I heard an interview with Paul Ryan

[musclehead]

Your non-scientific observations match mine of course we both live in interesting times and interesting States! California can now be put in the ranks of Spain, Portugal, and especially Greece. Non-government worker are getting laid off while the Democrats in Sacramento keep doing as their benefactors the Unions tell them.

Anyone who is slightly informed can read about the failure and perhaps financial collapse of California. Non-Union Teachers, cops, carpenters, plumbers, firemen, etc. are being laid off, hospitals and nursing homes are closing, dangerous prisoners are being released, and critical infrastructure is crumbling.

Hey let's apply the Greece, California model to the good ol' USA - reelect Obama and his fellow socialist Democratic posse!

The red state goobers who cling to their guns and Bibles can whine all they want as long as the Golden State and the Empire state has the electoral votes. Isn't seeing who can get the most free stuff what democracy is all about?

The president will soar over California riding atop his flying unicorn dropping bundles of cash printed by his friend Ben Bernanke—paid for by all those greedy millionaires and billionaires who aren't carrying their fair share.

When fuel is so expensive I can't afford to ride my Valkyrie on the week-ends I can thank the short sighted, Kool-Aid drinking, dyed in the wool unreasonable leftists that can only answer questions with predigested talking points. God Bless them all for they will see the consequences of their blind unchangeable short sighted beliefs, and they'll ask how did this happen?
4 words, you elected the Democrats.

I hope we all agree that in the U.S. free speech is a privilege we all can agree to preserve.

What else can you say about a state whose leading growth industry is municipal bankruptcies, whose leading export is companies and citizens fleeing tax increases.

Some unemployment numbers: Nevada 12.0% Rhode Island 10.8% California 10.7%  Georgia 9.3% New York 9.1% Mississippi 9.1% Illinois 8.9% source: National Conference of State Legislatures

nah it'll be 4 words "we blame the republicans" in some cases it will be true
the economy is an albatross hung around the neck of the president weither it's deserved or not. I can guaruntee when the repubs take the white house there will be a crash in the economy, when all the phony measures that have propped up the economy for the last 4 years come to a end the real bottom of the recession will be found. it'll be much like the first year of Reagen, but it will turn and it will get better.

[Bob E.]

What I know about Paul Ryan is that he introduced a budget, in a time when NONE of the people in charge had the balls to do so.  A controversial budget that ALMOST all of the me too Republicrats hated.

The man showed his courage there if you ask me.

That's enough for me.

I am still gonna vote for Gary Johnson... but I hope he and Romney win since the RIGHT guy doesn't have a prayer.

Jabba

Even conservative economists have called his so-called budget a "fantasy", devoid of any basic math or reality.  He gets too much credit for something that is actually a total farce.  Furthermore, during the Bush years, he voted for every budget-busting policy that came across his desk.  He didn't get religious on the budget until Obama was elected.  And there is a youtube clip from around 2003 where he gives a full-throated endorsement for passing a keynsian stimulus spending.  Watching that next to his recent statements about the Obama stimulus is almost comical.

It was chief Keynsian proponent Paul Krugman that called Ryan's budget a "fantasy". Calling Krugman a conservative is like calling Genghis Khan a pacifist. Furthermore anyone who expresses a desire for a space alien invasion as a means to solve our economic woes (as Krugman did) loses any credibility when criticizing the reality of Ryan's ideas.

http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/256183.html
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/08/14/paul-krugman-calls-space-aliens-attack-earth-requiring-massive-defens

In 2003 the national debt was 6.8 trillion dollars. It is nearly 16 trillion today.  We recently tried the largest Keynsian package in history and in the opinion of most, it failed. Circumstances have changed. Heck, I'll bet you've even changed a few of your beliefs over time.

Actually, I was referring to a Regan Budget guy who wrote an article in the NYT.  Yeah, I know, not a conservative paper...but the writer was a Republican.

I'd also argue that the stimulus didn't fail.  In fact, even Republicans like Paul Ryan have requested funds citing all of the jobs that would be created in their district as a result. 

[Bob E.]

Bob E We'll take this a question at a time (O:
So why would you want a president with a socialist agenda, owned by the unions, influenced by George Soros and bent on class warfare which is at the center of all his campaign initiatives?

I guess mainly because those assertions are not true.

Obama: Favors universal access to health care and associated benefits as a critical expansion of the welfare state.
Obama: Favors progressive taxes on the rich to redistribute income and wealth from winners to losers and to ensure that all pay their fair share. (As he has said: "When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.")
Obama: Favors collective responsibility (as defined by the federal government) to protect all from social risks through food stamps, welfare programs, extended unemployment benefits, guaranteed health care, the bailing out of big companies, forcing renegotiation of mortgages, class action law suits, and other measures. (Instead of opportunity and incentive to succeed, no one is allowed to fail).
Obama: Favors carbon taxes, higher energy prices, restricted drilling and refining, and subsidies of green technology for the "common good," even at the expenses of higher conventional growth and jobs.
Obama: Shows a distrust of market forces and advocates selective regulation, subsidies, and taxation to persuade or coerce business to promote the general welfare as he defines it. Industries not part of his collective endeavor (oil and gas and coal) are penalized. Industries that serve his conception of "general welfare" (green technology) are to be promoted even if the market rejects them.
Obama: Advocates a strong state that offers the "positive right" of political and economic justice to its citizens. He complains that the U.S. Constitution is a "charter of negative liberties," that dictates what government "can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf."

So again you infer Obama is not a socialist?

source: Paul Roderick Gregory, Forbes Magazine.

Ask an actual socialist if Obama is a socialist and they will laugh at you.  Since those fine folks at Forbes are not exactly Obama supporters, I'd expect their views to be slanted.  We've had a progressive fed income tax system since it's inception.  It has become less so over the past 40 years....actually longer than that considering the top marginal rate was around 90% back when Eisenhower was POTUS.  We live in a unique time with this extreme recession.  So talking about the numbers of people on govt assistance of some sort is a bit skewed.  This is exactly the time for which those programs were designed...to keep people from starving like they did back in the Great Depression.  And it should be expected that those numbers would be elevated significantly.  Suggesting that the president wants them on those programs is just ignorant.  And actually, thanks to the Welfare Reform laws passed under Clinton and the Republican Congress in the 90's, welfare helps a smaller percentage of people in need....something like 27% versus around 70-80% pre-reform. Furthermore, consider what the state of the economy would look like without those programs.  People would be desperate.  Crime would go through the roof and the folks that like to talk about the 2nd Amendment might actually get their chance to really use it.  People would be starving, neighborhoods would be falling apart, nobody would have money to spend, so companies would start failing, and so on.  Also, many of those bailouts were in response to the economic collapse that was happening all around.  In good times, if a company was failing, I doubt he'd support bailing them out.  In fact he has said as much in his response to the Wall Street bailout (which was actually passed under Bush) by pushing for them to post a bond in the Dodd-Frank bill so they would bail themselves out next time rather than the taxpayers doing it.  That part ultimately got struck, primarily by Republicans lead by Scott Brown.  Also, he had a similar response for BP and other oil companies after the Gulf Oil Spill...why should tax payers foot the bill for the cleanup?  But saving the auto industry was imperative because of the sheer numbers of jobs that would have been lost otherwise.  As it is, we still lost a significant number of jobs in the industry just because people weren't buying cars due to the economy.  Having something like another 2-3 million out of work with no means of affording a new car would have been a catastrophy.  Regarding carbon taxes, Cap and Trade was a Republican idea.  Domestic drilling is at an all-time high, while our percentage of foreign oil is the lowest it has been in several decades.  And we give subsidies to oil companies, the richest, most profitable companies on the earth in the history of time.  And we want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.  Even if we drilled holes all over the country, there is not enough oil under the USA to support us, at least not for very long.  So alternative energies like wind and solar among other things need to be developed.  Furthermore, China is investing heavily in those technologies.  Do we want to move our energy dependence from the middle east to China?  I don't.  And why wouldn't green technology create jobs?  That charge is ridiculous.  In fact, wind energy is a big industry in Iowa and they were none too happy recently when Romney decried wind technology.  Republicans also support subsidies for their biggest political donors...primarily the oil and gas industries.  So saying that makes Obama a socialist makes the accuser a hypocrite.  And finally, regulations...Most regulations and gov't agencies were put in place as a response to corporations doing things that were very detrimental to the environment, worker safety, the economy, whatever.  Conservatives like to advocate for eliminating regulations and letting the markets dictate things.  The problem is that is how it was prior to the regulations existing...and there was some issue/problem/need that lead to the regulation/agency being created.  So I don't necessarily buy that arguement. Corporations ruined it for themselves.  It's like loud pipes on motorcycles.  We are our own worst enemy...and the result is various restrictions, bans, etc. on motorcycles and pipes being enacted across the country. Same thing.  But that doesn't make Obama a socialist. If it did, I could make the same arguement against the republican legislatures passing onerous regulations on abortion clinics, regulations that have nothing to do with anything other than driving the clinic out of business.  Pro-life or Pro-choice, regulations are regulations.  And when they are enacted with the purpose of driving out of business an otherwise legal company, that is the height of big government gone awry.

Republicans/Conservatives/FoxNews have done a good job at painting Obama as a radical, far-left liberal socialist.  But recently here on the boards, someone posted a link to a survey that asked a series of questions and it stated where one fell on the political spectrum from liberal to conservative to libertarian to...I forget the 4th quadrant.  Anyways, for comparison, they actually posted the results of several recent presidents and Obama's little dot actually fell right next to Reagan's, and it actually may have been just slightly to the right of it.  So the reason he seems so far to the left for conservatives is because they have moved so far to the right in the past 40 years.

[f6john]

    Something tells me that Bob is going to vote for Obama. From what I know about Obama and his record so far, and the explanation by Bob of how bad things would have been without Obama, if I weren't the eternal optimist I just go ahead and shoot myself now.

[J.Mencalice]

Doesn't matter WHO gets elected as president/vice prez in 2012, Democrat or Republican; there will be a continuation of the economic downturn of the United States of America that will bring our nation over the fiscal cliff and to the Great Depression of 2014.  The reasons are unfortunately too numerous and complicated to list here, but assuredly are concrete overshoes to the Republic.
Remember, you heard it here first.  Sorry. 

[BF]

Doesn't matter WHO gets elected as president/vice prez in 2012, Democrat or Republican; there will be a continuation of the economic downturn of the United States of America that will bring our nation over the fiscal cliff and to the Great Depression of 2014.  The reasons are unfortunately too numerous and complicated to list here, but assuredly are concrete overshoes to the Republic.
Remember, you heard it here first.  Sorry. 

Well, ya see....it's like this, it's all about the free stuff and who's gonna give it to ya.......



The folks who are getting the free stuff don't like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff.

And, the folks who are paying for the free stuff want the free stuff to stop.

And the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!

Now... the people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff that the people who are PAYING for the free stuffare being mean, prejudiced, and racist.

So... the people who are GETTING the free stuff have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff and giving them the free stuff in the first place.

We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff.

Now understand this. All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded. The reason?

The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.

The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 236 years ago. The number of people now getting free stuff outnumbers the people paying for the free stuff. We have one chance to change that in 2012. Failure to change that spells the end of the United States as we know it.

[MP]

BF.  Great way to make understandable.

Bob.  Please use more paragraphs. Lol

Mp

[Bob E.]

BF.  Great way to make understandable.

Bob.  Please use more paragraphs. Lol

Mp

Sorry...it was late and oZ had covered alot of ground that I was attempting to address. 

[Bob E.]

Doesn't matter WHO gets elected as president/vice prez in 2012, Democrat or Republican; there will be a continuation of the economic downturn of the United States of America that will bring our nation over the fiscal cliff and to the Great Depression of 2014.  The reasons are unfortunately too numerous and complicated to list here, but assuredly are concrete overshoes to the Republic.
Remember, you heard it here first.  Sorry. 

Well, ya see....it's like this, it's all about the free stuff and who's gonna give it to ya.......



The folks who are getting the free stuff don't like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff.

And, the folks who are paying for the free stuff want the free stuff to stop.

And the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!

Now... the people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff that the people who are PAYING for the free stuffare being mean, prejudiced, and racist.

So... the people who are GETTING the free stuff have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff and giving them the free stuff in the first place.

We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff.

Now understand this. All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded. The reason?

The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.

The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 236 years ago. The number of people now getting free stuff outnumbers the people paying for the free stuff. We have one chance to change that in 2012. Failure to change that spells the end of the United States as we know it.

That's a pretty simplistic view of a reality that really isn't.  And in fact, it is pretty insulting to those who are actually in need, many of which are hard-working people who just don't make enough to survive.  G-Man berated me one time for suggesting or implying that conservatives were callous or heartless.  He said that conservatives actually WANT to help those who are REALLY in need, just not those who sponge off the system.  But posts like yours don't do anything to reinforce his position.  Like I posted before, the percentage of households receiving food stamps in Ohio that had an adult who was WORKING was in the 70's on a recent study I saw.  It's a nice stereotype that conservatives like to bash, but not everyone is a freeloader as your post suggests. 

Willowpad's post that you quoted actually has some truth to it in that our country's financial problems are numerous...and I'd add complicated, though I'm not sure the sky is falling just yet.  Simplistic talking points are not at all constructive in solving those complex problems.  But following your logic, let's say we cut off all of those people....then what?  What would you suggest we do then.  Let them starve?  Let them go homeless?  Survival of the fittest, right?  A significant number of those programs help children...what do you suggest we do with them?  Furthermore, do you know what would happen to our nation's economy if we did that?  All of these programs pump money into the economy creating demand, which in turn, creates jobs, which adds tax-payers to the rolls, which increases gov't revenues, which decreases deficits, and on and on. And oh yeah, cutting them off entirely still wouldn't eliminate the deficit because compared to all other spending, these programs are actually a pretty small percentage of the overall budget, not to mention the collapse of the economy that would result.

[Bob E.]

    Something tells me that Bob is going to vote for Obama. From what I know about Obama and his record so far, and the explanation by Bob of how bad things would have been without Obama, if I weren't the eternal optimist I just go ahead and shoot myself now.

PSSST!  I can hear you when you talk about me.    And frankly, I'm not real sure what you are implying.  I'm not saying everything great is all because of Obama, but he's the only guy on the left side of the ticket.  One of the great things about our government is that no single person has the power to act unilaterally in most cases.  He's just the leader of the Dem Party.  And the Dem Party tends to support policies that I support...not 100%...but primarily, at least on the economic side. 

Admittedly, I'm no economist.  I'm an engineer. But I have taken a few college-level macro and micro-economics courses, and have done a fair amount of independent reading. So I have at least a basic understanding of Classical versus Keynsian theories...at least enough to know when someone is blowing smoke and when they aren't.  And given certain circumstances, I can see where both have merits.  When times are good, Classical tends to apply.  And when times are tough, Classical falls apart and Keynes tends to apply.  Given the times that we are in, I believe that Keynsian theory is most applicable now.  When the pendulum swings the other way, I may change my mind.

It's funny.  I actually didn't use to pay very much attention to politics until I started reading this board.  And some of the things I was reading seemed pretty incredible to me.  So I started researching things more for myself and deciding for myself what I believed and didn't believe.  And the more I've learned, the more skeptical I've become of anything that a republican politician or pundit says, especially over the past few years. The hypocricy is just amazing...and the fact that they can be called out for it and not even flinch is even more so.  Also, I've watched the Rep party move farther and farther right, abandoning positions they use to hold fairly recently, much of which was for the sole purpose of opposing the president at any cost.  And that behavior has caused me to lose alot of respect for many of them.  In fact, believe it or not, I always used to vote a more mixed ticket.  My own congressmen, Tim Murphy is a Republican and I've voted for him in the past.  And I always voted for Arlen Specter, who was a Republican at the time.  And had McCain beaten Bush for the Rep ticket back in 2000, I likely would have voted for him.  But the more I've gotten involved, the less I can see myself voting that way.  And I'm sure conservatives feel the same way regarding Dems...and I can respect that, even if I don't totally understand it.

[Jeff K]

Doesn't matter WHO gets elected as president/vice prez in 2012, Democrat or Republican; there will be a continuation of the economic downturn of the United States of America that will bring our nation over the fiscal cliff and to the Great Depression of 2014.  The reasons are unfortunately too numerous and complicated to list here, but assuredly are concrete overshoes to the Republic.
Remember, you heard it here first.  Sorry. 

Well, ya see....it's like this, it's all about the free stuff and who's gonna give it to ya.......



The folks who are getting the free stuff don't like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff.

And, the folks who are paying for the free stuff want the free stuff to stop.

And the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!

Now... the people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff that the people who are PAYING for the free stuffare being mean, prejudiced, and racist.

So... the people who are GETTING the free stuff have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff and giving them the free stuff in the first place.

We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff.

Now understand this. All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded. The reason?

The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.

The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 236 years ago. The number of people now getting free stuff outnumbers the people paying for the free stuff. We have one chance to change that in 2012. Failure to change that spells the end of the United States as we know it.

That's a pretty simplistic view of a reality that really isn't.  And in fact, it is pretty insulting to those who are actually in need, many of which are hard-working people who just don't make enough to survive.  G-Man berated me one time for suggesting or implying that conservatives were callous or heartless.  He said that conservatives actually WANT to help those who are REALLY in need, just not those who sponge off the system.  But posts like yours don't do anything to reinforce his position.  Like I posted before, the percentage of households receiving food stamps in Ohio that had an adult who was WORKING was in the 70's on a recent study I saw.  It's a nice stereotype that conservatives like to bash, but not everyone is a freeloader as your post suggests. 

Willowpad's post that you quoted actually has some truth to it in that our country's financial problems are numerous...and I'd add complicated, though I'm not sure the sky is falling just yet.  Simplistic talking points are not at all constructive in solving those complex problems.  But following your logic, let's say we cut off all of those people....then what?  What would you suggest we do then.  Let them starve?  Let them go homeless?  Survival of the fittest, right?  A significant number of those programs help children...what do you suggest we do with them?  Furthermore, do you know what would happen to our nation's economy if we did that?  All of these programs pump money into the economy creating demand, which in turn, creates jobs, which adds tax-payers to the rolls, which increases gov't revenues, which decreases deficits, and on and on. And oh yeah, cutting them off entirely still wouldn't eliminate the deficit because compared to all other spending, these programs are actually a pretty small percentage of the overall budget, not to mention the collapse of the economy that would result.

The problem with that is All you are doing is "pumping" actual taxpayers money, and borrowed money into the economy via people that didn't earn it. I'd rather Pump my money into the economy myself so I can reap the benefits of my own labor. I'll still spend the money, I promise.  

[Jess from VA]

Well, ya see....it's like this, it's all about the free stuff and who's gonna give it to ya.......

You have nailed it exactly!!!  (if simply)

My daddy told me at 15 or 16.... You get it pretty good as a kid growing up, but sooner or later, you work or you die.  This is the way it should be.  When our great country can run a successful surplus and there is enough money to help the truly needy, then we can help them.  When we have no money, everyone should be on their own.... work or die.  The solution is not higher taxes, bigger govt and more spending.  The solution is taxes never go up, smaller govt, and less spending, less free stuff (or none until we can afford it).... just like anyone would run his own household. 

[Jess from VA]

This is my idea of SOCIAL JUSTICE.   

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/3/bedbugs-an-increasing-concern-at-dnc-hotels/

[f6john]

    Something tells me that Bob is going to vote for Obama. From what I know about Obama and his record so far, and the explanation by Bob of how bad things would have been without Obama, if I weren't the eternal optimist I just go ahead and shoot myself now.

PSSST!  I can hear you when you talk about me.    And frankly, I'm not real sure what you are implying.  I'm not saying everything great is all because of Obama, but he's the only guy on the left side of the ticket.  One of the great things about our government is that no single person has the power to act unilaterally in most cases.  He's just the leader of the Dem Party.  And the Dem Party tends to support policies that I support...not 100%...but primarily, at least on the economic side. 

Admittedly, I'm no economist.  I'm an engineer. But I have taken a few college-level macro and micro-economics courses, and have done a fair amount of independent reading. So I have at least a basic understanding of Classical versus Keynsian theories...at least enough to know when someone is blowing smoke and when they aren't.  And given certain circumstances, I can see where both have merits.  When times are good, Classical tends to apply.  And when times are tough, Classical falls apart and Keynes tends to apply.  Given the times that we are in, I believe that Keynsian theory is most applicable now.  When the pendulum swings the other way, I may change my mind.

It's funny.  I actually didn't use to pay very much attention to politics until I started reading this board.  And some of the things I was reading seemed pretty incredible to me.  So I started researching things more for myself and deciding for myself what I believed and didn't believe.  And the more I've learned, the more skeptical I've become of anything that a republican politician or pundit says, especially over the past few years. The hypocricy is just amazing...and the fact that they can be called out for it and not even flinch is even more so.  Also, I've watched the Rep party move farther and farther right, abandoning positions they use to hold fairly recently, much of which was for the sole purpose of opposing the president at any cost.  And that behavior has caused me to lose alot of respect for many of them.  In fact, believe it or not, I always used to vote a more mixed ticket.  My own congressmen, Tim Murphy is a Republican and I've voted for him in the past.  And I always voted for Arlen Specter, who was a Republican at the time.  And had McCain beaten Bush for the Rep ticket back in 2000, I likely would have voted for him.  But the more I've gotten involved, the less I can see myself voting that way.  And I'm sure conservatives feel the same way regarding Dems...and I can respect that, even if I don't totally understand it.

You're skeptical of what a republican says? The hypocrisy is amazing? Blowing Smoke? You have got to be kidding me. Watch any news show, any network, and you will see all that and more from both parties. I watch more news shows than is probably healthy and I can tell you if I had the questions that were going to be asked, I could write the answers for either side ahead of time. Biggest exception for that was be Joe Biden and I actually like and respect Joe. I'm a registered democrat for the past 42 years but I am almost ashamed of it. I am not against abortions in cases where it is deemed absolutely necessary. But for our government and/or the Democratic party to allow/ legalize abortions on demand and late term abortions is just not compatible with any decent moral thought process I can come up with. And somehow the Democratic party has made this a "women's" rights issue where I find it to be a human rights issue. And somehow I am struggling with the idea that the government needs to provide birth control pills or condoms or diaphragms to anyone who requests them as some sort of right they deserve.


You speak of people going hungry, starving as if our present way of doing things is an answer. I have seen the news reports out of Florida in particular of the kids living in vehicles and their struggles to maintain hygiene and prepare for school because their parents have lost everything. The lucky kids are the ones whose parents have enough work to afford a motel room for the whole family to pile into. I saw a news clip about a family out in Las Vegas who was undecided on who to vote for due to their current economic condition. It seems they bought a home some years back for $700,000.00 and now the market says it's only worth $350.000.00. Now is the government going to bail them out? Why should they? But that is what he is hoping for. I say dumb-ass. The house was never worth $700K, he got took when he bought, thinking that in 5-10 years his house would be worth a cool million.


I don't have to do a lot of research to know that we have got to shrink the size of government. I am satisfied that the Democrats in power have any thought along those lines. I actually believe that there is enough waste, fraud, and outright theft in government to balance the budget. The problem with a ever increasing growth in the government machine is that so many people are on the payroll. If we got rid of all the government positions that are not needed our unemployment rate would probably go up at least a point.


The handling of the health care bill has been the nail in the coffin for Obama in my mind. That was his and Nancy's and Harry's job 1 for two years while we were economically falling apart. Our country has been on life support so long I think we are now in some sort of coma. Is our health care system in need of help? Yes. Was that the most important thing our elected officials could have been working on? Absolutely not.



Are the rich and powerful getting too many breaks? Probably. Is their a more equitable answer to our tax system? I'm sure. Will either side approach the fairness issue?I'm not so sure.


Respect for politicians is in short supply on both sides of the aisle. It's time for leaders to lead.

[Hef]

Quote from Bob E: "at least enough to know when someone is blowing smoke."

I don't think so............. Anyway, have another glass of kool aid and enjoy your day!

[BF]

Doesn't matter WHO gets elected as president/vice prez in 2012, Democrat or Republican; there will be a continuation of the economic downturn of the United States of America that will bring our nation over the fiscal cliff and to the Great Depression of 2014.  The reasons are unfortunately too numerous and complicated to list here, but assuredly are concrete overshoes to the Republic.
Remember, you heard it here first.  Sorry. 

Well, ya see....it's like this, it's all about the free stuff and who's gonna give it to ya.......



The folks who are getting the free stuff don't like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff.

And, the folks who are paying for the free stuff want the free stuff to stop.

And the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!

Now... the people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff that the people who are PAYING for the free stuffare being mean, prejudiced, and racist.
So... the people who are GETTING the free stuff have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff and giving them the free stuff in the first place.

We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff.

Now understand this. All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded. The reason?

The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.

The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 236 years ago. The number of people now getting free stuff outnumbers the people paying for the free stuff. We have one chance to change that in 2012. Failure to change that spells the end of the United States as we know it.

That's a pretty simplistic view of a reality that really isn't.  And in fact, it is pretty insulting to those who are actually in need, many of which are hard-working people who just don't make enough to survive.  G-Man berated me one time for suggesting or implying that conservatives were callous or heartless.  He said that conservatives actually WANT to help those who are REALLY in need, just not those who sponge off the system.  But posts like yours don't do anything to reinforce his position.  Like I posted before, the percentage of households receiving food stamps in Ohio that had an adult who was WORKING was in the 70's on a recent study I saw.  It's a nice stereotype that conservatives like to bash, but not everyone is a freeloader as your post suggests. 

Willowpad's post that you quoted actually has some truth to it in that our country's financial problems are numerous...and I'd add complicated, though I'm not sure the sky is falling just yet.  Simplistic talking points are not at all constructive in solving those complex problems.  But following your logic, let's say we cut off all of those people....then what?  What would you suggest we do then.  Let them starve?  Let them go homeless?  Survival of the fittest, right?  A significant number of those programs help children...what do you suggest we do with them?  Furthermore, do you know what would happen to our nation's economy if we did that?  All of these programs pump money into the economy creating demand, which in turn, creates jobs, which adds tax-payers to the rolls, which increases gov't revenues, which decreases deficits, and on and on. And oh yeah, cutting them off entirely still wouldn't eliminate the deficit because compared to all other spending, these programs are actually a pretty small percentage of the overall budget, not to mention the collapse of the economy that would result.

Thank you Bob for making my point.  

I don't care who's insulted Bob......it's about time we started talking about the FAIRNESS of it all....because I can't afford to keep paying for all of the folks that are getting the free stuff....whether they're in need or not.  

I know that there's plenty of folks in need Bob.....but I'M in need myself.....but there's also more than plenty of folks on the government dole that ARE NOT in need and can get off of their butt and get and job.  Enough is enough Bob....and I can't afford to keep paying for it all.  

[Jeff K]

Well, ya see....it's like this, it's all about the free stuff and who's gonna give it to ya.......

You have nailed it exactly!!!  (if simply)

My daddy told me at 15 or 16.... You get it pretty good as a kid growing up, but sooner or later, you work or you die.  This is the way it should be.  When our great country can run a successful surplus and there is enough money to help the truly needy, then we can help them.  When we have no money, everyone should be on their own.... work or die.  The solution is not higher taxes, bigger govt and more spending.  The solution is taxes never go up, smaller govt, and less spending, less free stuff (or none until we can afford it).... just like anyone would run his own household. 

"Like" 

[Serk]

Penn Jillette summed things up pretty well for me with this little quote:

[Bob E.]

You're skeptical of what a republican says? The hypocrisy is amazing? Blowing Smoke? You have got to be kidding me. Watch any news show, any network, and you will see all that and more from both parties. I watch more news shows than is probably healthy and I can tell you if I had the questions that were going to be asked, I could write the answers for either side ahead of time. Biggest exception for that was be Joe Biden and I actually like and respect Joe. I'm a registered democrat for the past 42 years but I am almost ashamed of it. I am not against abortions in cases where it is deemed absolutely necessary. But for our government and/or the Democratic party to allow/ legalize abortions on demand and late term abortions is just not compatible with any decent moral thought process I can come up with. And somehow the Democratic party has made this a "women's" rights issue where I find it to be a human rights issue. And somehow I am struggling with the idea that the government needs to provide birth control pills or condoms or diaphragms to anyone who requests them as some sort of right they deserve.


You speak of people going hungry, starving as if our present way of doing things is an answer. I have seen the news reports out of Florida in particular of the kids living in vehicles and their struggles to maintain hygiene and prepare for school because their parents have lost everything. The lucky kids are the ones whose parents have enough work to afford a motel room for the whole family to pile into. I saw a news clip about a family out in Las Vegas who was undecided on who to vote for due to their current economic condition. It seems they bought a home some years back for $700,000.00 and now the market says it's only worth $350.000.00. Now is the government going to bail them out? Why should they? But that is what he is hoping for. I say dumb-ass. The house was never worth $700K, he got took when he bought, thinking that in 5-10 years his house would be worth a cool million.


I don't have to do a lot of research to know that we have got to shrink the size of government. I am satisfied that the Democrats in power have any thought along those lines. I actually believe that there is enough waste, fraud, and outright theft in government to balance the budget. The problem with a ever increasing growth in the government machine is that so many people are on the payroll. If we got rid of all the government positions that are not needed our unemployment rate would probably go up at least a point.


The handling of the health care bill has been the nail in the coffin for Obama in my mind. That was his and Nancy's and Harry's job 1 for two years while we were economically falling apart. Our country has been on life support so long I think we are now in some sort of coma. Is our health care system in need of help? Yes. Was that the most important thing our elected officials could have been working on? Absolutely not.



Are the rich and powerful getting too many breaks? Probably. Is their a more equitable answer to our tax system? I'm sure. Will either side approach the fairness issue?I'm not so sure.


Respect for politicians is in short supply on both sides of the aisle. It's time for leaders to lead.

I never said Dems don't also spin and twist facts.  They are guilty too, though I admittedly believe less so.  And like I said, I'm sure conservative folks probably feel the same way about their side.  But it has been the Republicans discrediting the media.  It has been the Republicans discrediting science.  It has been the Republicans who have disrespected the office of this President.  It has been the Republicans who have walked away from any compromises to get anything done.  It was the Republicans who met the night of the inauguration to plan how to oppose and defeat the President at every turn, putting party ahead of country.  It has been the Republicans stereotyping who is receiving gov't assistance or who is or isn't paying taxes.  It has been the Republicans discrediting just basic data.  The Republicans have been attacking all of our institutions that have been the bedrock of what is supposed to actually be "THE TRUTH".  If any of these institutions call them out on it, then they attack them as partisan, sowing seeds of distrust among the American Public.  And then they turn around and create some alternate set of "facts" that are supported by some fringe "expert" and then that alternate reality becomes accepted and promoted.  Some of the things coming from the Romney campaign have been laughable and it is almost as if they are proud of that fact.  "We are not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers" they actually said.  And for the past few years, the republicans have waged a war on truth, starting with all of the health care stuff, the birther stuff, climate change science, quotes taken totally out of context, nearly everything.  It has gotten so bad that a new word, "truthiness", was coined by Stephen Colbert back during the Bush administration to describe things people believe and accept to be true, but have no basis in fact or reality.  It is as if the actual truth doesn't matter, even when things are obviously verifiable.  And the news media has failed to do it's number-one job and call on these guys when they do it...on both parties.  So they lie without consequence.  And that fact, the poisoning of the discourse and the distrust of any actual data, facts, or science and the inability to have an honest debate, I feel will lead to worse problems for our country than any disagreements about taxes or spending.  Because if you can't even agree on a set of facts or what actually makes up reality, then how can anyone work together to solve any major problems?  And this all brings me full-circle back to my original entry in this thread...which was to correct the assertion that Paul Ryan came from "very humble beginnings", implying that he grew up poor.  He did not...not that there's anything wrong with that.  But let's keep the facts honest.

Abortion is a touchy subject.  I can see both sides.  Personally, I'd like to think if ever faced with the situation of making the choice, I'd choose life.  So I guess personally I'm pro-life.  But having never been in that situation, I don't know that I want the government making that choice for me.  So that makes me pro-choice.  I just find it a little hypocritical on the conservative side wanting smaller government...except on this issue, they want really really big government.  Also, on the issue of contraception, this actually saves money in the long run...and reduces the number of abortions.  Why would anyone (other than Catholic Bishops, I guess) object to this?  And it wasn't that the gov't had to provide free contraception to anyone.  The insurance companies were required to cover it under plans that people purchased.

Budget...I guess I disagree that we could shrink over 40% out of our budget just on waste, fraud, and abuse.  That just doesn't seem possible, especially considering that about 2/3 or more of our budget is Defense, Medicare, and Social Security.  Conservatives want smaller government rather than raising revenues, so I always ask, "What 40% would you cut?"  I always get the same old, cutting off poor people and foreign aid...which wouldn't even come close to balancing the budget.  It would barely make a dent.

Starving People...I'm not just for the status quo here.  I think we should be doing more, not less (or the same).  More of what, I guess I'm open to suggestions.  And hey, if we can do more for less, even better.  But doing less isn't really an option.  Well, I guess it is, but I'd ask, "What do we do then?  Let them starve and die in the street?"  I never get an answer, but usually receive a lecture about people making poor choices or just freeloading the system.

Housing/Mortgages...your story of the $700K house is a good example.  And I agree with you that housing prices were very inflated.  But what is often overlooked is that, at the time, the person likely had a good job and could afford the payments.  Also, the house was worth $700K when they bought it.  That's what houses were going for.  An item is worth what someone will pay, right?  Plus, if it wasn't worth it, the bank shouldn't have lent the money.  The amount you can mortgage is predicated on the value of the home.  That's what they do.  And I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have gotten very far by insulting the seller with an offer of $350K and telling him that's what it is really worth.  Now, should the gov't bail them out?  I don't know.  But I can see the arguement for doing it...not specifically to help this one person, but for the economy as a whole.  Ours is a consumer/demand driven economy.  When large numbers of people have underwater mortgages it creates a drag on the economy because these large numbers of people aren't spending money.  They can't get credit.  They can't sell the house to downsize.  They can't retire.  They can't do anything.  So, if it were a small problem for a few individuals, the gov't doesn't have an interest in helping.  However, when the numbers are so large that it negatively affects the national economy, then it might be worth considering.

Healthcare...I can't totally disagree with your point and I suspect this is why the Dems paid a heavy price in 2010.  However, consider that the ARRA (Stimulus) had already been passed.  Dodd-Frank was passed.  The auto bailouts were under way.  And Republicans in the Senate were on a record pace for number of filibusters blocking any action by the Dems or Obama.  What else could they realistically have done for the economy?  They certainly weren't going to get another stimulus passed. Plus, when might they have the chance with such large majorities that this might actually get done?  Also, Obama ran on this.  Republicans like to slam him for broken promises, even though they are the ones who blocked him from accomplishing many of them like closing Gitmo.  But this isn't one of them.

Tax Fairness...I suspect you are right since "fairness" is subjective and the two sides have completely different views on what is FAIR.  Plus, the big dogs with the money have so much influence that they'll for sure protect their interests.  So I don't hold out much hope for this, even though I believe it is greatly needed.

And finally, Leadership...Leadership is more than just getting things done.  But also involves standing up for what is right.  And this is where I've had a problem with Republicans lately.  Although I had some major ideoligical disagreements with Bush and McCain, I give them alot of credit...Bush for what he said defending Muslims after 9/11 and McCain for defending Obama in a town hall debate when a questioner accused Obama of being "an Arab".  I just don't see any Republican rebuking these sorts of statements by the birthers or questioning whether Obama is a Christian.  They always give a wishy-washy answer and one actually stated that it wasn't their job to tell constituents what to believe.  Well, as a leader, it should be your job to tell them that they are wrong.  Also, John Boehner had a real chance to forge a truly bi-partisan agreement on deficit reduction during the debt ceiling debates.  But instead of moving a little to the left to gain a bunch of Dems, he moved right so as not to piss off a few tea-partiers.  And as a result, the whole thing fell through and ended with our credit rating getting downgraded.

Sorry this got long...but I hope MP approves of the number of paragraphs. 

[Bob E.]

Doesn't matter WHO gets elected as president/vice prez in 2012, Democrat or Republican; there will be a continuation of the economic downturn of the United States of America that will bring our nation over the fiscal cliff and to the Great Depression of 2014.  The reasons are unfortunately too numerous and complicated to list here, but assuredly are concrete overshoes to the Republic.
Remember, you heard it here first.  Sorry. 

Well, ya see....it's like this, it's all about the free stuff and who's gonna give it to ya.......



The folks who are getting the free stuff don't like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff.

And, the folks who are paying for the free stuff want the free stuff to stop.

And the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!

Now... the people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff that the people who are PAYING for the free stuffare being mean, prejudiced, and racist.
So... the people who are GETTING the free stuff have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff and giving them the free stuff in the first place.

We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff.

Now understand this. All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded. The reason?

The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.

The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 236 years ago. The number of people now getting free stuff outnumbers the people paying for the free stuff. We have one chance to change that in 2012. Failure to change that spells the end of the United States as we know it.

That's a pretty simplistic view of a reality that really isn't.  And in fact, it is pretty insulting to those who are actually in need, many of which are hard-working people who just don't make enough to survive.  G-Man berated me one time for suggesting or implying that conservatives were callous or heartless.  He said that conservatives actually WANT to help those who are REALLY in need, just not those who sponge off the system.  But posts like yours don't do anything to reinforce his position.  Like I posted before, the percentage of households receiving food stamps in Ohio that had an adult who was WORKING was in the 70's on a recent study I saw.  It's a nice stereotype that conservatives like to bash, but not everyone is a freeloader as your post suggests. 

Willowpad's post that you quoted actually has some truth to it in that our country's financial problems are numerous...and I'd add complicated, though I'm not sure the sky is falling just yet.  Simplistic talking points are not at all constructive in solving those complex problems.  But following your logic, let's say we cut off all of those people....then what?  What would you suggest we do then.  Let them starve?  Let them go homeless?  Survival of the fittest, right?  A significant number of those programs help children...what do you suggest we do with them?  Furthermore, do you know what would happen to our nation's economy if we did that?  All of these programs pump money into the economy creating demand, which in turn, creates jobs, which adds tax-payers to the rolls, which increases gov't revenues, which decreases deficits, and on and on. And oh yeah, cutting them off entirely still wouldn't eliminate the deficit because compared to all other spending, these programs are actually a pretty small percentage of the overall budget, not to mention the collapse of the economy that would result.

Thank you Bob for making my point.  

I don't care who's insulted Bob......it's about time we started talking about the FAIRNESS of it all....because I can't afford to keep paying for all of the folks that are getting the free stuff....whether they're in need or not.  

I know that there's plenty of folks in need Bob.....but I'M in need myself.....but there's also more than plenty of folks on the government dole that ARE NOT in need and can get off of their butt and get and job.  Enough is enough Bob....and I can't afford to keep paying for it all.  

I guess you misunderstood my point, which was that your belief that those on assistance are just a bunch of loafers isn't entirely correct.  And calling a bunch of hard-working poor people loafers is insulting.  Are there freeloaders? Sure.  But the vast majority of them are not.  And in this time of great recession where so many people lost their good jobs when the economy crashed and would love nothing more than to get back to work at a good-paying job, that stereotype is even less true.

And besides, you're not paying for it.  Haven't you heard, we have a $16Trillion debt...China is paying for it.    I'm kidding...mostly, but you get my point.  Your tax burden is at a historically low level, at least at the federal level...believe it or not.

[Bob E.]

Well, ya see....it's like this, it's all about the free stuff and who's gonna give it to ya.......

You have nailed it exactly!!!  (if simply)

My daddy told me at 15 or 16.... You get it pretty good as a kid growing up, but sooner or later, you work or you die.  This is the way it should be.  When our great country can run a successful surplus and there is enough money to help the truly needy, then we can help them.  When we have no money, everyone should be on their own.... work or die.  The solution is not higher taxes, bigger govt and more spending.  The solution is taxes never go up, smaller govt, and less spending, less free stuff (or none until we can afford it).... just like anyone would run his own household. 

Why is it that the supposed way to motivate rich people to work harder is to give them more money in the form of tax breaks and subsidies, but the way to motivate poor and needy people is to take money and assistance away from them? 

[Jeff K]

A better question is... If we sneaky conservatives launched an aborted fetus to Mars, and the mars rover came across it... would the party of science declare it had found signs of previous life on Mars?

[SANDMAN5]

Depending on whose numbers you believe, at least a third of people in the U.S. pay NO
federal income tax. The Dem's only solution seems to be to raise taxes on the rich. Sure,
it sounds good on paper and it's a great way to get less-intelligent (or uninformed)
people to vote for you.....but why take money away from the ONE group of people
that create jobs?!?! Am I saying do away with their taxes? Hardly. But none of the paychecks
I've ever WORKED for the last 30 yrs have been signed by someone making $20,000/yr.
They invest their money in companies, why shouldn't they expect to profit from that
investment? I read/heard somewhere that if the income tax on the richest 1% was DOUBLED
it would be enough money to run the gov't for less than one week. How many jobs do the
Dems want to eliminate to fund a wasteful, pandering administration for a few days?

[Jess from VA]

Well, ya see....it's like this, it's all about the free stuff and who's gonna give it to ya.......

You have nailed it exactly!!!  (if simply)

My daddy told me at 15 or 16.... You get it pretty good as a kid growing up, but sooner or later, you work or you die.  This is the way it should be.  When our great country can run a successful surplus and there is enough money to help the truly needy, then we can help them.  When we have no money, everyone should be on their own.... work or die.  The solution is not higher taxes, bigger govt and more spending.  The solution is taxes never go up, smaller govt, and less spending, less free stuff (or none until we can afford it).... just like anyone would run his own household. 

Why is it that the supposed way to motivate rich people to work harder is to give them more money in the form of tax breaks and subsidies, but the way to motivate poor and needy people is to take money and assistance away from them? 

It is people's responsibility to take care of themselves, it is not government's responsibility to take care of people.... other than a loose organization of 50 states, and a military.  Cut the Fed G in half, and cut taxes to 10 percent for everyone with no deductions, and make the Fed live on that, or die.  No problem with unemployment (as it used to be, 12 weeks only) and social security.... which worker and employer share funding for.   Otherwise, work/earn/save or die.  80 odd entitlement programs is bullsh!t. 

Draconian, you bet. 

[f6john]

You're skeptical of what a republican says? The hypocrisy is amazing? Blowing Smoke? You have got to be kidding me. Watch any news show, any network, and you will see all that and more from both parties. I watch more news shows than is probably healthy and I can tell you if I had the questions that were going to be asked, I could write the answers for either side ahead of time. Biggest exception for that was be Joe Biden and I actually like and respect Joe. I'm a registered democrat for the past 42 years but I am almost ashamed of it. I am not against abortions in cases where it is deemed absolutely necessary. But for our government and/or the Democratic party to allow/ legalize abortions on demand and late term abortions is just not compatible with any decent moral thought process I can come up with. And somehow the Democratic party has made this a "women's" rights issue where I find it to be a human rights issue. And somehow I am struggling with the idea that the government needs to provide birth control pills or condoms or diaphragms to anyone who requests them as some sort of right they deserve.


You speak of people going hungry, starving as if our present way of doing things is an answer. I have seen the news reports out of Florida in particular of the kids living in vehicles and their struggles to maintain hygiene and prepare for school because their parents have lost everything. The lucky kids are the ones whose parents have enough work to afford a motel room for the whole family to pile into. I saw a news clip about a family out in Las Vegas who was undecided on who to vote for due to their current economic condition. It seems they bought a home some years back for $700,000.00 and now the market says it's only worth $350.000.00. Now is the government going to bail them out? Why should they? But that is what he is hoping for. I say dumb-ass. The house was never worth $700K, he got took when he bought, thinking that in 5-10 years his house would be worth a cool million.


I don't have to do a lot of research to know that we have got to shrink the size of government. I am satisfied that the Democrats in power have any thought along those lines. I actually believe that there is enough waste, fraud, and outright theft in government to balance the budget. The problem with a ever increasing growth in the government machine is that so many people are on the payroll. If we got rid of all the government positions that are not needed our unemployment rate would probably go up at least a point.


The handling of the health care bill has been the nail in the coffin for Obama in my mind. That was his and Nancy's and Harry's job 1 for two years while we were economically falling apart. Our country has been on life support so long I think we are now in some sort of coma. Is our health care system in need of help? Yes. Was that the most important thing our elected officials could have been working on? Absolutely not.



Are the rich and powerful getting too many breaks? Probably. Is their a more equitable answer to our tax system? I'm sure. Will either side approach the fairness issue?I'm not so sure.


Respect for politicians is in short supply on both sides of the aisle. It's time for leaders to lead.

I never said Dems don't also spin and twist facts.  They are guilty too, though I admittedly believe less so.  And like I said, I'm sure conservative folks probably feel the same way about their side.  But it has been the Republicans discrediting the media.  It has been the Republicans discrediting science.  It has been the Republicans who have disrespected the office of this President.  It has been the Republicans who have walked away from any compromises to get anything done.  It was the Republicans who met the night of the inauguration to plan how to oppose and defeat the President at every turn, putting party ahead of country.  It has been the Republicans stereotyping who is receiving gov't assistance or who is or isn't paying taxes.  It has been the Republicans discrediting just basic data.  The Republicans have been attacking all of our institutions that have been the bedrock of what is supposed to actually be "THE TRUTH".  If any of these institutions call them out on it, then they attack them as partisan, sowing seeds of distrust among the American Public.  And then they turn around and create some alternate set of "facts" that are supported by some fringe "expert" and then that alternate reality becomes accepted and promoted.  Some of the things coming from the Romney campaign have been laughable and it is almost as if they are proud of that fact.  "We are not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers" they actually said.  And for the past few years, the republicans have waged a war on truth, starting with all of the health care stuff, the birther stuff, climate change science, quotes taken totally out of context, nearly everything.  It has gotten so bad that a new word, "truthiness", was coined by Stephen Colbert back during the Bush administration to describe things people believe and accept to be true, but have no basis in fact or reality.  It is as if the actual truth doesn't matter, even when things are obviously verifiable.  And the news media has failed to do it's number-one job and call on these guys when they do it...on both parties.  So they lie without consequence.  And that fact, the poisoning of the discourse and the distrust of any actual data, facts, or science and the inability to have an honest debate, I feel will lead to worse problems for our country than any disagreements about taxes or spending.  Because if you can't even agree on a set of facts or what actually makes up reality, then how can anyone work together to solve any major problems?  And this all brings me full-circle back to my original entry in this thread...which was to correct the assertion that Paul Ryan came from "very humble beginnings", implying that he grew up poor.  He did not...not that there's anything wrong with that.  But let's keep the facts honest.

Abortion is a touchy subject.  I can see both sides.  Personally, I'd like to think if ever faced with the situation of making the choice, I'd choose life.  So I guess personally I'm pro-life.  But having never been in that situation, I don't know that I want the government making that choice for me.  So that makes me pro-choice.  I just find it a little hypocritical on the conservative side wanting smaller government...except on this issue, they want really really big government.  Also, on the issue of contraception, this actually saves money in the long run...and reduces the number of abortions.  Why would anyone (other than Catholic Bishops, I guess) object to this?  And it wasn't that the gov't had to provide free contraception to anyone.  The insurance companies were required to cover it under plans that people purchased.

Budget...I guess I disagree that we could shrink over 40% out of our budget just on waste, fraud, and abuse.  That just doesn't seem possible, especially considering that about 2/3 or more of our budget is Defense, Medicare, and Social Security.  Conservatives want smaller government rather than raising revenues, so I always ask, "What 40% would you cut?"  I always get the same old, cutting off poor people and foreign aid...which wouldn't even come close to balancing the budget.  It would barely make a dent.

Starving People...I'm not just for the status quo here.  I think we should be doing more, not less (or the same).  More of what, I guess I'm open to suggestions.  And hey, if we can do more for less, even better.  But doing less isn't really an option.  Well, I guess it is, but I'd ask, "What do we do then?  Let them starve and die in the street?"  I never get an answer, but usually receive a lecture about people making poor choices or just freeloading the system.

Housing/Mortgages...your story of the $700K house is a good example.  And I agree with you that housing prices were very inflated.  But what is often overlooked is that, at the time, the person likely had a good job and could afford the payments.  Also, the house was worth $700K when they bought it.  That's what houses were going for.  An item is worth what someone will pay, right?  Plus, if it wasn't worth it, the bank shouldn't have lent the money.  The amount you can mortgage is predicated on the value of the home.  That's what they do.  And I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have gotten very far by insulting the seller with an offer of $350K and telling him that's what it is really worth.  Now, should the gov't bail them out?  I don't know.  But I can see the arguement for doing it...not specifically to help this one person, but for the economy as a whole.  Ours is a consumer/demand driven economy.  When large numbers of people have underwater mortgages it creates a drag on the economy because these large numbers of people aren't spending money.  They can't get credit.  They can't sell the house to downsize.  They can't retire.  They can't do anything.  So, if it were a small problem for a few individuals, the gov't doesn't have an interest in helping.  However, when the numbers are so large that it negatively affects the national economy, then it might be worth considering.

Healthcare...I can't totally disagree with your point and I suspect this is why the Dems paid a heavy price in 2010.  However, consider that the ARRA (Stimulus) had already been passed.  Dodd-Frank was passed.  The auto bailouts were under way.  And Republicans in the Senate were on a record pace for number of filibusters blocking any action by the Dems or Obama.  What else could they realistically have done for the economy?  They certainly weren't going to get another stimulus passed. Plus, when might they have the chance with such large majorities that this might actually get done?  Also, Obama ran on this.  Republicans like to slam him for broken promises, even though they are the ones who blocked him from accomplishing many of them like closing Gitmo.  But this isn't one of them.

Tax Fairness...I suspect you are right since "fairness" is subjective and the two sides have completely different views on what is FAIR.  Plus, the big dogs with the money have so much influence that they'll for sure protect their interests.  So I don't hold out much hope for this, even though I believe it is greatly needed.

And finally, Leadership...Leadership is more than just getting things done.  But also involves standing up for what is right.  And this is where I've had a problem with Republicans lately.  Although I had some major ideoligical disagreements with Bush and McCain, I give them alot of credit...Bush for what he said defending Muslims after 9/11 and McCain for defending Obama in a town hall debate when a questioner accused Obama of being "an Arab".  I just don't see any Republican rebuking these sorts of statements by the birthers or questioning whether Obama is a Christian.  They always give a wishy-washy answer and one actually stated that it wasn't their job to tell constituents what to believe.  Well, as a leader, it should be your job to tell them that they are wrong.  Also, John Boehner had a real chance to forge a truly bi-partisan agreement on deficit reduction during the debt ceiling debates.  But instead of moving a little to the left to gain a bunch of Dems, he moved right so as not to piss off a few tea-partiers.  And as a result, the whole thing fell through and ended with our credit rating getting downgraded.

Sorry this got long...but I hope MP approves of the number of paragraphs. 

    Well Bob, I think we now both know how our reps in Washington feel after a day at the table. I could now write a dozen paragraphs about all the things we agree and disagree but when it's all said and done nothing has changed and I'm just too tired to continue.

[G-Man]

Penn Jillette summed things up pretty well for me with this little quote:

Gunpoint = IRS intimidation.

And now there are 16,000 new IRS agents to make sure your paying enough.  That means a 16,000 fold INCREASE in audits of the middle class.  They're not gonna go after the rich because that's too time consuming and not worth the effort for the little they'll find.  They're not gonna go after to poor because you can't get something from nothing.  So, who gets the shaft......again?  The middle class. 

Yup, the Demococrats are the savior of the middle class.  Insane.   

Oh, and heard last night at the DNC....."We are one nation, with liberty and justice for all"  Notice anything missing?  I'm not a holy roller, but I can't understand how anyone that professes to have faith can vote Democrat.  They represent the exact opposite of faith based teachings.  And they believe that those who do live a faith based lifestyle are morons, flat earthers, etc. 

And any Jew that feels ties to Israel.........................