

The tax cuts for the rich, which have lost 500 billion in revenue (and not created new jobs), the war costs (which may total 4 trillion all told), the trillion spent on Homeland Security, and the trillion spent so far on the unfunded Medicare drug program (subsidy to Big Pharma)….were all done on borrowed money, shifting the burden to future generations.  In addition, unnecessary subsidies to the most wealthy industries, like Big Oil, Big Ag, and the Military/Industrial Complex, have taken hundreds of billions from the govt coffers.

We could balance the budget, repay SS, and invest in job creation by cutting these unnecessary and expensive programs.  And if we don’t, we are headed towards bankruptcy, disguised as austerity for the poor, workers, students, children, and seniors.
Flag

Ken, once and for all. I do not call myself a liberal. You do.  Stop putting your words in my mouth; that is a form of dishonesty and fraud.

I defend Obama when he is right and criticize him when he is wrong.  We have covert operations in perhaps 50 nations.  Would you support ending all these covert operations?

We actually seem to have a lot of common ground on foreign policy.  

I even supported Bush when he was right (as on immigration).  I have fought hard against many liberal disasters, including the war in Vietnam.  I have strong progressive values (freedom, equality, brotherhood) and am most accurately described as a left libertarian.  Liberals want to fix the system; I want to change it.
But I make common cause with liberals (or conservatives) when they are right.

MOst in the Tea Party (including on this site) are opposed to cutting defense spending.  USMC says above: “Nope, we consider a Strong Defense one of our top 4 planks.”  By “we,” he means the Tea Party.  Other than Ron Paul, what leaders associated with the Tea Party have advocated ending our wars and cutting defense?

The Afghanistan/Iraq wars are the only wars in US history in which taxes were cut. The result? 

 From the Christian Science Monitor: ” Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. “And it’s still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought.
Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. “It’s fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed,” says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
In other words, in addition to the 1.2 trillion already spent on these useless wars, the costs will continue far into the future, with a spike in VA costs in 30-40 yrs, and debt repayment (now estimated at 400 billion a yr for previous wars) continuing on and on.

The tax cuts for the rich, which have lost 500 billion in revenue (and not created new jobs), the war costs (which may total 4 trillion all told), the trillion spent on Homeland Security, and the trillion spent so far on the unfunded Medicare drug program (subsidy to Big Pharma)….were all done on borrowed money, shifting the burden to future generations.  In addition, unnecessary subsidies to the most wealthy industries, like Big Oil, Big Ag, and the Military/Industrial Complex, have taken hundreds of billions from the govt coffers.

We could balance the budget, repay SS, and invest in job creation by cutting these unnecessary and expensive programs.  And if we don’t, we are headed towards bankruptcy, disguised as austerity for the poor, workers, students, children, and seniors.
Flag

Ken, once and for all. I do not call myself a liberal. You do.  Stop putting your words in my mouth; that is a form of dishonesty and fraud.

I defend Obama when he is right and criticize him when he is wrong.  We have covert operations in perhaps 50 nations.  Would you support ending all these covert operations?

We actually seem to have a lot of common ground on foreign policy.  

I even supported Bush when he was right (as on immigration).  I have fought hard against many liberal disasters, including the war in Vietnam.  I have strong progressive values (freedom, equality, brotherhood) and am most accurately described as a left libertarian.  Liberals want to fix the system; I want to change it.
But I make common cause with liberals (or conservatives) when they are right.

MOst in the Tea Party (including on this site) are opposed to cutting defense spending.  USMC says above: “Nope, we consider a Strong Defense one of our top 4 planks.”  By “we,” he means the Tea Party.  Other than Ron Paul, what leaders associated with the Tea Party have advocated ending our wars and cutting defense?

The Afghanistan/Iraq wars are the only wars in US history in which taxes were cut. The result? 

 From the Christian Science Monitor: ” Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. “And it’s still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought.
Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. “It’s fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed,” says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
In other words, in addition to the 1.2 trillion already spent on these useless wars, the costs will continue far into the future, with a spike in VA costs in 30-40 yrs, and debt repayment (now estimated at 400 billion a yr for previous wars) continuing on and on.

The tax cuts for the rich, which have lost 500 billion in revenue (and not created new jobs), the war costs (which may total 4 trillion all told), the trillion spent on Homeland Security, and the trillion spent so far on the unfunded Medicare drug program (subsidy to Big Pharma)….were all done on borrowed money, shifting the burden to future generations.  In addition, unnecessary subsidies to the most wealthy industries, like Big Oil, Big Ag, and the Military/Industrial Complex, have taken hundreds of billions from the govt coffers.

We could balance the budget, repay SS, and invest in job creation by cutting these unnecessary and expensive programs.  And if we don’t, we are headed towards bankruptcy, disguised as austerity for the poor, workers, students, children, and seniors.
Flag

Ken, once and for all. I do not call myself a liberal. You do.  Stop putting your words in my mouth; that is a form of dishonesty and fraud.

I defend Obama when he is right and criticize him when he is wrong.  We have covert operations in perhaps 50 nations.  Would you support ending all these covert operations?

We actually seem to have a lot of common ground on foreign policy.  

I even supported Bush when he was right (as on immigration).  I have fought hard against many liberal disasters, including the war in Vietnam.  I have strong progressive values (freedom, equality, brotherhood) and am most accurately described as a left libertarian.  Liberals want to fix the system; I want to change it.
But I make common cause with liberals (or conservatives) when they are right.

MOst in the Tea Party (including on this site) are opposed to cutting defense spending.  USMC says above: “Nope, we consider a Strong Defense one of our top 4 planks.”  By “we,” he means the Tea Party.  Other than Ron Paul, what leaders associated with the Tea Party have advocated ending our wars and cutting defense?

The Afghanistan/Iraq wars are the only wars in US history in which taxes were cut. The result? 

 From the Christian Science Monitor: ” Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. “And it’s still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought.
Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. “It’s fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed,” says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
In other words, in addition to the 1.2 trillion already spent on these useless wars, the costs will continue far into the future, with a spike in VA costs in 30-40 yrs, and debt repayment (now estimated at 400 billion a yr for previous wars) continuing on and on.

The tax cuts for the rich, which have lost 500 billion in revenue (and not created new jobs), the war costs (which may total 4 trillion all told), the trillion spent on Homeland Security, and the trillion spent so far on the unfunded Medicare drug program (subsidy to Big Pharma)….were all done on borrowed money, shifting the burden to future generations.  In addition, unnecessary subsidies to the most wealthy industries, like Big Oil, Big Ag, and the Military/Industrial Complex, have taken hundreds of billions from the govt coffers.

We could balance the budget, repay SS, and invest in job creation by cutting these unnecessary and expensive programs.  And if we don’t, we are headed towards bankruptcy, disguised as austerity for the poor, workers, students, children, and seniors.
Flag

Ken, once and for all. I do not call myself a liberal. You do.  Stop putting your words in my mouth; that is a form of dishonesty and fraud.

I defend Obama when he is right and criticize him when he is wrong.  We have covert operations in perhaps 50 nations.  Would you support ending all these covert operations?

We actually seem to have a lot of common ground on foreign policy.  

I even supported Bush when he was right (as on immigration).  I have fought hard against many liberal disasters, including the war in Vietnam.  I have strong progressive values (freedom, equality, brotherhood) and am most accurately described as a left libertarian.  Liberals want to fix the system; I want to change it.
But I make common cause with liberals (or conservatives) when they are right.

MOst in the Tea Party (including on this site) are opposed to cutting defense spending.  USMC says above: “Nope, we consider a Strong Defense one of our top 4 planks.”  By “we,” he means the Tea Party.  Other than Ron Paul, what leaders associated with the Tea Party have advocated ending our wars and cutting defense?

The Afghanistan/Iraq wars are the only wars in US history in which taxes were cut. The result? 

 From the Christian Science Monitor: ” Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. “And it’s still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought.
Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. “It’s fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed,” says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
In other words, in addition to the 1.2 trillion already spent on these useless wars, the costs will continue far into the future, with a spike in VA costs in 30-40 yrs, and debt repayment (now estimated at 400 billion a yr for previous wars) continuing on and on.

The tax cuts for the rich, which have lost 500 billion in revenue (and not created new jobs), the war costs (which may total 4 trillion all told), the trillion spent on Homeland Security, and the trillion spent so far on the unfunded Medicare drug program (subsidy to Big Pharma)….were all done on borrowed money, shifting the burden to future generations.  In addition, unnecessary subsidies to the most wealthy industries, like Big Oil, Big Ag, and the Military/Industrial Complex, have taken hundreds of billions from the govt coffers.

We could balance the budget, repay SS, and invest in job creation by cutting these unnecessary and expensive programs.  And if we don’t, we are headed towards bankruptcy, disguised as austerity for the poor, workers, students, children, and seniors.
Flag

Ken, once and for all. I do not call myself a liberal. You do.  Stop putting your words in my mouth; that is a form of dishonesty and fraud.

I defend Obama when he is right and criticize him when he is wrong.  We have covert operations in perhaps 50 nations.  Would you support ending all these covert operations?

We actually seem to have a lot of common ground on foreign policy.  

I even supported Bush when he was right (as on immigration).  I have fought hard against many liberal disasters, including the war in Vietnam.  I have strong progressive values (freedom, equality, brotherhood) and am most accurately described as a left libertarian.  Liberals want to fix the system; I want to change it.
But I make common cause with liberals (or conservatives) when they are right.

MOst in the Tea Party (including on this site) are opposed to cutting defense spending.  USMC says above: “Nope, we consider a Strong Defense one of our top 4 planks.”  By “we,” he means the Tea Party.  Other than Ron Paul, what leaders associated with the Tea Party have advocated ending our wars and cutting defense?

The Afghanistan/Iraq wars are the only wars in US history in which taxes were cut. The result? 

 From the Christian Science Monitor: ” Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. “And it’s still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought.
Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. “It’s fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed,” says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
In other words, in addition to the 1.2 trillion already spent on these useless wars, the costs will continue far into the future, with a spike in VA costs in 30-40 yrs, and debt repayment (now estimated at 400 billion a yr for previous wars) continuing on and on.

The tax cuts for the rich, which have lost 500 billion in revenue (and not created new jobs), the war costs (which may total 4 trillion all told), the trillion spent on Homeland Security, and the trillion spent so far on the unfunded Medicare drug program (subsidy to Big Pharma)….were all done on borrowed money, shifting the burden to future generations.  In addition, unnecessary subsidies to the most wealthy industries, like Big Oil, Big Ag, and the Military/Industrial Complex, have taken hundreds of billions from the govt coffers.

We could balance the budget, repay SS, and invest in job creation by cutting these unnecessary and expensive programs.  And if we don’t, we are headed towards bankruptcy, disguised as austerity for the poor, workers, students, children, and seniors.
Flag

Ken, once and for all. I do not call myself a liberal. You do.  Stop putting your words in my mouth; that is a form of dishonesty and fraud.

I defend Obama when he is right and criticize him when he is wrong.  We have covert operations in perhaps 50 nations.  Would you support ending all these covert operations?

We actually seem to have a lot of common ground on foreign policy.  

I even supported Bush when he was right (as on immigration).  I have fought hard against many liberal disasters, including the war in Vietnam.  I have strong progressive values (freedom, equality, brotherhood) and am most accurately described as a left libertarian.  Liberals want to fix the system; I want to change it.
But I make common cause with liberals (or conservatives) when they are right.

MOst in the Tea Party (including on this site) are opposed to cutting defense spending.  USMC says above: “Nope, we consider a Strong Defense one of our top 4 planks.”  By “we,” he means the Tea Party.  Other than Ron Paul, what leaders associated with the Tea Party have advocated ending our wars and cutting defense?

The Afghanistan/Iraq wars are the only wars in US history in which taxes were cut. The result? 

 From the Christian Science Monitor: ” Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. “And it’s still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought.
Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. “It’s fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed,” says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
In other words, in addition to the 1.2 trillion already spent on these useless wars, the costs will continue far into the future, with a spike in VA costs in 30-40 yrs, and debt repayment (now estimated at 400 billion a yr for previous wars) continuing on and on.

The tax cuts for the rich, which have lost 500 billion in revenue (and not created new jobs), the war costs (which may total 4 trillion all told), the trillion spent on Homeland Security, and the trillion spent so far on the unfunded Medicare drug program (subsidy to Big Pharma)….were all done on borrowed money, shifting the burden to future generations.  In addition, unnecessary subsidies to the most wealthy industries, like Big Oil, Big Ag, and the Military/Industrial Complex, have taken hundreds of billions from the govt coffers.

We could balance the budget, repay SS, and invest in job creation by cutting these unnecessary and expensive programs.  And if we don’t, we are headed towards bankruptcy, disguised as austerity for the poor, workers, students, children, and seniors.
Flag

Ken, once and for all. I do not call myself a liberal. You do.  Stop putting your words in my mouth; that is a form of dishonesty and fraud.

I defend Obama when he is right and criticize him when he is wrong.  We have covert operations in perhaps 50 nations.  Would you support ending all these covert operations?

We actually seem to have a lot of common ground on foreign policy.  

I even supported Bush when he was right (as on immigration).  I have fought hard against many liberal disasters, including the war in Vietnam.  I have strong progressive values (freedom, equality, brotherhood) and am most accurately described as a left libertarian.  Liberals want to fix the system; I want to change it.
But I make common cause with liberals (or conservatives) when they are right.

MOst in the Tea Party (including on this site) are opposed to cutting defense spending.  USMC says above: “Nope, we consider a Strong Defense one of our top 4 planks.”  By “we,” he means the Tea Party.  Other than Ron Paul, what leaders associated with the Tea Party have advocated ending our wars and cutting defense?

The Afghanistan/Iraq wars are the only wars in US history in which taxes were cut. The result? 

 From the Christian Science Monitor: ” Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. “And it’s still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought.
Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. “It’s fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed,” says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
In other words, in addition to the 1.2 trillion already spent on these useless wars, the costs will continue far into the future, with a spike in VA costs in 30-40 yrs, and debt repayment (now estimated at 400 billion a yr for previous wars) continuing on and on.

The tax cuts for the rich, which have lost 500 billion in revenue (and not created new jobs), the war costs (which may total 4 trillion all told), the trillion spent on Homeland Security, and the trillion spent so far on the unfunded Medicare drug program (subsidy to Big Pharma)….were all done on borrowed money, shifting the burden to future generations.  In addition, unnecessary subsidies to the most wealthy industries, like Big Oil, Big Ag, and the Military/Industrial Complex, have taken hundreds of billions from the govt coffers.

We could balance the budget, repay SS, and invest in job creation by cutting these unnecessary and expensive programs.  And if we don’t, we are headed towards bankruptcy, disguised as austerity for the poor, workers, students, children, and seniors.
Flag

Ken, once and for all. I do not call myself a liberal. You do.  Stop putting your words in my mouth; that is a form of dishonesty and fraud.

I defend Obama when he is right and criticize him when he is wrong.  We have covert operations in perhaps 50 nations.  Would you support ending all these covert operations?

We actually seem to have a lot of common ground on foreign policy.  

I even supported Bush when he was right (as on immigration).  I have fought hard against many liberal disasters, including the war in Vietnam.  I have strong progressive values (freedom, equality, brotherhood) and am most accurately described as a left libertarian.  Liberals want to fix the system; I want to change it.
But I make common cause with liberals (or conservatives) when they are right.

MOst in the Tea Party (including on this site) are opposed to cutting defense spending.  USMC says above: “Nope, we consider a Strong Defense one of our top 4 planks.”  By “we,” he means the Tea Party.  Other than Ron Paul, what leaders associated with the Tea Party have advocated ending our wars and cutting defense?

The Afghanistan/Iraq wars are the only wars in US history in which taxes were cut. The result? 

 From the Christian Science Monitor: ” Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. “And it’s still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought.
Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. “It’s fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed,” says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
In other words, in addition to the 1.2 trillion already spent on these useless wars, the costs will continue far into the future, with a spike in VA costs in 30-40 yrs, and debt repayment (now estimated at 400 billion a yr for previous wars) continuing on and on.

The tax cuts for the rich, which have lost 500 billion in revenue (and not created new jobs), the war costs (which may total 4 trillion all told), the trillion spent on Homeland Security, and the trillion spent so far on the unfunded Medicare drug program (subsidy to Big Pharma)….were all done on borrowed money, shifting the burden to future generations.  In addition, unnecessary subsidies to the most wealthy industries, like Big Oil, Big Ag, and the Military/Industrial Complex, have taken hundreds of billions from the govt coffers.

We could balance the budget, repay SS, and invest in job creation by cutting these unnecessary and expensive programs.  And if we don’t, we are headed towards bankruptcy, disguised as austerity for the poor, workers, students, children, and seniors.
Flag

Ken, once and for all. I do not call myself a liberal. You do.  Stop putting your words in my mouth; that is a form of dishonesty and fraud.

I defend Obama when he is right and criticize him when he is wrong.  We have covert operations in perhaps 50 nations.  Would you support ending all these covert operations?

We actually seem to have a lot of common ground on foreign policy.  

I even supported Bush when he was right (as on immigration).  I have fought hard against many liberal disasters, including the war in Vietnam.  I have strong progressive values (freedom, equality, brotherhood) and am most accurately described as a left libertarian.  Liberals want to fix the system; I want to change it.
But I make common cause with liberals (or conservatives) when they are right.

MOst in the Tea Party (including on this site) are opposed to cutting defense spending.  USMC says above: “Nope, we consider a Strong Defense one of our top 4 planks.”  By “we,” he means the Tea Party.  Other than Ron Paul, what leaders associated with the Tea Party have advocated ending our wars and cutting defense?

The Afghanistan/Iraq wars are the only wars in US history in which taxes were cut. The result? 

 From the Christian Science Monitor: ” Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. “And it’s still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought.
Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. “It’s fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed,” says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
In other words, in addition to the 1.2 trillion already spent on these useless wars, the costs will continue far into the future, with a spike in VA costs in 30-40 yrs, and debt repayment (now estimated at 400 billion a yr for previous wars) continuing on and on.

The tax cuts for the rich, which have lost 500 billion in revenue (and not created new jobs), the war costs (which may total 4 trillion all told), the trillion spent on Homeland Security, and the trillion spent so far on the unfunded Medicare drug program (subsidy to Big Pharma)….were all done on borrowed money, shifting the burden to future generations.  In addition, unnecessary subsidies to the most wealthy industries, like Big Oil, Big Ag, and the Military/Industrial Complex, have taken hundreds of billions from the govt coffers.

We could balance the budget, repay SS, and invest in job creation by cutting these unnecessary and expensive programs.  And if we don’t, we are headed towards bankruptcy, disguised as austerity for the poor, workers, students, children, and seniors.
Flag

Ken, once and for all. I do not call myself a liberal. You do.  Stop putting your words in my mouth; that is a form of dishonesty and fraud.

I defend Obama when he is right and criticize him when he is wrong.  We have covert operations in perhaps 50 nations.  Would you support ending all these covert operations?

We actually seem to have a lot of common ground on foreign policy.  

I even supported Bush when he was right (as on immigration).  I have fought hard against many liberal disasters, including the war in Vietnam.  I have strong progressive values (freedom, equality, brotherhood) and am most accurately described as a left libertarian.  Liberals want to fix the system; I want to change it.
But I make common cause with liberals (or conservatives) when they are right.

MOst in the Tea Party (including on this site) are opposed to cutting defense spending.  USMC says above: “Nope, we consider a Strong Defense one of our top 4 planks.”  By “we,” he means the Tea Party.  Other than Ron Paul, what leaders associated with the Tea Party have advocated ending our wars and cutting defense?

The Afghanistan/Iraq wars are the only wars in US history in which taxes were cut. The result? 

 From the Christian Science Monitor: ” Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. “And it’s still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought.
Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. “It’s fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed,” says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
In other words, in addition to the 1.2 trillion already spent on these useless wars, the costs will continue far into the future, with a spike in VA costs in 30-40 yrs, and debt repayment (now estimated at 400 billion a yr for previous wars) continuing on and on.

The tax cuts for the rich, which have lost 500 billion in revenue (and not created new jobs), the war costs (which may total 4 trillion all told), the trillion spent on Homeland Security, and the trillion spent so far on the unfunded Medicare drug program (subsidy to Big Pharma)….were all done on borrowed money, shifting the burden to future generations.  In addition, unnecessary subsidies to the most wealthy industries, like Big Oil, Big Ag, and the Military/Industrial Complex, have taken hundreds of billions from the govt coffers.

We could balance the budget, repay SS, and invest in job creation by cutting these unnecessary and expensive programs.  And if we don’t, we are headed towards bankruptcy, disguised as austerity for the poor, workers, students, children, and seniors.
Flag

Ken, once and for all. I do not call myself a liberal. You do.  Stop putting your words in my mouth; that is a form of dishonesty and fraud.

I defend Obama when he is right and criticize him when he is wrong.  We have covert operations in perhaps 50 nations.  Would you support ending all these covert operations?

We actually seem to have a lot of common ground on foreign policy.  

I even supported Bush when he was right (as on immigration).  I have fought hard against many liberal disasters, including the war in Vietnam.  I have strong progressive values (freedom, equality, brotherhood) and am most accurately described as a left libertarian.  Liberals want to fix the system; I want to change it.
But I make common cause with liberals (or conservatives) when they are right.

MOst in the Tea Party (including on this site) are opposed to cutting defense spending.  USMC says above: “Nope, we consider a Strong Defense one of our top 4 planks.”  By “we,” he means the Tea Party.  Other than Ron Paul, what leaders associated with the Tea Party have advocated ending our wars and cutting defense?

The Afghanistan/Iraq wars are the only wars in US history in which taxes were cut. The result? 

 From the Christian Science Monitor: ” Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. “And it’s still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought.
Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. “It’s fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed,” says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
In other words, in addition to the 1.2 trillion already spent on these useless wars, the costs will continue far into the future, with a spike in VA costs in 30-40 yrs, and debt repayment (now estimated at 400 billion a yr for previous wars) continuing on and on.

The tax cuts for the rich, which have lost 500 billion in revenue (and not created new jobs), the war costs (which may total 4 trillion all told), the trillion spent on Homeland Security, and the trillion spent so far on the unfunded Medicare drug program (subsidy to Big Pharma)….were all done on borrowed money, shifting the burden to future generations.  In addition, unnecessary subsidies to the most wealthy industries, like Big Oil, Big Ag, and the Military/Industrial Complex, have taken hundreds of billions from the govt coffers.

We could balance the budget, repay SS, and invest in job creation by cutting these unnecessary and expensive programs.  And if we don’t, we are headed towards bankruptcy, disguised as austerity for the poor, workers, students, children, and seniors.
Flag

Ken, once and for all. I do not call myself a liberal. You do.  Stop putting your words in my mouth; that is a form of dishonesty and fraud.

I defend Obama when he is right and criticize him when he is wrong.  We have covert operations in perhaps 50 nations.  Would you support ending all these covert operations?

We actually seem to have a lot of common ground on foreign policy.  

I even supported Bush when he was right (as on immigration).  I have fought hard against many liberal disasters, including the war in Vietnam.  I have strong progressive values (freedom, equality, brotherhood) and am most accurately described as a left libertarian.  Liberals want to fix the system; I want to change it.
But I make common cause with liberals (or conservatives) when they are right.

MOst in the Tea Party (including on this site) are opposed to cutting defense spending.  USMC says above: “Nope, we consider a Strong Defense one of our top 4 planks.”  By “we,” he means the Tea Party.  Other than Ron Paul, what leaders associated with the Tea Party have advocated ending our wars and cutting defense?

The Afghanistan/Iraq wars are the only wars in US history in which taxes were cut. The result? 

 From the Christian Science Monitor: ” Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. “And it’s still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought.
Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. “It’s fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed,” says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
In other words, in addition to the 1.2 trillion already spent on these useless wars, the costs will continue far into the future, with a spike in VA costs in 30-40 yrs, and debt repayment (now estimated at 400 billion a yr for previous wars) continuing on and on.

The tax cuts for the rich, which have lost 500 billion in revenue (and not created new jobs), the war costs (which may total 4 trillion all told), the trillion spent on Homeland Security, and the trillion spent so far on the unfunded Medicare drug program (subsidy to Big Pharma)….were all done on borrowed money, shifting the burden to future generations.  In addition, unnecessary subsidies to the most wealthy industries, like Big Oil, Big Ag, and the Military/Industrial Complex, have taken hundreds of billions from the govt coffers.

We could balance the budget, repay SS, and invest in job creation by cutting these unnecessary and expensive programs.  And if we don’t, we are headed towards bankruptcy, disguised as austerity for the poor, workers, students, children, and seniors.
Flag

Ken, once and for all. I do not call myself a liberal. You do.  Stop putting your words in my mouth; that is a form of dishonesty and fraud.

I defend Obama when he is right and criticize him when he is wrong.  We have covert operations in perhaps 50 nations.  Would you support ending all these covert operations?

We actually seem to have a lot of common ground on foreign policy.  

I even supported Bush when he was right (as on immigration).  I have fought hard against many liberal disasters, including the war in Vietnam.  I have strong progressive values (freedom, equality, brotherhood) and am most accurately described as a left libertarian.  Liberals want to fix the system; I want to change it.
But I make common cause with liberals (or conservatives) when they are right.

MOst in the Tea Party (including on this site) are opposed to cutting defense spending.  USMC says above: “Nope, we consider a Strong Defense one of our top 4 planks.”  By “we,” he means the Tea Party.  Other than Ron Paul, what leaders associated with the Tea Party have advocated ending our wars and cutting defense?

The Afghanistan/Iraq wars are the only wars in US history in which taxes were cut. The result? 

 From the Christian Science Monitor: ” Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. “And it’s still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought.
Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. “It’s fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed,” says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
In other words, in addition to the 1.2 trillion already spent on these useless wars, the costs will continue far into the future, with a spike in VA costs in 30-40 yrs, and debt repayment (now estimated at 400 billion a yr for previous wars) continuing on and on.

The tax cuts for the rich, which have lost 500 billion in revenue (and not created new jobs), the war costs (which may total 4 trillion all told), the trillion spent on Homeland Security, and the trillion spent so far on the unfunded Medicare drug program (subsidy to Big Pharma)….were all done on borrowed money, shifting the burden to future generations.  In addition, unnecessary subsidies to the most wealthy industries, like Big Oil, Big Ag, and the Military/Industrial Complex, have taken hundreds of billions from the govt coffers.

We could balance the budget, repay SS, and invest in job creation by cutting these unnecessary and expensive programs.  And if we don’t, we are headed towards bankruptcy, disguised as austerity for the poor, workers, students, children, and seniors.
Flag

Other than your desire to justify your support for Bush and war crimes, what evidence do you have that WMD’s existed or were moved to Syrian or Lebanon?

I keep telling ya you are full of BS (unsupported claims). You should change your pen name to USBS.

Other than your desire to justify your support for Bush and war crimes, what evidence do you have that WMD’s existed or were moved to Syrian or Lebanon?

I keep telling ya you are full of BS (unsupported claims). You should change your pen name to USBS.

Other than your desire to justify your support for Bush and war crimes, what evidence do you have that WMD’s existed or were moved to Syrian or Lebanon?

I keep telling ya you are full of BS (unsupported claims). You should change your pen name to USBS.

Other than your desire to justify your support for Bush and war crimes, what evidence do you have that WMD’s existed or were moved to Syrian or Lebanon?

I keep telling ya you are full of BS (unsupported claims). You should change your pen name to USBS.

Other than your desire to justify your support for Bush and war crimes, what evidence do you have that WMD’s existed or were moved to Syrian or Lebanon?

I keep telling ya you are full of BS (unsupported claims). You should change your pen name to USBS.

Other than your desire to justify your support for Bush and war crimes, what evidence do you have that WMD’s existed or were moved to Syrian or Lebanon?

I keep telling ya you are full of BS (unsupported claims). You should change your pen name to USBS.

Other than your desire to justify your support for Bush and war crimes, what evidence do you have that WMD’s existed or were moved to Syrian or Lebanon?

I keep telling ya you are full of BS (unsupported claims). You should change your pen name to USBS.

Other than your desire to justify your support for Bush and war crimes, what evidence do you have that WMD’s existed or were moved to Syrian or Lebanon?

I keep telling ya you are full of BS (unsupported claims). You should change your pen name to USBS.

Other than your desire to justify your support for Bush and war crimes, what evidence do you have that WMD’s existed or were moved to Syrian or Lebanon?

I keep telling ya you are full of BS (unsupported claims). You should change your pen name to USBS.

Other than your desire to justify your support for Bush and war crimes, what evidence do you have that WMD’s existed or were moved to Syrian or Lebanon?

I keep telling ya you are full of BS (unsupported claims). You should change your pen name to USBS.

Other than your desire to justify your support for Bush and war crimes, what evidence do you have that WMD’s existed or were moved to Syrian or Lebanon?

I keep telling ya you are full of BS (unsupported claims). You should change your pen name to USBS.

Other than your desire to justify your support for Bush and war crimes, what evidence do you have that WMD’s existed or were moved to Syrian or Lebanon?

I keep telling ya you are full of BS (unsupported claims). You should change your pen name to USBS.

Other than your desire to justify your support for Bush and war crimes, what evidence do you have that WMD’s existed or were moved to Syrian or Lebanon?

I keep telling ya you are full of BS (unsupported claims). You should change your pen name to USBS.

Other than your desire to justify your support for Bush and war crimes, what evidence do you have that WMD’s existed or were moved to Syrian or Lebanon?

I keep telling ya you are full of BS (unsupported claims). You should change your pen name to USBS.

Other than your desire to justify your support for Bush and war crimes, what evidence do you have that WMD’s existed or were moved to Syrian or Lebanon?

I keep telling ya you are full of BS (unsupported claims). You should change your pen name to USBS.

Other than your desire to justify your support for Bush and war crimes, what evidence do you have that WMD’s existed or were moved to Syrian or Lebanon?

I keep telling ya you are full of BS (unsupported claims). You should change your pen name to USBS.

Other than your desire to justify your support for Bush and war crimes, what evidence do you have that WMD’s existed or were moved to Syrian or Lebanon?

I keep telling ya you are full of BS (unsupported claims). You should change your pen name to USBS.

Other than your desire to justify your support for Bush and war crimes, what evidence do you have that WMD’s existed or were moved to Syrian or Lebanon?

I keep telling ya you are full of BS (unsupported claims). You should change your pen name to USBS.

Other than your desire to justify your support for Bush and war crimes, what evidence do you have that WMD’s existed or were moved to Syrian or Lebanon?

I keep telling ya you are full of BS (unsupported claims). You should change your pen name to USBS.

Other than your desire to justify your support for Bush and war crimes, what evidence do you have that WMD’s existed or were moved to Syrian or Lebanon?

I keep telling ya you are full of BS (unsupported claims). You should change your pen name to USBS.

Other than your desire to justify your support for Bush and war crimes, what evidence do you have that WMD’s existed or were moved to Syrian or Lebanon?

I keep telling ya you are full of BS (unsupported claims). You should change your pen name to USBS.

Other than your desire to justify your support for Bush and war crimes, what evidence do you have that WMD’s existed or were moved to Syrian or Lebanon?

I keep telling ya you are full of BS (unsupported claims). You should change your pen name to USBS.

Other than your desire to justify your support for Bush and war crimes, what evidence do you have that WMD’s existed or were moved to Syrian or Lebanon?

I keep telling ya you are full of BS (unsupported claims). You should change your pen name to USBS.

Other than your desire to justify your support for Bush and war crimes, what evidence do you have that WMD’s existed or were moved to Syrian or Lebanon?

I keep telling ya you are full of BS (unsupported claims). You should change your pen name to USBS.

Other than your desire to justify your support for Bush and war crimes, what evidence do you have that WMD’s existed or were moved to Syrian or Lebanon?

I keep telling ya you are full of BS (unsupported claims). You should change your pen name to USBS.

Other than your desire to justify your support for Bush and war crimes, what evidence do you have that WMD’s existed or were moved to Syrian or Lebanon?

I keep telling ya you are full of BS (unsupported claims). You should change your pen name to USBS.

Other than your desire to justify your support for Bush and war crimes, what evidence do you have that WMD’s existed or were moved to Syrian or Lebanon?

I keep telling ya you are full of BS (unsupported claims). You should change your pen name to USBS.

All the following Bush programs were done on borrowed money:  2 wars, tax cuts for the rich, and Tarp (actual cost 2.3 trillion, with 12 trillion in obligations), and the unfunded Medicare drug program.  The wars have cost over a trillion, and will cost much more with debt repayment and VA services for millions of veterans for the next 40-50 yrs.  The tax cuts for the rich have cost half a trillion; Tarp costs are mostly hidden but involve over 2 trillion.  Subsidies to Big Oil and Big Ag, which Republicans refused to consider in the “compromise” on cutting deficits, account for hundreds of billions over the past ten years.  All this is done on borrowed money, so the total cost will be much higher.  Only Bush, in all our history, started wars AND cut taxes.  He had to borrow to fund both.

Congress was told if TARP was not supported, world depression would follow.
Repubs in the House majority opposed, but in the Senate approved, making this program, devised by Paulson, possible.  The true cost has been hidden from the public.  But TARP belongs to Bush.  If you terrify Congress (WMD in Iraq! 
 World wide depression in 2008!), you can get their support for almost anything.

What do we call using terror to make political gains?  Terrorism.

All the following Bush programs were done on borrowed money:  2 wars, tax cuts for the rich, and Tarp (actual cost 2.3 trillion, with 12 trillion in obligations), and the unfunded Medicare drug program.  The wars have cost over a trillion, and will cost much more with debt repayment and VA services for millions of veterans for the next 40-50 yrs.  The tax cuts for the rich have cost half a trillion; Tarp costs are mostly hidden but involve over 2 trillion.  Subsidies to Big Oil and Big Ag, which Republicans refused to consider in the “compromise” on cutting deficits, account for hundreds of billions over the past ten years.  All this is done on borrowed money, so the total cost will be much higher.  Only Bush, in all our history, started wars AND cut taxes.  He had to borrow to fund both.

Congress was told if TARP was not supported, world depression would follow.
Repubs in the House majority opposed, but in the Senate approved, making this program, devised by Paulson, possible.  The true cost has been hidden from the public.  But TARP belongs to Bush.  If you terrify Congress (WMD in Iraq! 
 World wide depression in 2008!), you can get their support for almost anything.

What do we call using terror to make political gains?  Terrorism.

All the following Bush programs were done on borrowed money:  2 wars, tax cuts for the rich, and Tarp (actual cost 2.3 trillion, with 12 trillion in obligations), and the unfunded Medicare drug program.  The wars have cost over a trillion, and will cost much more with debt repayment and VA services for millions of veterans for the next 40-50 yrs.  The tax cuts for the rich have cost half a trillion; Tarp costs are mostly hidden but involve over 2 trillion.  Subsidies to Big Oil and Big Ag, which Republicans refused to consider in the “compromise” on cutting deficits, account for hundreds of billions over the past ten years.  All this is done on borrowed money, so the total cost will be much higher.  Only Bush, in all our history, started wars AND cut taxes.  He had to borrow to fund both.

Congress was told if TARP was not supported, world depression would follow.
Repubs in the House majority opposed, but in the Senate approved, making this program, devised by Paulson, possible.  The true cost has been hidden from the public.  But TARP belongs to Bush.  If you terrify Congress (WMD in Iraq! 
 World wide depression in 2008!), you can get their support for almost anything.

What do we call using terror to make political gains?  Terrorism.

All the following Bush programs were done on borrowed money:  2 wars, tax cuts for the rich, and Tarp (actual cost 2.3 trillion, with 12 trillion in obligations), and the unfunded Medicare drug program.  The wars have cost over a trillion, and will cost much more with debt repayment and VA services for millions of veterans for the next 40-50 yrs.  The tax cuts for the rich have cost half a trillion; Tarp costs are mostly hidden but involve over 2 trillion.  Subsidies to Big Oil and Big Ag, which Republicans refused to consider in the “compromise” on cutting deficits, account for hundreds of billions over the past ten years.  All this is done on borrowed money, so the total cost will be much higher.  Only Bush, in all our history, started wars AND cut taxes.  He had to borrow to fund both.

Congress was told if TARP was not supported, world depression would follow.
Repubs in the House majority opposed, but in the Senate approved, making this program, devised by Paulson, possible.  The true cost has been hidden from the public.  But TARP belongs to Bush.  If you terrify Congress (WMD in Iraq! 
 World wide depression in 2008!), you can get their support for almost anything.

What do we call using terror to make political gains?  Terrorism.

All the following Bush programs were done on borrowed money:  2 wars, tax cuts for the rich, and Tarp (actual cost 2.3 trillion, with 12 trillion in obligations), and the unfunded Medicare drug program.  The wars have cost over a trillion, and will cost much more with debt repayment and VA services for millions of veterans for the next 40-50 yrs.  The tax cuts for the rich have cost half a trillion; Tarp costs are mostly hidden but involve over 2 trillion.  Subsidies to Big Oil and Big Ag, which Republicans refused to consider in the “compromise” on cutting deficits, account for hundreds of billions over the past ten years.  All this is done on borrowed money, so the total cost will be much higher.  Only Bush, in all our history, started wars AND cut taxes.  He had to borrow to fund both.

Congress was told if TARP was not supported, world depression would follow.
Repubs in the House majority opposed, but in the Senate approved, making this program, devised by Paulson, possible.  The true cost has been hidden from the public.  But TARP belongs to Bush.  If you terrify Congress (WMD in Iraq! 
 World wide depression in 2008!), you can get their support for almost anything.

What do we call using terror to make political gains?  Terrorism.

All the following Bush programs were done on borrowed money:  2 wars, tax cuts for the rich, and Tarp (actual cost 2.3 trillion, with 12 trillion in obligations), and the unfunded Medicare drug program.  The wars have cost over a trillion, and will cost much more with debt repayment and VA services for millions of veterans for the next 40-50 yrs.  The tax cuts for the rich have cost half a trillion; Tarp costs are mostly hidden but involve over 2 trillion.  Subsidies to Big Oil and Big Ag, which Republicans refused to consider in the “compromise” on cutting deficits, account for hundreds of billions over the past ten years.  All this is done on borrowed money, so the total cost will be much higher.  Only Bush, in all our history, started wars AND cut taxes.  He had to borrow to fund both.

Congress was told if TARP was not supported, world depression would follow.
Repubs in the House majority opposed, but in the Senate approved, making this program, devised by Paulson, possible.  The true cost has been hidden from the public.  But TARP belongs to Bush.  If you terrify Congress (WMD in Iraq! 
 World wide depression in 2008!), you can get their support for almost anything.

What do we call using terror to make political gains?  Terrorism.

All the following Bush programs were done on borrowed money:  2 wars, tax cuts for the rich, and Tarp (actual cost 2.3 trillion, with 12 trillion in obligations), and the unfunded Medicare drug program.  The wars have cost over a trillion, and will cost much more with debt repayment and VA services for millions of veterans for the next 40-50 yrs.  The tax cuts for the rich have cost half a trillion; Tarp costs are mostly hidden but involve over 2 trillion.  Subsidies to Big Oil and Big Ag, which Republicans refused to consider in the “compromise” on cutting deficits, account for hundreds of billions over the past ten years.  All this is done on borrowed money, so the total cost will be much higher.  Only Bush, in all our history, started wars AND cut taxes.  He had to borrow to fund both.

Congress was told if TARP was not supported, world depression would follow.
Repubs in the House majority opposed, but in the Senate approved, making this program, devised by Paulson, possible.  The true cost has been hidden from the public.  But TARP belongs to Bush.  If you terrify Congress (WMD in Iraq! 
 World wide depression in 2008!), you can get their support for almost anything.

What do we call using terror to make political gains?  Terrorism.

All the following Bush programs were done on borrowed money:  2 wars, tax cuts for the rich, and Tarp (actual cost 2.3 trillion, with 12 trillion in obligations), and the unfunded Medicare drug program.  The wars have cost over a trillion, and will cost much more with debt repayment and VA services for millions of veterans for the next 40-50 yrs.  The tax cuts for the rich have cost half a trillion; Tarp costs are mostly hidden but involve over 2 trillion.  Subsidies to Big Oil and Big Ag, which Republicans refused to consider in the “compromise” on cutting deficits, account for hundreds of billions over the past ten years.  All this is done on borrowed money, so the total cost will be much higher.  Only Bush, in all our history, started wars AND cut taxes.  He had to borrow to fund both.

Congress was told if TARP was not supported, world depression would follow.
Repubs in the House majority opposed, but in the Senate approved, making this program, devised by Paulson, possible.  The true cost has been hidden from the public.  But TARP belongs to Bush.  If you terrify Congress (WMD in Iraq! 
 World wide depression in 2008!), you can get their support for almost anything.

What do we call using terror to make political gains?  Terrorism.

All the following Bush programs were done on borrowed money:  2 wars, tax cuts for the rich, and Tarp (actual cost 2.3 trillion, with 12 trillion in obligations), and the unfunded Medicare drug program.  The wars have cost over a trillion, and will cost much more with debt repayment and VA services for millions of veterans for the next 40-50 yrs.  The tax cuts for the rich have cost half a trillion; Tarp costs are mostly hidden but involve over 2 trillion.  Subsidies to Big Oil and Big Ag, which Republicans refused to consider in the “compromise” on cutting deficits, account for hundreds of billions over the past ten years.  All this is done on borrowed money, so the total cost will be much higher.  Only Bush, in all our history, started wars AND cut taxes.  He had to borrow to fund both.

Congress was told if TARP was not supported, world depression would follow.
Repubs in the House majority opposed, but in the Senate approved, making this program, devised by Paulson, possible.  The true cost has been hidden from the public.  But TARP belongs to Bush.  If you terrify Congress (WMD in Iraq! 
 World wide depression in 2008!), you can get their support for almost anything.

What do we call using terror to make political gains?  Terrorism.

All the following Bush programs were done on borrowed money:  2 wars, tax cuts for the rich, and Tarp (actual cost 2.3 trillion, with 12 trillion in obligations), and the unfunded Medicare drug program.  The wars have cost over a trillion, and will cost much more with debt repayment and VA services for millions of veterans for the next 40-50 yrs.  The tax cuts for the rich have cost half a trillion; Tarp costs are mostly hidden but involve over 2 trillion.  Subsidies to Big Oil and Big Ag, which Republicans refused to consider in the “compromise” on cutting deficits, account for hundreds of billions over the past ten years.  All this is done on borrowed money, so the total cost will be much higher.  Only Bush, in all our history, started wars AND cut taxes.  He had to borrow to fund both.

Congress was told if TARP was not supported, world depression would follow.
Repubs in the House majority opposed, but in the Senate approved, making this program, devised by Paulson, possible.  The true cost has been hidden from the public.  But TARP belongs to Bush.  If you terrify Congress (WMD in Iraq! 
 World wide depression in 2008!), you can get their support for almost anything.

What do we call using terror to make political gains?  Terrorism.

All the following Bush programs were done on borrowed money:  2 wars, tax cuts for the rich, and Tarp (actual cost 2.3 trillion, with 12 trillion in obligations), and the unfunded Medicare drug program.  The wars have cost over a trillion, and will cost much more with debt repayment and VA services for millions of veterans for the next 40-50 yrs.  The tax cuts for the rich have cost half a trillion; Tarp costs are mostly hidden but involve over 2 trillion.  Subsidies to Big Oil and Big Ag, which Republicans refused to consider in the “compromise” on cutting deficits, account for hundreds of billions over the past ten years.  All this is done on borrowed money, so the total cost will be much higher.  Only Bush, in all our history, started wars AND cut taxes.  He had to borrow to fund both.

Congress was told if TARP was not supported, world depression would follow.
Repubs in the House majority opposed, but in the Senate approved, making this program, devised by Paulson, possible.  The true cost has been hidden from the public.  But TARP belongs to Bush.  If you terrify Congress (WMD in Iraq! 
 World wide depression in 2008!), you can get their support for almost anything.

What do we call using terror to make political gains?  Terrorism.

All the following Bush programs were done on borrowed money:  2 wars, tax cuts for the rich, and Tarp (actual cost 2.3 trillion, with 12 trillion in obligations), and the unfunded Medicare drug program.  The wars have cost over a trillion, and will cost much more with debt repayment and VA services for millions of veterans for the next 40-50 yrs.  The tax cuts for the rich have cost half a trillion; Tarp costs are mostly hidden but involve over 2 trillion.  Subsidies to Big Oil and Big Ag, which Republicans refused to consider in the “compromise” on cutting deficits, account for hundreds of billions over the past ten years.  All this is done on borrowed money, so the total cost will be much higher.  Only Bush, in all our history, started wars AND cut taxes.  He had to borrow to fund both.

Congress was told if TARP was not supported, world depression would follow.
Repubs in the House majority opposed, but in the Senate approved, making this program, devised by Paulson, possible.  The true cost has been hidden from the public.  But TARP belongs to Bush.  If you terrify Congress (WMD in Iraq! 
 World wide depression in 2008!), you can get their support for almost anything.

What do we call using terror to make political gains?  Terrorism.

All the following Bush programs were done on borrowed money:  2 wars, tax cuts for the rich, and Tarp (actual cost 2.3 trillion, with 12 trillion in obligations), and the unfunded Medicare drug program.  The wars have cost over a trillion, and will cost much more with debt repayment and VA services for millions of veterans for the next 40-50 yrs.  The tax cuts for the rich have cost half a trillion; Tarp costs are mostly hidden but involve over 2 trillion.  Subsidies to Big Oil and Big Ag, which Republicans refused to consider in the “compromise” on cutting deficits, account for hundreds of billions over the past ten years.  All this is done on borrowed money, so the total cost will be much higher.  Only Bush, in all our history, started wars AND cut taxes.  He had to borrow to fund both.

Congress was told if TARP was not supported, world depression would follow.
Repubs in the House majority opposed, but in the Senate approved, making this program, devised by Paulson, possible.  The true cost has been hidden from the public.  But TARP belongs to Bush.  If you terrify Congress (WMD in Iraq! 
 World wide depression in 2008!), you can get their support for almost anything.

What do we call using terror to make political gains?  Terrorism.

All the following Bush programs were done on borrowed money:  2 wars, tax cuts for the rich, and Tarp (actual cost 2.3 trillion, with 12 trillion in obligations), and the unfunded Medicare drug program.  The wars have cost over a trillion, and will cost much more with debt repayment and VA services for millions of veterans for the next 40-50 yrs.  The tax cuts for the rich have cost half a trillion; Tarp costs are mostly hidden but involve over 2 trillion.  Subsidies to Big Oil and Big Ag, which Republicans refused to consider in the “compromise” on cutting deficits, account for hundreds of billions over the past ten years.  All this is done on borrowed money, so the total cost will be much higher.  Only Bush, in all our history, started wars AND cut taxes.  He had to borrow to fund both.

Congress was told if TARP was not supported, world depression would follow.
Repubs in the House majority opposed, but in the Senate approved, making this program, devised by Paulson, possible.  The true cost has been hidden from the public.  But TARP belongs to Bush.  If you terrify Congress (WMD in Iraq! 
 World wide depression in 2008!), you can get their support for almost anything.

What do we call using terror to make political gains?  Terrorism.

All the following Bush programs were done on borrowed money:  2 wars, tax cuts for the rich, and Tarp (actual cost 2.3 trillion, with 12 trillion in obligations), and the unfunded Medicare drug program.  The wars have cost over a trillion, and will cost much more with debt repayment and VA services for millions of veterans for the next 40-50 yrs.  The tax cuts for the rich have cost half a trillion; Tarp costs are mostly hidden but involve over 2 trillion.  Subsidies to Big Oil and Big Ag, which Republicans refused to consider in the “compromise” on cutting deficits, account for hundreds of billions over the past ten years.  All this is done on borrowed money, so the total cost will be much higher.  Only Bush, in all our history, started wars AND cut taxes.  He had to borrow to fund both.

Congress was told if TARP was not supported, world depression would follow.
Repubs in the House majority opposed, but in the Senate approved, making this program, devised by Paulson, possible.  The true cost has been hidden from the public.  But TARP belongs to Bush.  If you terrify Congress (WMD in Iraq! 
 World wide depression in 2008!), you can get their support for almost anything.

What do we call using terror to make political gains?  Terrorism.

All the following Bush programs were done on borrowed money:  2 wars, tax cuts for the rich, and Tarp (actual cost 2.3 trillion, with 12 trillion in obligations), and the unfunded Medicare drug program.  The wars have cost over a trillion, and will cost much more with debt repayment and VA services for millions of veterans for the next 40-50 yrs.  The tax cuts for the rich have cost half a trillion; Tarp costs are mostly hidden but involve over 2 trillion.  Subsidies to Big Oil and Big Ag, which Republicans refused to consider in the “compromise” on cutting deficits, account for hundreds of billions over the past ten years.  All this is done on borrowed money, so the total cost will be much higher.  Only Bush, in all our history, started wars AND cut taxes.  He had to borrow to fund both.

Congress was told if TARP was not supported, world depression would follow.
Repubs in the House majority opposed, but in the Senate approved, making this program, devised by Paulson, possible.  The true cost has been hidden from the public.  But TARP belongs to Bush.  If you terrify Congress (WMD in Iraq! 
 World wide depression in 2008!), you can get their support for almost anything.

What do we call using terror to make political gains?  Terrorism.

All the following Bush programs were done on borrowed money:  2 wars, tax cuts for the rich, and Tarp (actual cost 2.3 trillion, with 12 trillion in obligations), and the unfunded Medicare drug program.  The wars have cost over a trillion, and will cost much more with debt repayment and VA services for millions of veterans for the next 40-50 yrs.  The tax cuts for the rich have cost half a trillion; Tarp costs are mostly hidden but involve over 2 trillion.  Subsidies to Big Oil and Big Ag, which Republicans refused to consider in the “compromise” on cutting deficits, account for hundreds of billions over the past ten years.  All this is done on borrowed money, so the total cost will be much higher.  Only Bush, in all our history, started wars AND cut taxes.  He had to borrow to fund both.

Congress was told if TARP was not supported, world depression would follow.
Repubs in the House majority opposed, but in the Senate approved, making this program, devised by Paulson, possible.  The true cost has been hidden from the public.  But TARP belongs to Bush.  If you terrify Congress (WMD in Iraq! 
 World wide depression in 2008!), you can get their support for almost anything.

What do we call using terror to make political gains?  Terrorism.

All the following Bush programs were done on borrowed money:  2 wars, tax cuts for the rich, and Tarp (actual cost 2.3 trillion, with 12 trillion in obligations), and the unfunded Medicare drug program.  The wars have cost over a trillion, and will cost much more with debt repayment and VA services for millions of veterans for the next 40-50 yrs.  The tax cuts for the rich have cost half a trillion; Tarp costs are mostly hidden but involve over 2 trillion.  Subsidies to Big Oil and Big Ag, which Republicans refused to consider in the “compromise” on cutting deficits, account for hundreds of billions over the past ten years.  All this is done on borrowed money, so the total cost will be much higher.  Only Bush, in all our history, started wars AND cut taxes.  He had to borrow to fund both.

Congress was told if TARP was not supported, world depression would follow.
Repubs in the House majority opposed, but in the Senate approved, making this program, devised by Paulson, possible.  The true cost has been hidden from the public.  But TARP belongs to Bush.  If you terrify Congress (WMD in Iraq! 
 World wide depression in 2008!), you can get their support for almost anything.

What do we call using terror to make political gains?  Terrorism.

All the following Bush programs were done on borrowed money:  2 wars, tax cuts for the rich, and Tarp (actual cost 2.3 trillion, with 12 trillion in obligations), and the unfunded Medicare drug program.  The wars have cost over a trillion, and will cost much more with debt repayment and VA services for millions of veterans for the next 40-50 yrs.  The tax cuts for the rich have cost half a trillion; Tarp costs are mostly hidden but involve over 2 trillion.  Subsidies to Big Oil and Big Ag, which Republicans refused to consider in the “compromise” on cutting deficits, account for hundreds of billions over the past ten years.  All this is done on borrowed money, so the total cost will be much higher.  Only Bush, in all our history, started wars AND cut taxes.  He had to borrow to fund both.

Congress was told if TARP was not supported, world depression would follow.
Repubs in the House majority opposed, but in the Senate approved, making this program, devised by Paulson, possible.  The true cost has been hidden from the public.  But TARP belongs to Bush.  If you terrify Congress (WMD in Iraq! 
 World wide depression in 2008!), you can get their support for almost anything.

What do we call using terror to make political gains?  Terrorism.

All the following Bush programs were done on borrowed money:  2 wars, tax cuts for the rich, and Tarp (actual cost 2.3 trillion, with 12 trillion in obligations), and the unfunded Medicare drug program.  The wars have cost over a trillion, and will cost much more with debt repayment and VA services for millions of veterans for the next 40-50 yrs.  The tax cuts for the rich have cost half a trillion; Tarp costs are mostly hidden but involve over 2 trillion.  Subsidies to Big Oil and Big Ag, which Republicans refused to consider in the “compromise” on cutting deficits, account for hundreds of billions over the past ten years.  All this is done on borrowed money, so the total cost will be much higher.  Only Bush, in all our history, started wars AND cut taxes.  He had to borrow to fund both.

Congress was told if TARP was not supported, world depression would follow.
Repubs in the House majority opposed, but in the Senate approved, making this program, devised by Paulson, possible.  The true cost has been hidden from the public.  But TARP belongs to Bush.  If you terrify Congress (WMD in Iraq! 
 World wide depression in 2008!), you can get their support for almost anything.

What do we call using terror to make political gains?  Terrorism.

All the following Bush programs were done on borrowed money:  2 wars, tax cuts for the rich, and Tarp (actual cost 2.3 trillion, with 12 trillion in obligations), and the unfunded Medicare drug program.  The wars have cost over a trillion, and will cost much more with debt repayment and VA services for millions of veterans for the next 40-50 yrs.  The tax cuts for the rich have cost half a trillion; Tarp costs are mostly hidden but involve over 2 trillion.  Subsidies to Big Oil and Big Ag, which Republicans refused to consider in the “compromise” on cutting deficits, account for hundreds of billions over the past ten years.  All this is done on borrowed money, so the total cost will be much higher.  Only Bush, in all our history, started wars AND cut taxes.  He had to borrow to fund both.

Congress was told if TARP was not supported, world depression would follow.
Repubs in the House majority opposed, but in the Senate approved, making this program, devised by Paulson, possible.  The true cost has been hidden from the public.  But TARP belongs to Bush.  If you terrify Congress (WMD in Iraq! 
 World wide depression in 2008!), you can get their support for almost anything.

What do we call using terror to make political gains?  Terrorism.

All the following Bush programs were done on borrowed money:  2 wars, tax cuts for the rich, and Tarp (actual cost 2.3 trillion, with 12 trillion in obligations), and the unfunded Medicare drug program.  The wars have cost over a trillion, and will cost much more with debt repayment and VA services for millions of veterans for the next 40-50 yrs.  The tax cuts for the rich have cost half a trillion; Tarp costs are mostly hidden but involve over 2 trillion.  Subsidies to Big Oil and Big Ag, which Republicans refused to consider in the “compromise” on cutting deficits, account for hundreds of billions over the past ten years.  All this is done on borrowed money, so the total cost will be much higher.  Only Bush, in all our history, started wars AND cut taxes.  He had to borrow to fund both.

Congress was told if TARP was not supported, world depression would follow.
Repubs in the House majority opposed, but in the Senate approved, making this program, devised by Paulson, possible.  The true cost has been hidden from the public.  But TARP belongs to Bush.  If you terrify Congress (WMD in Iraq! 
 World wide depression in 2008!), you can get their support for almost anything.

What do we call using terror to make political gains?  Terrorism.

All the following Bush programs were done on borrowed money:  2 wars, tax cuts for the rich, and Tarp (actual cost 2.3 trillion, with 12 trillion in obligations), and the unfunded Medicare drug program.  The wars have cost over a trillion, and will cost much more with debt repayment and VA services for millions of veterans for the next 40-50 yrs.  The tax cuts for the rich have cost half a trillion; Tarp costs are mostly hidden but involve over 2 trillion.  Subsidies to Big Oil and Big Ag, which Republicans refused to consider in the “compromise” on cutting deficits, account for hundreds of billions over the past ten years.  All this is done on borrowed money, so the total cost will be much higher.  Only Bush, in all our history, started wars AND cut taxes.  He had to borrow to fund both.

Congress was told if TARP was not supported, world depression would follow.
Repubs in the House majority opposed, but in the Senate approved, making this program, devised by Paulson, possible.  The true cost has been hidden from the public.  But TARP belongs to Bush.  If you terrify Congress (WMD in Iraq! 
 World wide depression in 2008!), you can get their support for almost anything.

What do we call using terror to make political gains?  Terrorism.

All the following Bush programs were done on borrowed money:  2 wars, tax cuts for the rich, and Tarp (actual cost 2.3 trillion, with 12 trillion in obligations), and the unfunded Medicare drug program.  The wars have cost over a trillion, and will cost much more with debt repayment and VA services for millions of veterans for the next 40-50 yrs.  The tax cuts for the rich have cost half a trillion; Tarp costs are mostly hidden but involve over 2 trillion.  Subsidies to Big Oil and Big Ag, which Republicans refused to consider in the “compromise” on cutting deficits, account for hundreds of billions over the past ten years.  All this is done on borrowed money, so the total cost will be much higher.  Only Bush, in all our history, started wars AND cut taxes.  He had to borrow to fund both.

Congress was told if TARP was not supported, world depression would follow.
Repubs in the House majority opposed, but in the Senate approved, making this program, devised by Paulson, possible.  The true cost has been hidden from the public.  But TARP belongs to Bush.  If you terrify Congress (WMD in Iraq! 
 World wide depression in 2008!), you can get their support for almost anything.

What do we call using terror to make political gains?  Terrorism.

All the following Bush programs were done on borrowed money:  2 wars, tax cuts for the rich, and Tarp (actual cost 2.3 trillion, with 12 trillion in obligations), and the unfunded Medicare drug program.  The wars have cost over a trillion, and will cost much more with debt repayment and VA services for millions of veterans for the next 40-50 yrs.  The tax cuts for the rich have cost half a trillion; Tarp costs are mostly hidden but involve over 2 trillion.  Subsidies to Big Oil and Big Ag, which Republicans refused to consider in the “compromise” on cutting deficits, account for hundreds of billions over the past ten years.  All this is done on borrowed money, so the total cost will be much higher.  Only Bush, in all our history, started wars AND cut taxes.  He had to borrow to fund both.

Congress was told if TARP was not supported, world depression would follow.
Repubs in the House majority opposed, but in the Senate approved, making this program, devised by Paulson, possible.  The true cost has been hidden from the public.  But TARP belongs to Bush.  If you terrify Congress (WMD in Iraq! 
 World wide depression in 2008!), you can get their support for almost anything.

What do we call using terror to make political gains?  Terrorism.

All the following Bush programs were done on borrowed money:  2 wars, tax cuts for the rich, and Tarp (actual cost 2.3 trillion, with 12 trillion in obligations), and the unfunded Medicare drug program.  The wars have cost over a trillion, and will cost much more with debt repayment and VA services for millions of veterans for the next 40-50 yrs.  The tax cuts for the rich have cost half a trillion; Tarp costs are mostly hidden but involve over 2 trillion.  Subsidies to Big Oil and Big Ag, which Republicans refused to consider in the “compromise” on cutting deficits, account for hundreds of billions over the past ten years.  All this is done on borrowed money, so the total cost will be much higher.  Only Bush, in all our history, started wars AND cut taxes.  He had to borrow to fund both.

Congress was told if TARP was not supported, world depression would follow.
Repubs in the House majority opposed, but in the Senate approved, making this program, devised by Paulson, possible.  The true cost has been hidden from the public.  But TARP belongs to Bush.  If you terrify Congress (WMD in Iraq! 
 World wide depression in 2008!), you can get their support for almost anything.

What do we call using terror to make political gains?  Terrorism.

All the following Bush programs were done on borrowed money:  2 wars, tax cuts for the rich, and Tarp (actual cost 2.3 trillion, with 12 trillion in obligations), and the unfunded Medicare drug program.  The wars have cost over a trillion, and will cost much more with debt repayment and VA services for millions of veterans for the next 40-50 yrs.  The tax cuts for the rich have cost half a trillion; Tarp costs are mostly hidden but involve over 2 trillion.  Subsidies to Big Oil and Big Ag, which Republicans refused to consider in the “compromise” on cutting deficits, account for hundreds of billions over the past ten years.  All this is done on borrowed money, so the total cost will be much higher.  Only Bush, in all our history, started wars AND cut taxes.  He had to borrow to fund both.

Congress was told if TARP was not supported, world depression would follow.
Repubs in the House majority opposed, but in the Senate approved, making this program, devised by Paulson, possible.  The true cost has been hidden from the public.  But TARP belongs to Bush.  If you terrify Congress (WMD in Iraq! 
 World wide depression in 2008!), you can get their support for almost anything.

What do we call using terror to make political gains?  Terrorism.

All the following Bush programs were done on borrowed money:  2 wars, tax cuts for the rich, and Tarp (actual cost 2.3 trillion, with 12 trillion in obligations), and the unfunded Medicare drug program.  The wars have cost over a trillion, and will cost much more with debt repayment and VA services for millions of veterans for the next 40-50 yrs.  The tax cuts for the rich have cost half a trillion; Tarp costs are mostly hidden but involve over 2 trillion.  Subsidies to Big Oil and Big Ag, which Republicans refused to consider in the “compromise” on cutting deficits, account for hundreds of billions over the past ten years.  All this is done on borrowed money, so the total cost will be much higher.  Only Bush, in all our history, started wars AND cut taxes.  He had to borrow to fund both.

Congress was told if TARP was not supported, world depression would follow.
Repubs in the House majority opposed, but in the Senate approved, making this program, devised by Paulson, possible.  The true cost has been hidden from the public.  But TARP belongs to Bush.  If you terrify Congress (WMD in Iraq! 
 World wide depression in 2008!), you can get their support for almost anything.

What do we call using terror to make political gains?  Terrorism.

1. The Bush recession was far worse than originally thought
2. Republicans blocked an adequate stimulus: of the 800 billion, only 250 billion was for job creation, the rest for tax cuts (ignored by Tea Party which thinks their taxes went up) and the cost of taking care of the newly unemployed.  And only 80% of the 250 billion has been spent, creating 2.4 million jobs.  If the entire 800 billion had been spent on job creation, it would have created about 7 million jobs and kickstarted a strong recovery, but the Repubs need a bad economy to pin on Obama.  And that is there strategy:  block an effective recovery and job creation.

The recent compromise, with no revenues, will cost over a million jobs.  
I find this sabotage of the economy a violation of the Constitutional mandate to provide…for the general welfare.”  That vow, to defend the Constitution, and not the Grover Norquist pledge not to raise taxes, is the sacred obligation of our leaders.  When they act to hurt economy recovery by blocking job creation and rejecting letting the Bush tax cuts on the top 1% expire, they violate their oath:
this is treason.  

Blaming the CRA is a cop out.  There was no TEa Party to oppose TARP in 2008, it started when Obama was elected.

Yes, repayment of debt for past wars approaches 400 billion a year, and the health costs of veterans spikes 30-40 yrs later.  Thus a mere trillion dollar war grows, over time, to a 4 trillion dollar war.

Only Bush started wars AND cut taxes, meaning both wars and tax cuts were required to be done with borrowed money, shifting the burden to future generations.

Sorry, I just held a BS. However experience trumped credentials when the University needed qualified instructors.  

No, in fact, I’d just as soon we dropped out, sentthem packing to Stockholm, and quit paying to keep it afloat. Their sanctions mean squat.

Maybe now that SCOTUS has ruled, but not since 1989. Allone need do is look at the WI recall elections.

Nah, but have to agree with you NOW. Especially since unions now only make up about 12% of the labor force.

I was against NCLB, Medicare Part “D”, and TARP. I will forgive quite a bit though to a leader who took the necessary steps to insure our security for 8+ years.

I actually like Rep. Pauls take on the Fed, the budget, and a few other bloated Govt. agencies. His defense plank does not fly in the TEA Party, but we do still claim many Libertarians.

I’d most likely repeal obamney care, and any/all aid to any foreign nation that was suspect as to their true friendship. Would also probably cut out that cowboy poetry museum in Vegas. However Defense would have to share the pain. Most likely an immediate 10% cut. That would come out of the USCG budget.

I always did prefer to address root causes. Everything after was just a band-aid or outright attempt to mask the inevitable.

Maybe had the entire 830+ billion gone to stimulate rather than pay off supporters we could have gotten more bang for the buck. barry himself said all those shovel ready projects were not so shovel ready. So, how are UE numbers in those 4 Congressional Districts that received funding but do not exist?  

Not so much improving. If that were the case barry could campaign on all his accomplishments rather than attacks, ridicule, and marginalization of all declared and undeclared GOP candidates.

Not so much improving. If that were the case barry could campaign on all his accomplishments rather than attacks, ridicule, and marginalization of all declared and undeclared GOP candidates.

You mean like President Bush and Secy Powell frightened Congress into entering into the GWOT?  

You mean like President Bush and Secy Powell frightened Congress into entering into the GWOT?  

Jim hasnt given any reasons why he is getting out,and I for one have written and said he’s one of the only ones who have done something and we need such men as this.Im sure I am not alone.I guess we will have to wait and see what he says.He’s the type that needs to be running for President.

Jim hasnt given any reasons why he is getting out,and I for one have written and said he’s one of the only ones who have done something and we need such men as this.Im sure I am not alone.I guess we will have to wait and see what he says.He’s the type that needs to be running for President.

Jim hasnt given any reasons why he is getting out,and I for one have written and said he’s one of the only ones who have done something and we need such men as this.Im sure I am not alone.I guess we will have to wait and see what he says.He’s the type that needs to be running for President.

dude, I thanked you for correcting my typo, and you are still commenting on it. Why? Because it is a smokescreen to avoid admitting you were factually wrong about unions dominating the fundraising scene, according to opensecrets.org.

Duck and run….any more comments on my typo?

and who are we defending ourselves against? the saudi’s honcho’d 911 and are the biggest donor to al queda and they are an ally. the afghans grow and supply the worlds heroin,and we are fighting for them. Pakistan stabs us in the back every chance they get,and they are an ally.Iran is no threat as the jews are right next door,and the next biggest power china,owns us.We better start defending ourselves against american fascism,which feeds off the gap between the rich and the poor that is growing at a rapid pace.Thats what I see as the greatest threat.
”A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has first destroyed itself from within.” Will Durant
and we are well on the way to this my friend.

That’s strange.  Half of the Tea Party reps in congress voted FOR the debt ceiling deal.  The debt ceiling deal was supposed to avoid a downgrade.  It didn’t.  Those of us “little people” who opposed the deal did so on the grounds that it WOULD NOT AVOID A DOWNGRADE.  It seems rather illogical for someone to blame the Tea Party reps for their intransigence which, when all totalled, could not have stopped anything and, indeeed, didn’t stop anything.  We were not dragged to the brink by the tea party.  The tea party was pulling away from the brink.

In light of the Wisconsin recall election held this past Tuesday, I am inclined to agree with Ken.  There will be payback.  Conservatism is on the rise here in America.  If we can win in a blue state like Wisconsin, we can win anywhere.  Prepare for the beat down.

The Tea Party faction was instrumental in blocking a compromise including revenues, lack of which, re S & P, resulted in downgrade.  Had the debt ceiling not been passed, the downgrade would have been worse and the market would be headed into depression.

Blocking a stabilizing plan, like Obama’s 3 T cuts, 1 T revenue) would have avoided the downgrade.  The deal reached tho far better than no deal, is terrible, tho not nearly as terrible as defaulting on loans.  For this the Repubs, esp the Tea Party, are explicitly (according to S&P) responsible.

Yes they were. Pity they capitulated and did not hold out for “Cut, Cap, & Balance”. I really do wish they would have called barry’s bluff. I think he would have eventually caved.  

Yes they were. Pity they capitulated and did not hold out for “Cut, Cap, & Balance”. I really do wish they would have called barry’s bluff. I think he would have eventually caved.  

Yes they were. Pity they capitulated and did not hold out for “Cut, Cap, & Balance”. I really do wish they would have called barry’s bluff. I think he would have eventually caved.  

Ken – Nah, I expect the approval rating to be somewhere ner 25%. However the Vegas odds on winning at 50/50. Vegas is owned by harry reid. Reno odds will be closer to being accurate.

So we agree: corporate money dominates American politics and government.  Years ago, every single state had a law which made the use of Corporate money in politics a crime, punishable by prison.  As corp money is now totally corrupting our politics, it is time to return to the old American concept that corporate money perverts democracy and is criminal.

Corps tend to favor Republicans, but if they suspect a Democrat is going to win, they make sure to send lots of money to the Democrat.  Those who refuse corporate money are almost always unable to complete.  This alone shows how corrupting this legal bribery is to our politics.

If the corps don’t like you (if you don’t do as they wish), they kill you with tons of money in negative ads.  That is how they got rid of Russ Feingold and Alan Grayson.  Recently, they poured tens of millions into the recalls in Wisconsin to support all Republicans, in 6 tiny districts.

This is how they rule.  This form of rule is called plutocracy which quickly becomes kleptocracy.

Yes, the Dems support working people and unions.  But business outspends unions 15-1.  
And business supports Republicans, except when they think Dems are winning, and then they attempt to buy the Dems.

Why would corps agree to end all spending if unions did?   They have much more, spend 15 times more, and they like it that way.  Are you naive?  The only way to end corporation domination of politics is to return to the old laws which prohibit corporation money in politics. 

I would accept ending all union and corp money in politics, but why do you think corps would want to give up their means of controlling elections, buying politicians (of both parties), and so buying special favors, loopholes, subsidies, and monopolies?  

If you had 15 times the weapons (money is not free speech; it is power) that I do, I would gladly
agree to get rid of all weapons, but you would not, of course.  No one gives up power without a struggle.  I can’t believe you suggested  that “Maybe corps should offer a deal to not contribute if unions do it likewise.”  Makes NO sense at all.

Two major successes:  got bin Laden, turned 700K job loss a month under Bush around on a dime, saving the nation from a deep depression.  Corps are making big profits, stocks are up 80% under Obama.  Obama has also almost created as many jobs in first 2 yrs as Bush in 8 yrs.

Saved us from our worst enemy and saved us from deep depression, after inheriting an economic meltdown.  He also gave the largest middle-class tax cut in history, 288 billion as part of Stimulus.  Conservatives hate to admit these 3 major achievements, because they are prejudiced against Obama, and won’t even give the devil his due.

He has also made mistakes, mostly by trying to work with the Republicans.  But you have to grant his accomplishments in a short time, if you are honest.  You got a tax refund; you are safer with bin Laden dead (remember Bush let bin Laden go at Tora Bora and then dissolved the bin Laden unit and said:  I don’t think about it much; he’s irrelevant.  Maybe he had a deal with the bin Laden family, which as bankrolled his father and W.  

Obama turned the job losses around on a dime, a perfect V curve and within 1 yr, stock market had recovered, banks and corps had recovered, and job gains, tho small, were positive.

And you got a tax refund, part of the 288 billion, plus payroll tax holidays.

If you can’t admit these achievements, I have to conclude you are either very stupid, very dishonest, or a racist, who would not credit Obama for anything anyhow.  

Ken…do you think the Repubs won in Wisconsin. They lost 2 seats and the Dems gained 2. The recalls against the Dems both lost. With opponents like you, the Dems will have no trouble throwing out the fake “conservatives” who ran on jobs but switched to spending cuts and stripping collective bargaining rights.

If you lose 2 seats, that is a defeat. And the next day, Walker signaled he understood that, as did Kasich in Ohio. Anyone who understands politics knows that the Republicans have been defeated…you clearly believe losing 2 seats and failing in both recalls is a victory.
Yahoo!

Obama Proposes Cutting $4 Trillion From Deficit in 12 Years (Businessweek).

Claiming a proposal is not proposal is not an argument but a dodge. The Repubs said they would not commpromise on raising revenues…so it was not presented as a bill, as that would be a waste of time with the clock ticking.
Obama made a proposal; Republicans rejected it publicly.
So we got that weird compromise which triggered the credit downgrade, which S&P explicitly blamed on the Repubs. The Obama proposal, if accepted, would have been voted on and kept our triple AAA rating, as per the requirements listed by S&P. These are facts you can easily check.

It’s like the Republican lie that Obama never presented a budget; he did but the Repubs rejected it. The Party of No blocked every effort to deal with the economic situation but it’s strategy is to block recovery and blame it on the Dems for electoral success in 2012.

With ignorant folks like you on their side, they may succeed, but I think the Amrican people have shown, thru the polls, that they blame the Republicans for the downgrade.

The people, by 80%, expressed a desire for a balanced bill with letting tax cuts for the rich expire. 80%!

That is the will of the people, blocked by the Repubs.

Comments are closed.