What a sham the millionaire surtax was. The congressional democrats are all millionaires themselves, and this standpoint was strictly leverage to get other things. They never had the intention of passing it, else they'd see their donor base disappear. It's just a ploy to make the poor and middle class think that democrats cared for them any more than Republicans. It's elitists vs the rest of us, and right now the elitists hold all of the cards and strings. The 99% have no representation.

Actually only 1% of Americans are millionaires but 47% of Congressional members are.

Not very representative of the people they serve.

Cygnus..."The 99% have no representation."

That is what so many on both sides fail to see. We have a representative republic. We democratically elect our representatives, but in the end, they represent special interest, not the 99% that elected them. We get a few bones tossed to us in an attempt to make us think they care about us and are doing something for us. Why do they represent the special interest? Because they are the ones throwing money at "our" representatives.

Bottom line.

Democrats want to keep up their big spending ways with no real cuts in spending, with tax increases on the 'rich' to pay for it.

Republicans want to limit spending increases, especially on those programs that have increased dramatically in recent years and avoid tax increases that most economists say will hurt the economic recovery.

I guess we'll have to see which view 'plays' better with the voters in 2012.

The candidate that spends the most money wins the election 94% of the time.

Get money out of politics !!

Come to think of it, it makes good show but in reality why tax yourself? Anybody got that number for the China loan office handy?

ROY,

“Democrats want to keep up their big spending ways with no real cuts in spending”

Yet the Republican controlled House just passed a spending bill that adds to the deficit.

Try again !!

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio "The candidate that spends the most money wins the election 94% of the time."

That's scary because Obama is having fundraisers all the time and expects to have over $1 Billion to spend in 2012.

Of course Meg Whitman spent far more than Jerry Brown for Governor in California, but still lost.

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio "ROY, Yet the Republican controlled House just passed a spending bill that adds to the deficit."

I wonder how much bigger the Deficit would have been if the Republicans hadn't blocked much of the extravagant spending increases sought by the Democrats?

Try again !!

Bottom line__— Democrats and Republicans both want to cut spending and taxing. The issue is who should get taxed and what should get cut. I say cut the military, corporate subsidies, corporate welfare, stop sending billions of tax payer's dollars to the bankers for bonuses and tax the super rich more (after all if you have 50 million and pay another million in tax it won't even be noticed). Of course there is another way instead of taxing them, give them a choice spend or be taxed. Spending stimulates the economy and creates more jobs than any super rich tax cut. I must be pegged as a Democrat. Others who want to give the super rich more tax breaks, tax the middle class more and remove any tax breaks for the working class and shift most taxes back to the local poor like sales tax and property tax, want a huge military, borrow money to pay for the super rich tax breaks, spend any surplus money in the budget down and create a deficit and complain about the poor not working hard to make as much money as they inherited are pegged as Republicans.

Dennis, Columbus

Good to see you here. We have all come to see that we can not continue to spend and at the same time continue to give out more and more tax cuts. A balanced approach is needed by balanced I mean to be realistic, everyone's taxes must go up, the top 1% the 99%. Those unemployed or at the poverty line no new taxes, everyone else must pay as we go.

Get rid of the Bush/Obama tax cuts for everyone. It will reduce the deficit by $70 billion for the rich and $400 billion for the rest of us (annually). Use half of that to reduce the deficit, use the other half to provide unemployment insurance and to provide, yes I will say it a true stimulus of infrastructure improvements instead of the original tax cut laden stimulus.

Continue to fund social security by reinstating the full percentage witholding from everyone's paycheck. I believe in Social security lets not weaken it for the long run for the short term.

It would be nice if people would define what they mean when they use the term 'Millionaire'.

It could mean a person who has 'accumulated' more than $1 Million (through savings, investments or inheritance), or it could mean a person that has 'income' of more than $1 Million in a year. There are far more people who have accumulated a $Million or more than those who have income of a $Million or more per year, but income tax rates only apply to people who have 'income' of a $Million or more.

There are many people who have accumulated a $Million or more butt pay no income taxes at all because they do not have any 'taxable' income. In the last few years, there are many in this category because of taxable losses they have incurred that might offset other income.

You all can blame one or the other party all you want, but when it comes down to it, both are equally to blame. All you get lobbyists, corporations, insider trading, and special interests out of politcis, along with installing term limits, neither side will change. Because in the end, we are voting in red blooded humans that will give into greed and power. Our politicians are the same as generational welfare reciepents, drug users, illegal aliens, etc. Until you take the incentive away from them, until you take away the cause of the desease, you won't get the cure.

Yellowdog-Mark D "Get rid of the Bush/Obama tax cuts for everyone. It will reduce the deficit by $70 billion for the rich and $400 billion for the rest of us. Continue to fund social security by reinstating the full percentage witholding from everyone's paycheck."

Amen to that. Everyone says that 'we all need to sacrifice' to get our Debt under control, but nobody wants THEIR taxes to go up. Most people say that the tax rates under Clinton were 'fair', so let's just let all of the Bush tax cuts expire as scheduled at the end of 2012, and we'll have a $4 Trillion reduction in the Deficits over 10 years (no action by the President or Congress needed). And then if we cut spending by an equivalent amount ($1 in reduced spending for each $1 in tax increases), we'll have an $8 Trillion reduction in the Deficit, and we'll get back on a sound financial footing and avoid the Debt spiraling out of control - like now.

That's it...I'm done voting. You can't elect one of these GOP numbskulls and now the Dems have turned into complete wusses. This "cave" goes against everything the President has been saying for weeks. What bullpuckies. No one deserves my vote.

Do you really think Congress and the administration are going to fold up and go home in 2012 because no one votes?

So far the democrates have stood up for nothing at all....lots of meaningless talk and bluster....but no backbone at all. Both party's are protecting themselves at all cost..except that of the middle class who are fast becoming the new proverty folks by the millions..what a happy country we have become..caring more for those in other country's and for politicans, themselves and their wealthy friends, than the middle class of people that have carried this country to greatness ...to be shot down by the greed of the few. I have to wonder just what would happen if no one showed up to vote for the trash we have in congress today ? Would we as a counrty be any worse off ?

Once again I’m about to faced with the choice of voting for:

A. Republicans that care only about the fabulously rich and are hell bent on sticking it to the rest of us or

B. Democrats that, in principle, share my values but constantly show their lack of backbone by giving in to the republicans at every opportunity.

So, in 2012 – like every other recent election – I must choose between someone that votes against my values because he cares only about the obscenely rich or someone that votes against my values because he cares more about being re-elected than he does about standing up for what he believes in.

Members of my family have fought in every single war in this nation’s history. Is *THIS* what they fought and died for?

Roy Wilson,

Perhaps I've seen you at First Read, anyway I am a liberal but do belive in some fiscal issues. I can agree to some amount of taxes reform but I don't believe that tax cuts create jobs. I remember some partisans complained about removing deductions for 2nd or vacation homes. There are too many tax loopholes.

Four years ago I could itemize because of the amount I paid to house tax interest, now getting closer to paying of my house so I haven't been able to itemize for quite a while. Taxes keep going up, but am employed and have a good job. Last time I received a refund was when Bush sent checks out. I saved it or paid off debt.

I can agree to that, let them expire in 2012. Believe me I'm no martry, I don't want my taxes to go up but that is what shared sacrifice is about.

Mark,

Good to see you here also. If we want to actually move our country in a positive direction there must be a balanced approach for controlling our spending and paying down our debt.

Yellowdog-Mark D

The beauty of letting all of the Bush tax cuts expire is that it requires that the President and Congress DO NOTHING AT ALL - Something they're quite good at these days.

Cutting spending is the hard part, because both parties have their own 'pet projects', but since we just left Iraq, we should just use those savings (I saw a figure that claimed we spent $10 Billion a month there, but I doubt it) to further reduce the Deficit - That could be $120 Billion per year or $1.2 Trillion over 10 years. I'm sure there is plenty of fat in the Pentagon budget.

The REAL problem is 'Entitlements'. If you look at Obama's 2012 Budget projections, the total Deficits in the Medicare, Medical and Social Security programs account for ALL of the Deficits over the next ten years - AND THEN SOME. These programs have more than a $8.5 Trillion Deficit between now and 2021. Either we need to fully fund these programs with payroll tax increases or we need to cut expenditures (or a combination of both).

PS - I'm a social moderate but a financial conservative who also happens to believe in universal health acre for all Americans, paid for with a combination of business payroll taxes (employer only) and a National Sales tax.

Yeah, all those tax cuts for the wealthy had absolutely no effect whatsoever...

Roy Wilson : you said " I'm a social moderate but a financial conservative who also happens to believe in universal health acre for all Americans, paid for with a combination of business payroll taxes (employer only) and a National Sales tax"

Universal health care sounds great, but quality usually takes a hit, and administration becomes difficult. Why should only employers pay into a health care system. Why not everyone? National sales tax is not a good idea. First it is a huge burden on the poor and lower income levels and having it would require an even bigger government to administer it. And it would surely increase yearly as it would be an easy target for politicians who want to raise money. Don't forget it would increase the cost of living for every person and drive inflation. No thank you.

Republicans are the problem in government, huh?

REMEMBER JANUARY 3, 2007

The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.

The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:
January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:

The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!

Remember that day...
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney ) for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment...to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie -starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy). Barney blocked it and called it a "Chicken Little Philosophy" (and the sky did fall!)

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
OBAMA and the Democrat Congress, especially BARNEY!!!!

So when someone tries to blame Bush...
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"

Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving the economy into the ditch.

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is "I inherited a deficit that I voted for,
And then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th."

Republicans controlled the House from the start of 95 to the end of 06 (12 years) also the Senate for 10 of those same 12 years (except 01-02) and did nothing about Fanny and Freddie.

How dare they point at the Democrats for the failure of that institution !!!

Dennis, Columbus and Roy Wilson,

A balanced approach I agree.

Roy your idea about the savings from ending hostilities in Iraq and Afganistan is something I think we all can agree with. Whether it is $10 billion a month or whatever, surely some of that can be used to decrease the deficit or (I'll lose you here), put that money into green energy, an improved electric grid, or infrastructure repair.

Entitlements is a tricky business, that is why I don't want SS exacerbated by the payroll tax. As a democrat providing solutions are hard. Social security recipients may have to eventually wait a few additional months 6 to 8 depenedent on age before they can start to claim full funds. I think that was part of the Bowles Simpson plan, perhaps there are exceptions for those below a certain income level.

Medicare is the real problem – the only fix is Medicare for all and no one can say how effective that would be in the long term but it is the best known fix as of now.

Social Security can be fixed easier with minor adjustments. Raise the contribution limit to at least 150k – and perhaps tie the upper limit to adjust with inflation. Slowly increase the retirement age for both early and full retirement. And lastly increase the tax rate by 0.3% for employees and employers then SS will be good for at least 75 additional years.

Dennis, you have all the answers. Perhaps you should run for the House or Senate.

Why shouldn't they point a finger at those two institutions you mentioned? Are you in agreement with the fact the leaders received a great golden parachute for their efforts in dragging down millions of homeowners after the new regulations imposed by Barney and Dodd.

When did the majority of bad loans begin - with Barney and Dodd and the progressive movement to have people, many which couldn't obtain financing, receive funding for properties above their ability to repay. Shortly there will be a hearing in Congress on this issue, and one person in the know will be testifying about the way mortgage brokers were told how to score applicants to obtain funding. It will be interesting to see the results of this investigation. Who will be vilified?

Medicare for all would be good in the long run because of the influx of money. All the money we now pay to insurance companies would now go to medicare. We know that the insurance companies pay the execs exorbitant amounts in salary plus all the bonuses but with medicare there should be none of that and all those millions would actually go to peoples care.

Winemaker,

You are just a tired, old rereg thus anything you have to say is worthless.

Andie,

Good point !!

Dennis,

Your arguments are flawed, they suck...just like Ohio St.

Roanoke,

Any proof that they are flawed?

Any alternatives you would like to offer?

Nothing perfect about Ohio State but their Football team made it to 3 BCS National title games in the last 10 years.

What has happened to the moderate Republicans that we use to respect? Today such figures as Ronald Regan and John Warner would be thrown out of the Republican Party as being too moderate.

The current Republicans /Tea Baggers, who are being propped up by the likes of such groups like the Koch Brothers, have one agenda and that is to see President Obama fail. They are rabid in trying to obtain that goal, without considering the consequences to the United States and our citizens. They block and stall progress in an effort to make President Obama a one term President, no matter the cost to the nation.

Yeah, European-style socialism just isn't what we want, Job1. Speaking of jobs, do you actually have one, or do the rich owe you a living too...?

Dennis, I am ALL over this thread. So, no need to ask my proof. Just scroll up or down, and you will find many points I have listed all over this thread. Maybe you selectively missed them...

The Ohio St comment was just simply playing off your previous post, in which you dismiss what another poster says because "anything they say is worthless." I was merely feeding your sarcasm back to you.

"No more show votes," Boehner said after praising earlier remarks by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., that lingering disagreements on a mammoth spending bill could be easily resolved. "It's just time to legislate."

Does Boehner really mean this or is it just for show? After all, since the majority of Americans support an end to the wars, fair taxation of the rich, as well as the extension of the payroll tax holiday and unemployment assistance, might it be that taking positions simply to hurt the president is becoming suicidal?

ROY WILSON-336103 -- Don't you have anything better to do? Which are you on, Social Security or SS Disability, or both?

Roanoke1 -- You may be "all over this thread" but what you really need to do is a little independent, critical thinking. Parroting right-wing squawking points like "European-style socialism" is a hoot.

Steve-3200687 "Roy Wilson : Universal health care sounds great, but quality usually takes a hit, and administration becomes difficult. Why should only employers pay into a health care system. Why not everyone?"

No offense, but your logic escapes me. On the one hand you ask "Why should only employers pay into a health care system", and then, on the other hand, you object to a national sales tax, which would ensure that everyone DOES help pay for it. But I will attempt to explain my reasons anyway.

Employers currently pay for about 75% of health insurance premiums now anyway (about 85% - 90%) of people get health insurance through work), so having them pay 50% into a Universal health plan through payroll taxes would actually lower their costs and encourage job creation. The remaining cost of Universal health care would be paid through a national sales tax (excluding food and medicine), which I estimate would result in a sales tax of about 6%. This way we create both an incentive to hire more workers and also have the people that use the system help pay for it.

With regard to the government 'controlling' Universal health care, I would NEVER suggest that the government control health care - it would be a disaster, just like Medicare and Social Security (combined 'Unfunded Liability' of over $100 TRILLION). I would have the government set a universal minimum 'Standard of Care' for everyone, and then let private insurance companies compete nationally for the business. That's the way that the most successful systems in the World do it (France, Taiwan, etc.), and it encourages competition and prevents 'unfunded liabilities' getting out of control. A necessary component would be tort reform (sorry greedy lawyers). If some people want 'Cadillac Coverage' as a supplement, they can pay for the extra cost out of pocket.

Yellowdog, Columbus and Roy, The three of you make more sense then anything I've heard from Washington.

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio "Republicans controlled the House from the start of 95 to the end of 06 (12 years) also the Senate for 10 of those same 12 years (except 01-02) and did nothing about Fanny and Freddie. How dare they point at the Democrats for the failure of that institution !!!"

Fannie & Freddie were doing fine until about 2004, when they started allowing loans with little or no Down Payment to unqualified people. That's when it housing bubble got out of hand. As for who was responsible, consider this well documented chronology;

For those who want to blame the Bush Administration for lack of concern over the Sub-Prime mortgage crisis until it was too late, consider this:

2001 April (Only 3 months after Bush took office): The Bush Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE (Government Sponsored Enterprise) could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

2002 May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003 February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.

2003 September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

2003 September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)

2003 October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)

2003 November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004 February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore … should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

2004 February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

2004 April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)

2004 June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005 April: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

2005 July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)

2007 August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)

2007 August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times, 8/11/07)

2007 December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)

2008 February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

2008 March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

2008 April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

2008 May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further. "Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

2008 June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

2008 July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

2008 September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08)

Congress had for years blocked attempts at stronger regulation and blocked reform of the Federal Housing Administration.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized the President's warning saying: "these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis ... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)

President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems. Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.

Political contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac overwhelmingly supported Democratic officials - in particular members of Democratic leadership:

Since 1989, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) has received $165,400 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)

Since 1989, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has received $77,000 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)

Since 1989, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has received $56,250 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio "Medicare is the real problem......Social Security can be fixed"

We can agree on that. I reviewed Obama's 2012 Budget projections (2012 - 2021) and here are the results;

Total projected Revenues for Medicare/Medicaid over the next 10 years = $2.730 Trillion.
Total projected Costs for Medicare/Medicaid over the next 10 years = $10.530 Trillion.
That's a net Deficit in just the Medicare/Medicaid programs of $7.790 Trillion.

Just for comparison, the TOTAL projected Deficit for those 10 years is $7.2 Trillion, so if it were not for the Deficit in Medicare/Medicaid, we would actually have a Budget SURPLUS of over $500 Billion.

TruePatriot-445959 "Roy Wilson-- Don't you have anything better to do?"

Why - do I bother you?

Thanks for the laugh.

winemaker-4308406

Don't confuse them with actual FACTS, their minds are already made up, and it just causes them to have indigestion - prompting them to call you names because of a lack of ability to offer logical counter-arguments.

TruePatriot,

I'm sorry that you do not understand what European-style socialism is. You should recognize it, it's all around you. Let me know if you need me to explain, rather than just deflecting and accusing me of only 'parroting talking points.' LOL. This is the usual liberal tactic when you don't really have a decent counter argument, just insult, deflect, and accuse. LOL! Good stuff, keep it coming...

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

Winemaker,

You are just a tired, old rereg thus anything you have to say is worthless.

Dennis, do I understand you to mean that anyone removed from the site is worthless? Are you the blog censor, or do you just, as I understand you do, monitor the comments and connections for those liberal friends you have on this site.

From someone else who lurks this site, I heard you often attempt to censor people by using your connections with the MSNBC moderators. One person did have his site compromised, receiving confirmation from another person about her reading his account. His software did find the breakin address and it has been discussed with the FCC investigators. If it is you, I believe you have violated several laws regarding this.

But anyway, government is a perception of how the people would like it to run. I do feel that no matter how your liberal progressive friends try to spin it, the nation has begun to regret this hope and change president that the liberal media created. But time will tell and this should be a great negative campaign by the Bamster.

mad russian,

Interesting comment about the liberals of this site providing cyber attacks on those who disagree with their points of view. If true, a naughty attempt to control the content on MSNBC.

I have no issue debating a point, but these libbies do seem to have a problem when they can't formulate a response to a true point of view, with solid information to show they are not correct in their statement.

Roy Wilson, I could have saved you a good case of writers cramp(more likely copy and paste syndrome from your slanted gop websites) with three words that factually state why the world collapse occurred. Graham, Bliley, Leach. If it wasn't for that disaster of a gop sponsered bill repealing Glass/Steagall we wouldn't even be having this discussion. And yes, Clinton signed that piece of garbage into law. But give it a break, nobody buys those huge cut and paste posts full of your bs anyway. I wish I had a quarter of that much time on my hands..........enjoy your debate tonight.

we began to see our nation shift toward the Right as our debt began to grow after 4 decades of reducing it following WWII

Yet it has been the right wingers who have added teh most to our national debt. Reagan tripled the debt, and Bush the Younger doubled it again after that.

To all progressive that wonder why democrats are caving in to republicans all the time, take a moment and think about it. There are two possible explanations: 1. They are, as you say, a bunch of spineless SOB's. 2. They can read the polls just as well as republicans.

Which do you think is more likely? Personally I'd place my bet on 2. If you take the time to ignore the leftist propaganda and actually look at the results of the last five years you just might agree. How else do you explain last Nov?

The president is just a figurehead. He merely signs or vetos legislation, depending upon the makeup of Congress. Over the last 50 DEMOCRATS have controlled Congress for the majority of the time. In fact, over the last 44 years, Republicans have had control of the House and Senate at the same time ONLY ONCE. That was under Bill Clinton, and look what happened with a Senate and House controlled by Republicans. They forced Clinton to work with them, he had no choice, he even uttered the phrase "the era of big government is over." Out of that, came the ONLY time we have a balanced budget and a real surplus. So, you see, the history you speak of actually reflects incredibly poorly on Democrats, since they have controlled Congress for a much longer period of time....and....here we are. Thanks Dems!

Sorry, I should have said "over the last 50 YEARS, not democrats.."

G-Man-804405 "Roy Wilson, enjoy your debate tonight."

I haven't watched any yet, so I won't start tonight. I have better things to do.

What kind of businessmen would argue over the need to keep their company operating.

How stupid do you have to be to buy into the nonsense that Boehner and the fiscally irresponsible GOP are shilling?

Do those idiots really think we would be better off with NO government? Anarchist fiends!

There are two possible explanations: 1. They are, as you say, a bunch of spineless SOB's.

That's my take on it. They're not all SOBs, but they do seem to be spineless.

Common,

No, you are certainly right. Just look at what our wonderful government has given us? Good stuff, eh? Everyone is so happy and prosperous.

Again, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Democrats have controlled Congress and at least 2/3 of our government SINCE 2008. And just look where we are. No, you and everyone else who were hoodwinked by Obama are the stupid ones. Thanks guys. Socialist fiends!

Roanoke1 - You apparently have no clue what socialism is or isn't. Name one "European Socialist" country. Not UK, although they are closer than most. Not France. Not Spain. Not Germany. Not Switzerland. Not Italy. What most European countries are is called a "welfare state". In none of those countries does the government 'own the means of production".

Second, Democrats control nothing in congress. Due to the fact that the Republicans in the Senate will filibuster anything and everything, the Democratic party has no ability to force the outcome of legislation in the Senate. And before the 2010 election they didn't then either. Mr. Lieberman from Connecticut and Mr. Nelson from Nebraska made sure of that.

You, like most ideologues on both sides, oversimplify reality to fit your ideology.

No,

Socialiasm involves the forced equality of every citizen under a nation's government. Some examples.

"Definition: socialism as "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."

Obama’s socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the “champions” of “Chicago’s democratic left” and a long-time socialist activist. Obama’s stint as a “community organizer” in Chicago has gotten some attention, but his relationship with the DSA socialists, who groomed and backed him, has been generally ignored." Source: Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in the Media "In its broadest sense, democratic socialism could refer to any attempts to bring about socialism through democratic means as opposed to violent insurrection." Source: Wikipedia

The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."
- Michelle Obama

So we're going to provide a $4,000 tuition credit, every student, every year, but, students, you're going to have to give back something in return. You're going to have to participate in community service. You're going to have to work in a homeless shelter, or a veteran's home, or an underserved school, or join the Peace Corps." - Barack Obama----Socializing higher education

We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," - Barack Obama

"I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets." - Barack Obama (Dreams of My Father)

Political discussions, the kind at Occidental had once seemed so intense and purposeful, came to take on the flavor of the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union" - Barack Obama (Dreams of My Father)

Commentary on Barack Obama's Economic Policies - "Among other things, he is concerned about the "winner-take-all" economy where, he says, "the gains from economic growth skew heavily toward the wealthy." Actually, the gains from economic growth can skew toward anyone willing to work hard and make personal and family decisions that improve their chances for success. This is boilerplate wealth redistribution, an economic philosophy at the center of the former Soviet Union. Obama and Democrats wish to embrace it now in order to make more people dependent on government, rather than encourage people to rely on themselves and the opportunity America offers to most citizens, even illegal aliens. Guaranteed equal outcome is socialism. America was built on and sustained by a "can do" spirit. Today, too many are taught a "can't do" spirit. They are told that because of factors over which they have no control -- race, class, poverty -- it is impossible for them to do anything for themselves and so they must increasingly rely on government. Government doesn't cure poverty." Source: Cal Thomas via pressdemocrat

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project, most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it." - Ronald Reagan

"At some point Joe, we are going to have to spread the wealth around." Obama speaking to Joe the Plumber

France, Germany, Switz, Italy, are welfare states BECAUSE THEY EMPLOY ECONOMIC SOCIALISM. ALL those countries have Socialist Parties that are active in goverment, and European-style socialism, such as socialized medicine and a more "fair" economic policy have helped lead many of these countries to where they are today.

Democrats have controlled at least 2/3 of Congress in U.S. since 2008. THEY HAD A FILIBUSTER PROOF SUPERMAJORITY FOR THE FIRST 6 MONTHS of OBAMA'S TERM (still no budget). You can spin it all you want, you are simply boxing with the wind..and you look silly doing it.

Hillary would have been the best choice for President in 2008 - She also got more Democratic Primary votes than Obama did, but the 'establishment' was more enamored with the prospect of 'the first Black President' than 'the first Female President'.

What a disaster that has become.

I hope Hilary runs in 2016.

Very disapointed with Dems. Have a g-d backbone already. And Roy, Obama has a 2.1Trillion reduction already locked in becuase the parties could not work together. He also wanted a 4 Trillion cut but now the repubs want to go back on that.

I guess you failed to mention that. I'm sure its was an oversight and not really an attempt to paint half the picture.

Has Obama EVER threatened a veto and followed through? Not that I can recall. One disappointment after another with the Democrats.

Don't know if Obama has ever vetoed anything but I am Highy Pissed Off at this bit of news! Why the hell are we abandoning the Millionaire surtax....because the friggin' democrats in office don't have a backbone...This sure as hell isn't helping President Obama any...I am currently rethinking whether I should continue to vote Democrat or go Independent. The democrats Must Stop this caving in to the DO NOTHING CONGRESS!

Your post is totally disconnected from logic. The term "millionaire" refers to ACCUMULATED NET WORTH. Income taxes in our country are based upon, duh ..... income ! These terms are different and the lack of common-sense understanding simply proves that many liberals have bought into the class warfare of "taxing millionaires".

People with modest incomes can become, and have become millionaires, because they live within their incomes and plan for the future. Our country would be wise to follow such a practice and significantly reduce spending as a way of reducing these massive, ever-growing trillion dollar ++ annual deficits.

Actually, President Obama has vetoes 2 bills. President W. Bush vetoes 11 bills and 3 were overwritten by Congress.

Umm....Obama has only been in office for 3 years. Nice try on using data from ALL 8 years of Bush's term. Geeeez...

Facts are facts. However, with 5 years left to serve, I'm sure President Obama will add a few more.

LOL!! Five years, not with dismal approval ratings like his!!! Keep living with your head in the sand!!

Nope, he is a Great President and he will win re-election.

FAIL. LOL!!

Obama 2012

Hail Hussein.

Again guys, are democrats and Obama spineless or do they get the same polls republicans do. In Clintons day they took on the 2nd amendment and suffered immensely. In Obama's time they took on health care and suffered immensely. Do you see the pattern here? Democrats have a history of overreaching, then they have to back off.

Clinton was a pragmatic and made a hard right turn after he lost congress, passing welfare reform and NAFTA. Unfortunately Obama is an ideologue so he must be dragged kicking and screaming toward the center. You can bet that if he changed his mind it wasn't because he was spineless. Anyone who would force Obamacare down our throats despite over two to one voter resistance is NOT spineless.

p111,

Gun regulation is unpopular, partly because no one has ever offered sensible reguation, and partly because people fear that one type of regulation will inexorably lead to another (worse) type. Right now guns are over-regulated in many ways, and probably under-regulated in more sensible ways. Don't hold yur breath waiting for meaningful changes either way, though, because it ain't gonna happen any time soon.

Health care reform, though vitally needed, is unpopular with some mainly because of the lies told by Republican politicians and drug addicted, college drop out, opinion shapers (plus guys like Michael Weiner, who actually has several degrees in things like basket weaving).

The main objection to national health care reform is that the law would require nearly all Americans to "do the right thing" by paying for health care insurance sold by private enterprise. Those who object are basically saying that the average middle class family should pay for a bunch of deadbeats who game the system by not having insurance and not paying their medical bills.

Those leeches (and the people who use them as a weapon against national health care reform) also lack backbone, but it's a different kind of backbone. The kind of backbone that means moral character, as opposed to mere courage.

No, its called a backbone based on the constitution (which I imagine you have never read), in which private citizens cannot be forced to participate in commerce against their will (and in Obamacare's case, or be fined). It is a philosophical difference. Yet, you libs always come up with reasons that pull on the strings of the heart in regards for a 'good' reason to trample the constitution. Good stuff. Republicans are not against healthcare reform, in lieu of your lies. This just shows that you have never even bothered to research the opinions on any prominent Republican and their stance on healthcare. What Repubs have is an issue with THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE. They also do not like the fact that the BILL WAS NEVER READ, hence Pelosi saying "we have to pass the bill to find out what is in it." LOL!!! Plus, it was passed with backroom shady deals orchestrated by Obama who had to buy votes from his own party members who were initially against Obamacare (see Cornhusker kickback, Louisiana Purchase, and the Sestak 7). It was then rammed through on strict party lines through budget reconciliation. LOL!!!

Speaking of 'Weiner's', I wonder what kind of degrees Democrat Anthony Wiener had? Photography? Lol. Fashion? Lol. Media Studies? Communications? LOL! He probably should have taken a class or two on how "not to destroy one's career."

Please depart your wisdom on us how one party is ruining the middleclass.

Democrats are quickly becoming the cave in party

You can always vote Republican they dont cave.

Brenda..."Just once I would like to see my party stand up for itself..." It's funny, when the Republicans do that very thing and refuse to compromise, they're labeled the "party of no" and called partisan.

"Democrats are quickly becoming the cave in party." Funny again, because when the Republicans don't "cave" they're said to be "obstructionist" and partisan.

I may be wrong, but it sounds like you think everyone should do what the Democrats want all the time.

The demos are liberals hiding behind their party which doesn't exist anymore!

They are nothing but a bunch of corrput big union big government controlling

progressive liberals! they see the public is on to their agenda now and don't

like what they see Obombo and them have done to America and freedom! This

is typical but of course they blame republicans even though they never passed a

budget but they passed Obombocare which was a complete fraud and lie on the

american people and bailouts and stimulus that went to Obombo and demos's

big union and wall street supporters! they tried killing the energy and oil companies

with regulations to push GREEN energy that is expensive and doesn't freakin work!

look how many freakin' commericals for Green energy and cars on PSMNBC and the

other liberal networks! i turn them off! i'm sick of them forcing this crap down our throats!

i have a big gas guzzling GMC and i'm gonna keep driving it until it falls apart! can't wait

for Obombo to get booted out of the white house i will be jumping up and down like all

those idiots who said 'he's gonna give me obombo money' !!!!

The problem lies with us, folks. I've elected a representative who's platform most closely represented the agenda that I agree with. I DO NOT expect him to vote differently than he had told me he would. However, you have elected a representative that most closely mirrors your views...and you don't want him to compromise, either. Maybe we need to start working together on a community level, and the rest will follow.

Also, on a side note to Erven Cohen.. I consider myself to be a right leaning conservative. Regardless of whom I voted for in the last election, President Obama is in fact the President of our United States. His name is not "Obomo" or Obumo". It is a matter of principal, as an American, to refer to the President of the United States of America with respect. If you will not respect the institution of America, it will never be as great as it once was.

I agree Silent, "It is a matter of principal, as an American, to refer to the President of the United States of America with respect." But understand why Erven doesn't give that respect. Pres. Bush didn't get it from the dems/libs so now Pres. Obama doesn't get it from the reps/cons.

"We have met the enemy and he is us." --Pogo

Four out of five Americans realize that Congress is doing an awful job, but most still like their own Representative.

Then again, most Americans don't even bother to vote.

Make gerrymandering illegal, allow people to vote in BOTH primaries, and have the President elected by popular vote, and you will see voter turnout SOAR and fewer lunatics of EITHER extreme elected.

But understand why Erven doesn't give that respect. Pres. Bush didn't get it...

Baloney.

Excuses, excuses.

Bank robbers always say, "but everybody else is doing it", when, in fact, very few people actually rob banks.

Baloney? Really? Bush got respect from the Democrats and the media?? Really?? LoL!! Did you live in the U.S. during Bush's 8 years as president??? Wow.

Excuses??? Really? Excuses as in blaming Bush for nearly the entirety of one's full term in office? Excuses as in never accepting responsiblity for one's own actions or policies, and still blaming Bush when your term as president is nearly over?? Heck yeah, you know all about excuses...

The majority of people that are for more taxes are for taxes on somebody other than themselves. Half the people do not pay any tax at all so sure they want to raise someone elses taxes so they can continue to suck our society dry. Unfortunately you aren't smart enough to realize that eventually the parasite kills the host and the party is over. Old lady I bet you are part of the entitlement class that has been enslaved by the democrats. Leave the plantation and get back your self respect.

Mr.Skippy those people do not pay federal income taxes because they do not make enough to reach the threshold set by the tax code to pay. Remember that a lot of these people are working!!! Which means they pay into the system with every paycheck just like the rest of us do!!!

Do you get that? Half the people are at or below the poverty level. That is where your outrage should be!!! In this great country of ours there are people living in poverty!!! In these United States of America the richest country in the world there are people going hungry!! But you are upset that those people don't pay federal taxes. Gee, your priorities are in the right place (sarcasm).

I am sure that most of those people would be happy to have a job that pays them enough for them to qualify to pay taxes.

Yeah they pay into the system AND THEN GET MONEY BACK AT THE END OF EVERY YEAR IN THE FORM OF A REFUND!! DONT YOU GET THAT?

The language of the word "POOR" has been hijacked by liberals to garner favor with citizens in an attempt to gain favor on legislation. This is an age-old liberal tactic. I ask this of Dems all the time: SHOW ME PICTURES OF STARVING KIDS IN AMERICA. SHOW ME NEWS STORIES OF ADULTS THAT HAVE DIED FROM STARVATION IN AMERICA. YOU CANNOT, BECAUSE THEY DO NOT EXIST. That is why the most recent study by the Census Bureau says that alot of "poor" families own their own car, own widescreen TVs and cable televison, own PS3s and Xbox's, have AC and heat, and plenty of food to eat due to foodstamps, WIC, and Tanif and other entitlement programs. The people we classify as "poor" in todays America were MIDDLE CLASS just one generation ago. Again, libs use this to curry favor for bills, they dont really care about the "poor."

I don't trust the politicians on either side. The Democrats could well be caving intentionally to create fodder to use against Republicans at election time. Who is in control is the issue. Concern for Americans is way, way down on the priorities list.

How do you figure you win? The bill to fund the government passed the House and it is squarely on the backs of the Democrats in the Senate to pass or reject it. But they won't even bring it to a vote so I am still trying to figure how you win

sorry it said it didn't post the first time

I think democrats can read the polls and have realized their propaganda hasn't worked.

As long as the determination of what is "fair" is judged against gains or losses relative to the current system, no change can happen. Our current tangle of tax rates and laws, implemented over decades through incremental pushes and pulls, most of which were supposed to be temporary, and many of which were supposed to motivate action subliminally, is not now, nor was it ever conceived of being fair. There are far too many ways to game the system created by people who were temporarily invested with the public trust and those go back for generations.

Saying that "it's not fair that my taxes go up when someone else's don't," ignores the fact that no standard of fairness was used to decide what your taxes currently are. Tax rates are ARBITRARY. Taxes could be based on the number of children you produce, since your genetic material is getting a benefit from your fertility at the expense of other members of succeeding generations, because any scarce resources your progeny use will not be available for mine. We could raise all taxes based on infrastructure use determinations, which would shift most of the burden to the wealthy, since they receive the greatest benefit from the investments we make collectively in the roads they ship their good to market over. We could raise inheritance taxes to 100%, in keeping with the rugged individualist spirit. A productive generation shouldn't be allowed to foist an indolent one on the future. We could base collection on any ethical determination we wished. Up to now the moral standard has been to reward power and wealth. There are other standards that we could use, but the believers and beneficiaries of the current system would call them "socialist", or at best "collectivist", and rouse a base of conservatives foaming at the mouth to do battle.

I'm not advocating any of those. I just wanted to point out that there are all sorts of logical ways we could divide responsibility for the expenses of running this country. Until and unless we start from scratch and say, "This is how much we bring in. This is how much we spend. How do we fairly collect those funds from an income distribution that looks like this," and then implement a tax policy that meets those goals there's no way it can be fair. And even if a fair system were implemented, it could only be fair at the broadest level. Individual inequities would be bound to come about just because the future is never certain. People who plan for the worst or who anticipate the best can both sink the economy. We're in the transition phase between those two right now. Profligate economics took us to the cliff, and now a sudden shift to extreme thrift is sending us over the edge.

There's no way forward, only down. After the system crashes, we can try to build a more stable one, but that would require that we learn something from our mistakes, which just isn't the American way.

The only FAIR system is when EVERYONE is putting something into the pot! Once the pot is full, those who have demonstrated need can be given something from that pot, but when nearly 50% do not even contribute to the pot today something is VERY wrong.

Roanakae1

The jobs are a good thing but at what cost? Rolling a pipe line through the Sand Hills of Nebraska and over the Ogallala aquifer can prove disastrous. Not sure if you know but the Sand Hills are a huge resting point for millions of migrating fowl and birds. It is a natural treasure. On top of that the Ogallala aquifer provides irrigation and potable water for Nebraska, Kansas and other midwest states.

I will put aside my aversion for dirty fossil fuels, which oil sands extraction amount too when you consider it emits more carbon (greenhouse gases) and play devil's advocate.

Why not play it safe and reroute the pipeline? Or better yet, why can't we route the pipeline to North Dakota, before you laugh, hear me out. Right now North Dakota oil fields are booming with new discoveries. Why can't we use a little stimulous money and build refineries in North Dakota in lieu of traversing this oil pipeline thousands of miles to Texas refineries?

This pipe line needs serious consideration before it gets underway. It will take more than "a few days" before we go ahead with it. This has the potential to be worse than the BP oil spill to the environment...not that it matters to those "job ceators" looking to further increase their wealth. As for those 20,000 jobs. Initially, that might be true, but after its completion only about 100 or less people would be needed, so you're not talking permanent jobs. The Republicans are talking about 100,000 to 200,000 jobs being eliminated RIGHT NOW! As for despicable, you only need to look to your right! When Boehner and friends won last November's elections, they PROMISED to concentrate on Jobs, Jobs, Jobs. They were the ones that would produce the JOBS that Obama "failed" to do... you do remember that, don't you? (Obama has created at least a million jobs so far by the way). Name ONE job that Boehner or the Republicans have. As for his re-election, you guys have covered your bases. There are newly minted voter restriction laws in effect across the nation thanks to the Republican Governors, State Senators, etc. A lifelong Democrat, I am finally open to a third party candidate...just as long as they don't sign any pledge to anyone except the American people.

Oldlady, the pipeline needs serious consideration before it is passed? Like Obamacare got serious consideration before it was passed?? LOL. You mean, the Repubs arent going to just ram this down your throats while buying votes from their own party in backroom shady deals while passing the biggest piece of legislation in decades with a supermajority???? (all the while making promises that later turn out to be false)

How many Jobs bills have passed the House but have been killed in the Senate? Last I checked, it was over TWENTY!!! The Senate, run by Democrats, continues to play partisan politics by simply not even allowing those bills to be introduced. Harry Reid calls them dead on arrival before he even reads them. The most recent payroll tax bill passed from the House was SIGNED BY 10 DEMOCRATS. It was REJECTED BY 14 REPUBLICANS. If that is not bipartisan, I dont know what is... Yet the Dems still reject it once it gets to teh Senate...Who is playing games here with the future of the country? And Obama has NOT created 1million jobs, that is using funny numbers in which the amount of jobs "saved" is included in the total that was "created."

Its interesting that you say the pipeline is not a permanent job creator. All Obama has done is try and create infrastructure projects, and claim bridges and roads need to be rebuilt (event though those bridges and roads are hard to find).. These are temporary construction jobs that will be gone in no time...not a real fix. Same with the payroll tax. We are robbing our SS funds for the future, right when boomers are retiring, for a little quick fix right now!

And calling the pipeline an environmental hazard like the BP spill is just false and fear-mongering.... What is wrong with creating thousands of jobs while also reducing our dependency on foreign oil, if it can be done in a safe way???

Roanoke1

Like Obamacare got serious consideration before it was passed??

The healthcare bill was over a year in debate. How can you say that it was rammed down our throat?

The Health Care Bill passed fairly and was not rammed down any ones throat. Also, any responsible adult who doesn't want to buy health insurance is not a responsible adult, but instead a leach who wants to have the tax payers pay for their medical bills.

Andie, Job1, you guys are what I am talking about. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE EVEN SAYING.

Obamacare was rushed through, NO ONE EVEN READ THE BILL. Hence Nancy Pelosi's comments "we have to pass the bill so we can find out what is in it." Are you F'ING CRAZY? THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, the president, no other Democrats had ACTUALLY READ the 2,000 page document at the time they passed it. Then, WHILE THEY HAD A SUPERMAJORITY, they rammed Obamacare down our throats without a single REPUB vote. Obama had to BUY VOTES FROM HIS OWN PARTY MEMBERS WHO WERE INITIALLY AGAINST THIS BILL. Research the Sestak 7, Cornhusker kickback, and Louisiana Purchase. Obama literally bought votes by offering jobs and other incentives to his own party to vote for his bill. THAT is ramming a bill down the throat of Americans, especially WHEN POLLS AT THE TIME SHOWED A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS were against this form of socialized medicine.

JOB1, it so funny to see you call anyone a leech, when you are obviously a liberal, and STAND FOR TAKING MONEY FROM THE RICH TO GIVE TO THE POOR. How hypocritical can you be?? It is amazing...

You might have heard of that constitution-thingy, which you libs love to trounce all over. NO CITIZEN SHOULD BE FORCED TO PURCHASE A PRODUCT AGAINST THEIR WILL or face a fine. That is a fundamental gross overreach by our federal government, which is why the Supreme Court will rule Obamacare as unconstitutional...

The health care bill didn't get sufficient debate?

We had been debating a national healthcare initiative since the time of FDR!

How is that not sufficient debate?

No, no, you are right, all the things I listed above just dont matter. Interesting you bring up FDR. I urge you to go back and read what FDR said about any future president who would try to change his SS tax. LOL!!! Study up...

We have been discussing health care reform for decades. Unfortunately Obamacare is NOT health care reform. Obamacare was passed in a back room with back room deals and half of congress left totally out of the final product. Since polls to this day still show two to one in favor of repeal it was indeed shoved down our throats. Democrats were well aware of this and it is only their elitism that allowed them to continue on and still not think they would get hammered next election.

As I mentioned earlier the same idiotic imperialism existed in the Clinton administration and that cost them all of congress.

The GOP is not willing to give tax cuts to people while putting the entire burden on those who earn 1million a year. Philosophically, that is not fair. Just because someone earned that much money does not mean that they did it on the backs of the poor. Just because someone earns that much money does not mean they earned it by exploiting the poor. The GOP IS compromising. They are willing to pass the tax cuts, with a further 1 trillion in spending. Federal employees have had it waaaay to nice for too many decades. Asking federal employees to help pay their own benefits and pensions is not too much to ask, considering it is the hardworking taxpayer that is forced to pay for federal employees' pensions and healthcare. Why should the store clerk, the waitress, the construction worker, the busnessman, have to pay the benefits of someone just because they are labeled a "federal worker." How is that fair? Especially considering most of the people that are forced to pay federal employee benefits do not get those same benefits themselves. The average salary increase amongst federal employees, after adjusted for inflation, has gone up over 400% since 1970, while private sector wages have become stagnant. Oh the horror, actually asking federal employees to help pay their own future, rather than puttin this entire burden on the taxpayers.

All the GOP wants is create 20,000 new jobs with the pipeline, but nooooo, Obama and the Dems cant have the GOP creating jobs, not after the Dems have failed to do so for three years now...

Roanake1 - See my response to you at 11.1 concerning the oil pipe line.

As far as the concept of fair in concerned, I am willing to admit the surtax on millionaires alone is unfair regarding the pay roll tax cut extensions.

See my post at 1.11 concerning general tax revenue and spending in regards to the deficit. All of us need to pay more taxes, the rich the middle class. We also need to cut spending, as the obstinate partisans in Congress refused to come to a deal on the Super Committee cuts are going into effect. Don't worry you will get your government worker pay freezes, you will get government worker cut backs and layouffs.

I'm merely stating that IMO enough is enough, every month unemployment rates are hindered because more and more government workers are laid off. Once they reach the unemployment line they are not a privately unemployed worker or governent unemployed worker, they are merely unemployed.

But you will note that as government workers have been laid off, private employment has more than made up the difference, exactly as republicans said it would.

The pipeline HAS been studied to death, over three years in fact. They already have an alternate path that takes them around environmentally sensitive areas. All this stalling is merely a delay tactic until after the election when Obama will approve it anyway. The ONLY reason he won't approve it now is because he is in so much trouble this would be the final straw for his base.

I'll say it again, isn't it possible, just possible, that they've read the polls and fear for their jobs next Nov?

Latest poll results,24% fear big business most, 64% fear big government most. Despite an all out propaganda push, democrats lost the argument, that's why they are caving.

oldlady

exactly why I became an Independent and I agree with your post 100%, thanks.

The only problem is once someone does or if someone does emerge, the power of the dollar corrupts and the big money would get them eventually. The laws need to be put into place making it illegal for our "leaders" to accept wall street money or lobbyist money and vacations. They need to be beholding only to the American people, stump speeches and bus rides across the nation only on the money they can raise from personal citizen contributions and their own money are allowed for support. The process limits who even has access to run for office, in the GOP primary at one point there were almost 20 people that declared, the ones that have more than six digits in their bank account are the 8 or 9 that were on those stages for debates. Rich Lawyers running the country? I can't imagine anyone more out of touch with working middle class people.

Oldlady, you claim to be for the "people" but then you go on to label an entire political party, over 30% of Americans as "you suck." You obviously stand for Democrats, and simply say they just need to "grow a pair." How bi-partisan of you.

Plus, Americans are silly when they use the label "poor." Please, oldlady, can you show me pictures of starving kids in America?? Show me all the homeless, even though they just said recently that homeless numbers have decreased. A recent study found that the majority of Americans who are labeled poor, only 6% actually claim to not have enough food to eat. Which doesnt make sense with all the food stamp programs, WIC, TANIF, and other programs. No one in America is hungry (other than the 6%). Alot of "poor" families own their own car, have cable TV, have widescreen TVs, and playstations, and heat and AC, and most other amenitites that middle class persons have...Go to Africa and you will see POOR. Go to Eastern Europe, and you will see POOR. Democrats just use the "poor" label as a way to stroke the bleeding hearts of others to gain favor for passing their pieces of legislation...and many Americans fall for it. It's sad.

Robert, I noticed you only provided examples of Republicans (while claiming to be independent). LOL! You do realize the top richest members of Congress are Democrats, right? You do realize that Obama took more money from wall street in the 2008 election than McCain, right?(even though Obama now somehow stands with the OWS movement, how hypocritical). You do realize that Obama has stated that his campaign will raise OVER 1 BILLION dollars to ensure his re-election, right? Looks like it's the Dems who use money to ensure they stay in power....

Roanoke1

The process limits who even has access to run for office, in the GOP primary at one point there were almost 20 people that declared, the ones that have more than six digits in their bank account are the 8 or 9 that were on those stages for debates

Nope merely an example of limited access to American Politics by those that can afford it. I used the GOP since it is current and a good example of my point. There are 2 guys that have declared but can't afford to be invited to be a part of the process that I believe Americans are losing out on hearing them and getting to know them... Otherwise did I once make a disparaging remark of either party? Naw, read more carefully next time if you don't mind before you start going all party radical

Frankly, I've grown tired of this "bi-partisanship" BS...we've seen how that's worked out, haven't we? I saw a Republican on TV saying that the people going to soup kitchens were only there for the "free" meals. That fact that you can say there are no poor people living in the country today, shows just how disconnected you guys are to the real world. You seem to exist in some alternate reality. Turn on your TV and watch the news (not Fox because they are in total agreement with your assertion that America doesn't have "poor" people) The statistics say that 1 in 2 Americans are poor or living in poverty. Keep looking through your rose-colored glasses...you are due for a rude awakening.

Roanoke1

You do realize that Obama has stated that his campaign will raise OVER 1 BILLION dollars to ensure his re-election, right? Looks like it's the Dems who use money to ensure they stay in power....

don't pick and choose your examples to prove a point, it was estimated that the 2012 election was going to cost an estimated $7 Billion, includes all candidates from all parties and all PACS running their own ads.

No Robert, it is YOU who is picking and choosing. You use republicans in your examples but then conveniently leave out the huge examples of the Democrat party. Again, the majority of the richest members of Congress are Dems. Obama is the ONLY SINGLE politician in history THAT WILL RAISE 1 Billion by HIMSELF to ensure election. You can't include the ENTIRE 2012 election/race and use that as an example, but then selectively leave out the one single Democrat who destroys everyone else in funding. Sounds a bit hypocritical...

No Oldlady,

I am referencing a recent US Census Bureau report that categorizes the "poor" in America. Again, show me pictures of starving kids in America. Show me stories from across America of persons who have died because they were starving.... Still having a probem finding those stories right??? You mention that I should just turn on the TV to see these stories. NOPE. Where are they?? You have only provided statistics from some report that claims 1 in 2 Americans are "poor." Thats because they dont exist. I never said that there arent Americans who dont have it tough. I am one of those Americans. I never said that there arent many Americans living paycheck to paycheck, I am one of those people. Yet, I do not espouse placing my issues and place in life on the backs of persons who earn more than I do. They do not owe me or anyone else a living, but I guess you just espouse the values of socialistic Robin Hood-style economics. Philosophically, that goes against the very freedoms we were granted by our constitution...

Old Lady, you need to read the entire report rergarding that 1 in 2 Americans are below the poverty line or classified as low income. The report took the poverty line level from the 2010 census which showed 1 in 3 Americans were in this category and then adjusted their incomes to compensate for commuting expenses, medical expenses, and living expenses. Of course when you take these expenses out of someones income, their income level is much lower. The report is manipulating data to further entice class warfar agains the upper middle class and wealthy. Its very easy to take a biased headline to supprt your stance, but try doing some actual reading before you try to use it as eveidence to support your position. Further, look at the income level that is defined as poor in this country compared to other countries. According to the 2010 US census, the average family of 4 that lives at or below the poverty level in this country still has on average a 1500sq/ft home, two cars, at least 1 flat screen tv, cell phone, DVD player, xbox or video game system. I would hardly call this poor. This is far more than the average middle class European has, especially when it comes to living area. Most poor in this country would be considered wealthy in some countries or middle class in others.

No Mike, Oldlady ONLY uses objectivity and facts. LOL!!! She represents the worst kind of liberal. Her kind is dangerous, and her kind disseminates false information to the public. Notice, she wont respond to your post, because you are using facts.

Roanoke1

No Oldlady,

I am referencing a recent US Census Bureau report that categorizes the "poor" in America. Again, show me pictures of starving kids in America. Show me stories from across America of persons who have died because they were starving.... Still having a probem finding those stories right???

If you are ever in Dallas and Fort Worth I can take you to the homeless shelters, you can watch Families at 7:00 am get kicked out everyday. Shelters are full, Food banks are empty do to a 40% increase in demand this year. You don't have to watch TV, open your eyes and see it first hand, I have. I volunteer here in Dallas and the stories I hear haunt me about how people lost their job, then their home, their car, everything until they are finally living in the streets. How they used to live just like I do, worked, paid taxes and poof! Come to the banks of the Trinity River in Fort Worth, it will break your heart watching families try and live in tents and boxes and little kids and Moms walking the streets during the middle of the day in Downtown carrying their trash bags, their only possessions in the world because the shelters close during the day and they have no place to go.

The scary thing is that it could happen to you and me and some schumk in one of these forums would deny you too.

Yeah, there is not a poverty problem in America and you are so right, it is not getting worse!

STLMIke

According to the 2010 US census, the average family of 4 that lives at or below the poverty level in this country still has on average a 1500sq/ft home, two cars, at least 1 flat screen tv, cell phone, DVD player, xbox or video game system. I would hardly call this poor.

Delusional Man! When I took the Census I certainly was not asked about my home size, cars, how many TV's I have or if I own a cell phone and or video games and dvd players. You lie for fun or because you can't help it? The census seeks demographic information only. Why do the hard lefties use Faux Facts to prove points and claim they are real facts. This is crap info you might get from a Poll and polls are a waste of time, the questions drive the answers in the poll takers favor.

Unfortunately,

If what you are saying had any truth, these stories would be front-page on every liberal newspaper in America. Again, where are the pictures of starving children in America?? Where are the stories about ANYONE dying because they don't have enough food to eat? I guess the non-partisan Census Bureau was just lying when it found that ONLY 6% of "poor" families say that they don't have enough food to eat. What you say is not true, because child social services would yank children away from any family that is living on the streets in boxes and having their little children wander aimlessly in the city. Show me the pictures of little children living in boxes, in America. Show me the reports of death, by adults, that have stemmed from starvation, in America.

For those 6%, I am more than happy to have my taxdollars support them until they get back on their feet. Food banks ARE NOT EMPTY. America can provide food for the entire world. It does provide food for a large percentage of the world.

According to the World Health Organization, 120 Americans died from "lack of food" in 2004.

Starvation rates in the United States are generally not recorded due to the relative infrequency of the occurrence. Generally speaking, most people do not starve to death in America as a result of lack of access to food. A combination of government food programs and private charities help to ensure this. However, Americans do have a serious problem with malnutrition. Starvation (that is, death due to lack of food) in America, in the relatively rare instances that it does occur, is not usually an indication of poverty but rather a variety of other social issues.

Tell me why I want to vote for any of them?

It's been this way for years, you vote for the least bad candidate, not a good one.

Bush/republican congress 5% average unemployment

Obama/democrat congress 9% average unemployment

Who has decimated the middle class????

Facts trump leftist propaganda every time.

two unfunded wars, Iraq estimated cost $1 Trillion, Afganistan an estimated $1.8 Trillion. Bush Tax Cuts, unfunded or uncompensated for an estimated $1 Trillion. A recession that began in 2007, jobs lost at a rate of almost 500,000 per month in 2008, Barack Obama sworn in 2009... Middle Class estimated income LOSS since 2001 (-7%), estimated income INCREASE for the top 2% (+350%)...

Facts trump leftist propaganda every time.

Facts are Facts!

From Obama's 2012 Budget projections (2012 - 2021):

"Total projected Revenues for Medicare/Medicaid over the next 10 years = $2.730 Trillion.
Total projected Costs for Medicare/Medicaid over the next 10 years = $10.530 Trillion.
That's a net Deficit in just the Medicare/Medicaid programs of $7.790 Trillion."

None of this even counts the massive costs of Obamacare, raping our SS funds, failed $825 billion stimulus, omnibus, bailouts of big banks and auto bailouts, etc etc. It goes on and on...

Still losing jobs under Obama, unemployment is still above 8%, thanks Obama. Two reports this week say that 1 in 2 Americans now lives in poverty. It's been three years now Obama, thanks. Another report said nearly all American cities reported that hunger increased by large percentages since last year. Again, it's been three years, thanks Obama.

Facts are facts!

Roanoke1

"Total projected Revenues for Medicare/Medicaid over the next 10 years = $2.730 Trillion.
Total projected Costs for Medicare/Medicaid over the next 10 years =$10.530 Trillion.
That's a net Deficit in just the Medicare/Medicaid programs of $7.790 Trillion."

It looks like we agree then, America needs more revenue...

Tax Reform for All, even those corporations Mitt calls people too!

No,

you are twisting the argument. Washington does not have a revenue problem, in total, Washington has a SPENDING problem.

Revenue should be created by more jobs, NOT Robin Hood economics...

How do you figure the government shutdown is the GOP problem? It has been all over the news that Obama has instructed the Democrats in the Senate not to bring the bill to the floor for a vote to fund the Government. So if there is a shutdown it is squarely on the Democrats

openmind266

Obama has instructed the Democrats in the Senate not to bring the bill to the floor for a vote to fund the Government

the instruction I believe was not to bring it to the floor if it has all of the Poison Pills in it. Lets see, give a tax break to 160 Million middle class working people, extend unemployment, give fair compensation to medicare providers,

and lets tack on an oil pipeline and force people that have lost their job by no fault of their own to do drug testing (at whos expense??) and force them to retrain, even if they have a college degree force them to learn how to take any available job: All poison Pills by the GOP, knowing it would never get out of the senate they bother doing it anyway, spending our money on something they know will never pass.

Why can't they put a clean bill out there and work on passing it. Spend their energy, our money on being productive not counter-productive for party and political gains.

Like if your boss directed you to not bother working on a project that is never going to get funding yet you spend time and your bosses money doing it anyway, any point in it? Maybe you loose your job...

Robert and the Dems MUST have EVERYTHING they want.

Robert and the Dems do NOT WANT to create 20,000 new jobs. I guess 20,000 new jobs is just "poison pills" to people like Robert. They got all they wanted, except for the millionaire surtax, but if the Repubs include the Keystone pipeline, creating 20,000 new jobs and reducing our dependence on foreign oil, Robert and the Dems will reject the bill. LOL!!!

Robert and the Dems do not want to talk about the 20-some jobs bills that HAVE PASSED THE HOUSE WITH BIPARTISAN SUPPORT only to die in the Senate. THE DEMS ARE THE OBSTRUCTIONISTS, and the PEOPLE OF AMERICA see that. We see that the Dems are willing to shut the government down over an inclusion of a pipeline THAT WILL CREATE 20,000 new jobs. SHUT IT DOWN. WE THE PEOPLE SEE WHO THE OBSTRUCTIONISTS ARE (hence Obama's approval rating, LOL).

hhmmmm,

just a little off on the numbers.

The pipeline company, TransCanada, says the project could create 6,500 construction jobs annually, most of them temporary.

hmmm,

More liberal lies, eh CorporateShill? It would appear that YOUR numbers are just a little....OFF.

From your own liberal CNN: "TransCanda (TRP), the company that wants to build the pipeline, says Keystone would create 20,000 "direct" jobs. That includes 13,000 construction jobs and 7,000 jobs making stuff like pump houses and the pipe itself. It also projects nearly 120,000 "indirect" jobs -- think restaurant workers and hotel employees to support the construction."

Almost, try harder next time. LOL!!!

Roanoke1

I watched those debates live, not a replay on FOX. The Republicans themselves that were speaking did in fact say that there would be between 5000 and 6500 jobs created on the pipeline construction. Turn on CSPAN and turn off the FOX news. Hear the facts straight from the horses mouth and not FOX news spin on the facts.

On the other hand, 160 Million Americans keeping between $1,000.00 and $1500.00 would be money pumped back into the economy and that my friend is what drives the American Economy, not Washington, Not temporary pipeline jobs, us spending money but we need it to spend it... I hope this common sense stuff makes sense to you.

Ummm....Robert, did you not see the quote above, from me, where I actually quoted what TransCanada told CNN, as far as the jobs numbers. Did you just selectively skip over my entire post, which had NOTHING to do with Fox, and NEVER mentioned FOX. I used the primary source, while you are talking about debates. How silly and hypocritical of you. You should do your own research, not allow your ignorance to be spoon-fed from MSNBC.

I like how you are FOR raping our SS fund, right at a time when the baby boomers will start retiring and sapping huge amounts from the SS fund. A 2% tax "cut" from SS DOES NOTHING TO CREATE JOBS. You are only adding to the massive problem we will have with SS in the coming years. Obama is THE ONLY PRESIDENT TO EVER CUT SS, how ironic. I urge to go read FDRs comments about any future president that tinkers with his SS Program. I know you wont though, because you are an uninformed parrot, who only spews talking points you are spoon-fed from other liberals.

How insane of you to say a pipeline that will create 20,000 jobs will do nothing for the economy. You obviously do not understand how our economy works. It does not work by giving taxpayers...their OWN taxdollars that they will have to pay back to SS a few years from now. This does NOTHING to create jobs. NO spin. Just destoying your lies.

Study up

The State Department, the lead federal agency on the project, also estimates 6,500 temporary jobs. And the only independent study, conducted by Cornell University’s Global Labor Institute, concludes that it may generate no more than 50 permanent jobs when the work is done.

13000/2 years = 6500

LOL!!! The State Dept, you mean Obama's State Dept??? They have no idea how to create jobs, so I certainly will not believe any numbers from that entity concerning potential job creation. And no more than 50 permanent jobs? That is laughable. A massive pipeline that will run from Canada to Illinois and Texas will only have 50 people manning it??? LOL!!

Nope. I am more inclined to belive the actual people who are involved in this line of work and who do it for a living, not some stuffy professors sitting on their a$$ at Cornell, punching out numbers that the Dems want them to come up with. Good try, though.

TRP/Keystone= 20,000

In an explosive story posted online in the Washington Post this afternoon, pipeline company TransCanada admitted that it has grossly misrepresented the number of jobs the controversial Keystone XL project would create.

The 20,000 jobs involved in pipeline construction? A fabrication supported by misleading mathematics. The 250,000 indirect jobs? A number based on one oil-industry funded study that counted jobs for “dancers, choreographers and speech therapists,” according to the Post.

“Thank heavens some reporter actually questioned this jobs number, instead of just repeating it,” said Bill McKibben, who is leading a major protest against Keystone XL this Sunday at the White House. “The only study not paid for by the pipeline company makes clear that there are no net jobs from this pipeline because it will kill as many as it will create.”

Lawmakers, Republican presidential candidates, and the media have repeated TransCanada’s claim that the Keystone XL project would create 20,000 new jobs if approved–13,000 from direct construction and 7,000 from supply manufacturers. The Post shows both numbers to be inaccurate, quoting TransCanada chief executive Russ Girling: “Girling said Friday that the 13,000 figure was ‘one person, one year,’ meaning that if the construction jobs lasted two years, the number of people employed would be only 6,500.”

TransCanada is basing its job estimates on a report that it commissioned from the Perryman Group. However, the Perryman Group has refused to release important data behind its estimate, claiming it to be proprietary information. The folks at Cornell nevertheless took what data Perryman did make available and found several major, fundamental flaws in its approach.

Contrary to another favorite Republican argument, the pipeline will also do little to reduce America’s dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Though it would provide a steady source of crude for Gulf Coast refineries, existing contracts and business plans indicate that most of their output will be destined for export.

Here is something else I found,

Landowners in the path of the pipeline have complained about threats by TransCanada to confiscate private land and lawsuits to allow the "pipeline on their property even though the controversial project has yet to receive federal approval." As of 17 October 2011, TransCanada had "34 eminent domain actions against landowners in Texas" and "22 in South Dakota." Some of those landowners gave testimony for a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing in May 2011.

No, Girling's numbers are accurate. It creates 6500 per year, thus the 13,000. That is a net total of 13,000 jobs over two years (not counting the other 7,000 jobs for the other construction workers) So, you can call them temporary, but two years worth of work for 6500x2 people is not a bad thing. I also like how libs have stated this report as EXPLOSIVE, and LIES and such, just like you did.

That is sad, because if you actually read the quote from Girling and then go back and look at his comments from months ago, he IS SAYING THE SAME THING! There is nothing EXPLOSIVE about this story. He is saying the same thing he has always said. If you actually go back and read the entire Post article, there is nothing really there other than libs trying to tear down a project that creates thousands of jobs, whether they are temporary or not. It is odd to see so many libs being against creating jobs, but I guess this makes sense when looking at the libs' record of job creation over the last 3 years.

Either way, our president is refusing to make a decision because he plays both sides of the fence, while receiving big money from oil companies and big money from environmentalist groups. He knows if he chooses one side or the other, they will cut off their campaign donations to his coffers. So, either way, your president is playing politics with American lives and jobs. Either way, say the pipeline will create zero jobs, the fact that Obama will not rule on it until AFTER the election (over money) shows him for the pathetic human being that he is. Thanks dems, all this hope and change has been great!

No, Girling's numbers are accurate. It creates 6500 per year, thus the 13,000. That is a net total of 13,000 jobs over two years (not counting the other 7,000 jobs for the other construction workers) So, you can call them temporary, but two years worth of work for 6500x2 people is not a bad thing. I also like how libs have stated this report as EXPLOSIVE, and LIES and such, just like you did.

Yeah, right...They first stated there would be 20,000 jobs. When people see that, they think 20,000 jobs, not 6500 per year, times 2 years. They purposely stated it like that to make it look better than it really is !! but, as you say 6500 ain't a bad thing..

also,

As for the 7,000 indirect supply chain jobs, the $1.9 billion already spent by TransCanada would reduce the number of jobs that would be created in the future. The Brixton Group, a firm working with opponents of the project, has argued that many of the indirect supply jobs would be outside the United States because about $1.7 billion worth of steel will be purchased from a Russian-owned mill in Canada.

Like I have been saying all along (and by the way not calling names like "libs" all the time) the jobs this will create are not as many as they would like you to believe.

The numbers are accurate though, which flies in the face of your argument. The total net jobs on a yearly basis, 6500x2yrs =13,000, plus the remaining 7,000 in other laborers, WHICH EQUALS A NET TOTAL OF 20,000 jobs. I'm not sure of your point here, other than you didnt like the way it was 'phrased.' You are playing semantics and trying to discredit the report, but you really haven't; you, the Post, and other liberal reporters have merely proven Griling's statements truthful. LOL! There was nothing...EXPLOSIVE about it, but I can see why you and the libs would want to portray it that way. What you have provided is a study and funny numbers produced by "a firm working WITH OPPONENTS of the project." Yikes. This is not an unbiased report, certainly. Like I said, I will stick with the company that makes a living off this kind of construction and produces numbers and jobs on a yearly basis. Sure, it is biased, but I would rather go with numbers provided to me buy the actual people who do this for a living, not some partisan 'firm' working with opponents of the project desperately trying to produce numbers that will prove their anti-pipeline point of view. Interesting to note, many of these jobs will be union jobs, which is why there are several unions (and we all know how they vote, blue) that are behind this project. Lots of contradictions there...

It just might have something to do with the fact that we are now running $1.3 trillion deficits year after year and borrow 40% of what we spend. Were we doing THAT during the Clinton Gingrich years? Were we EVER doing that before Obama?

Nice try.

Has the Senate passed a budget yet? I see lots of bill being passed in the House but Harry and the Hooligans won't even let those bills come up for a vote. Explain to me who is the party of NO?

Bill...Bill...Bill... You are using cognition and logic in your post, thus it will not make any sense to Democrats. The fact that the House has passed 20 jobs bills only to have the Dem Senate not even hear them shows who the real obstructionists are...

Democrats are OPPOSED to a balanced budget, that is why even when Obama and the Dems had a SUPERMAJORITY, they NEVER once tried to pass a budget...NOT ONCE. It's been three years now, any progress on that??? NOPE.

Sorry, I forgot that facts are the enemy to liberals, my bad,,thank you roanoke1

Republican gave Obama everything he wanted except the tax surcharge. The only thing they asked in return is to create thousands of jobs for the construction industry.

Republicans are always open to compromise, but compromise is not Obama's way or nothing, it is both sides giving up something.

Yeah I agree! We should steal from the rich so we can have the things in life we can't afford. Thank God!! We should be able to sit on our butts all year long and bitch and moan about the things we are ENTITLED to, and then get all pissy when the rich won't let us steal their money to redistribute it to people who don't earn as much. I mean, that is only fair? Screw the free market, pure socialism, here we come!! WOO-HOO!!! I, for one, am just so mad that I am in my setting in life because of the choices I have made that have landed me in this position. But it is not MY fault!! I know that I have made choice after choice for the last 20 years that have put me in this position, but its NOT my fault. Its the rich peoples' fault. I deserve a free college education, I shouldnt have to pay my bills, I shouldnt have to work for a living, I want a laptop, my 7 year old car sucks, I deserve a new one from the rich, my rent is too high, the rich should pay for me to live in a house, the job market sucks so the rich should give me stuff..... GROW A PAIR. PULL UP YOUR PANTIES, AND GET A LIFE.

Because the 3/4 was a lie. Do you honestly think they would cave that easily if the 3/4 were real?

This is simply ignorant. Another dirty pipeline won't make a damn bit of difference in what you pay for fuel. It'll simply mean more money for energy companies. And the only jobs that it'll create are in the toxic cleanup industry.

Wise up, and stop believing the same old line they've been feeding you for decades.

as a liberal, let me just say this....DRILL. I want a 100% full throttle, pedal to the metal, let's put a man on the moon committment to getting this country completely free from foreign oil.

Whatever it takes. Do it. Drill, electric, hybrids, natural gas nuclear.....it all should be on the table, and the govt should do what only the govt can do.....put together a comprehensive country wide goal and plan on how this will get done, and then kick start the private industry to make it happen.

It would be the best thing we could do for this country.

THANK YOU! What most liberals don't fathom is most conservative would be glad to flush the entire middle east, pull out altogether if we weren't dependant on their oil. Even though we get most of our oil from this hemisphere, pricing is determined by world markets so all sources figure into the final price. If we were able to flood the market with our oil, we could control pricing much more and could tell the middle east to stuff it.

So, as you said, drill baby drill AND support wind, solar, nat gas, hybrids, and electrics so we have fuel now and a path to the future.

Personally I'm not a fan of nuclear, too many side issues. Besides, solar modules are now cheaper than nuclear and are near the price point where they won't need federal subsidies. I put 10KW on my roof this year.

If you have the Democrats in power (presidency, house and senate) how many more people will be on foodstamps? And how many "evil millionaires" (those who actally run businesses to you libs) will say screw it, "I will outsource my work". You libs make the 3 Stooges look like Einstein. Jose what is the matter, your unemployment benefits running out , or do you just hate successful people that much?

Well let's give it a try. We "libs" wouldn't have allowed the disgusting Iraq venture, with it's loss of life and treasure, to begin with. We "libs" would've focused 100% on Afghanistan, when we had the chance to end THAT war within a few months.

As far as millionaires saying "screw it", and outsourcing jobs - and hiding all of their income offshore - where the hell have you been for the past decade?

How about we give at least 4 years to the Left. Could the result possibly be any worse?

The left has had nearly 4 years to ruin this country and you want 4 more years of this doing nothing president and his administration? It's time America wakes up and smells the coffee. This president has ruined this country. If you are going to kick congressmen out of office on their a$$es this president needs to with them.

The "libs "ok'd the Iraq invasion (d.a.) with a vote.

You don't have to ask how many would send jobs overseas. It's been at least 3, 4, 5 or more millions over that last couple of years. The food stamp question is simply answered. How many million more people are living off food stamps since the Republicans have decided that a couple of millions more in the pockets of millionaires and billionaires is more important than backing any job creation proposal put up for votes in the House. Those 20 thousand jobs created by that pipe line is offset by the loss of 100-200 thousand federal jobs. That "job creator" BS is getting kind of tired, don't you think?

No, that's the point, the Left has not had 4 years. It's been obstruction every step of the way for Obama, compared to the free reign Bush had for his catastrophic string of bad decisions on every front, INCLUDING the huge bailout. As far as Obama "ruining the country", sounds like another success for Ailes' mind control machine.

The left has had 5 years controling 2/3rds of our governing bodies. I agree with you about Obama is not ruining the country. He isn't doing much to help, but he isn't ruining it either. At some point, the left will have to stop making excuses and be honest about the failure of their policies. Once the republicans and democrats can be honest about their mistakes, then we can start getting somewhere. If we continue to blame each other, nothing will be accomplished.

The left had a SUPERMAJORITY FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS. The left still CONTROLS 2/3 of our government, but somehow they still blame the right for all their failures.....It's funny to watch.

Bush bailout? Wait, I thought it was Obama who bailed out the banks and wall st, too? I thought it was Obama who bailed out the auto industry? I thought it was Obama who spent 825$ BILLION of taxpayer dollars on his failed stimulus. I thought it was Obama adding huge deficits with Obamacare? Hypocrisy much? So much for hope and change...

JoseP,

It is obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. Creating 20,000 new jobs is just pandering to the right, eh? Just a dirty clean-up job creator, right? WOW, you are pretty obtuse.

You do realize that Bush did not have a Republican majority his full8 years, right? LOL.

The only time the Republicans controlled both houses in the last 40 years was when Clinton was president, back in 1994. And guess what the Repub House and Senate gave us????? THE FIRST BALANCED BUDGET IN DECADES. THEY ALSO GAVE OUR GOVERNMENT A BUDGET SURPLUS, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN DECADES. Please read and learn before posting....

Jose, I hate to say it, because I am a lib, but the Dems did have total power from 2008 - 2010, and let's be honest.....almost nothing got done.

We ened up with a watered down credit card reform bill (written by the banks)

We eneded up with a watered down wall street reform bill (written by wall street)

We ended up with a watered down health care law (written by health care industry)

Let's be honest here.....this is no longer a republican/democrat thing. This is a BROKEN POLITICAL SYSTEM. HOPELESSLY BROKEN. It no longer matters which party is in control...sure the dems talk the better game, but when it comes down to it, both sides are going to do what the money tells them to do...and that money comes from the banks, wall street, big oil, and the health care industry.

Until we take ALL THE MONEY OUT OF POLITICS, it just doesn't matter anymore who is in charge. They both argue from the same side of the same coin.

Agreed. We politically we need to:

1) Vote out ALL incumbents

2) Create laws that prohibit and criminalize all Corporate/Pac/Union/etc. contributions to political candidates

3) Set a fixed spending limit that candidates for all elected offices may not exceed