“I cannot believe that the Republicans are stupid. There must be a hidden agenda behind their insistence on rolling back every progressive law all the way to Social Security, not to mention rescinding women's rights. Next thing they will be trying to repeal the 19th amendment. There must be a plan, maybe to concentrate on taking over the congress, House and Senate. Voters have been electing more and more conservative congresspeople lately. So what if President Obama wins. If the GOP takes the House and the Senate, they can override the veto.
Beware. The Republicans are making it too easy. Look to your congressmen and senators. Do not allow them to slip away.”
lah007743 on Aug 21, 2012 at 20:09:52
“You know, I have thought the same thing. I haven't quite figured it out yet, but it really could be just the fringe of the group. I think that the moderate Repubs gave them a voice in 2010 and they never thought of the consequences. Now they have a pack of wild animals on their hands and will probably lose the election despite their best efforts to silence them. That time has come and gone.”
rich misty on Aug 21, 2012 at 20:01:35
“Interview with David Neiwert - It's a must listen on U2be or you won't get what is going on.”
“What an amazing idea! A tax that steers investment incentives away from outright gambling toward a more prudent approach. Yes, it will affect my retirement account, but not very much. I would be happy to pay 0.03% on trades managed by my mutual funds if in the bigger picture it would discourage day traders and decrease market volatility. Why has this idea not surfaced before?”
“I was all set to flame this post. You cannot imagine my pleasure to find a reasoned and moderate commentary on the Affordable Healthcare Act.
As a newly minted Christian, I am mindful that our Savior found Himself in conflict with the political and religious establishments of his era. He also socialized with tax collectors, prostitutes, sinners and outsiders of all stripes. If you seek to save souls, you must befriend those who seem lost. These are Christian values to be emulated on our journey to the eternal kingdom of God.
“Whose religious freedom is under attack? Not mine!
The religious right cries, "The secular left is attacking our freedom," but their cries ring hollow. "Religious freedom under attack" is being a Christian living in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria and other modern Islamic nations, and not being allowed to worship publicly. “Attack" is passing laws that limit how individuals choose to worship. "Attack" is padlocking churches, mosques, synagogues or temples. "Attack" is forcing people to practice birth control or sterilization, as they are or were in China. "Attack" is being excluded from citizenship if one practices the "wrong" faith. When the right experiences such laws and policies, then I will admit their complaints are justified.
The pleas of the right to enshrine their beliefs in secular law are just as discriminatory as the passage of laws requiring faith based institutions to sponsor insurance for medical services that go against the sponsors' faith. I believe the proper role of a Christian person is to spread the gospel by living a Christian life and by personal communication to persuade unbelievers and lapsed believers to accept God, the Trinity of their own free will. If I merely sponsored laws against practices that run counter to my faith, then I would not be following Christ's example. In fact, I would probably be doing the opposite, driving souls away instead of winning them for Him.”
Mrs Robinsons on Mar 12, 2012 at 11:01:10
“Very well thought out.”
Cindbird on Mar 12, 2012 at 02:21:38
“You're right. It does drive people away. And is a big part of the reason young people leave the church as well.”
“The republic is not working. For a republic to work every representative must integrate the desires of all constituents when deciding how to vote. Instead each representative listens harder to the voices of one percent, the wealthy one percent. Wealth has subverted democracy, and the fault lies not with the "system" or the voters, but with the elected representatives who do not even pretend to try and find out what the majority wants.
Vote the bums out. Start during the primary elections. Vote against your party's incumbent, whether you are Democrat or Republican.. It is time the congressional "lifers" had to start worrying about their jobs, just as the rest of us must. They all need a forthright performance review, and most need to be taken "to the woodshed."”
aearthling59 on Dec 17, 2011 at 14:47:25
“$10 billion given in earmarks for their health care vote: now we hear they conduct insider trading, one as much as 90 trades in one day. You are correct whatever party they need to go. THIRTY THREE senators are coming up for reelection, no matter how much you like yours, vote them out. If they are that good you can vote for them in your own state for state offices.”
“Where are the facts in this debate. I want to see the statistics that associate tax increases with job losses and economic downturns. In my memory over the past 30-40 years job gains often accompanied tax increases, and job losses often were associated with tax decreases. If there is a trend, the facts suggest that it bends the opposite way from the claims of GOP and Tea Party advocates.
One post names the so-called "job creators" as "economic hostage takers." This is a very apt description. It appears that regardless of tax treatment, the "job creators" are creating their jobs outside the US. Such acts are not partriotic in the least, and they aggravate the social misery of our most vulnerable citizens.
I agree with Warren Buffet. The people who have benefitted most from tax cuts have been coddled long enough. It is time to cut a break for the people who earn their livings through wages and salaries. The special treatment of capital gains and corporate perquisits should be eliminated from the tax code. Taxation has little or no effect on job creation. Job creation follows the path to the lowest labor costs, and income is income regardless of how or where it is derived.”
karlbmiles on Sep 19, 2011 at 18:58:50
“I'm wondering what tax increase the businesses are waiting for before they start hiring. Gee, if Obama would just raise my taxes 3 to 5%, then I'll be ready to start a new factory line.”
“The Democrats wimp out again.
If it is true that the campaigns did not emphasize the union-busting objectives of the GOP, then it is no wonder they lost the race. The fear of alienating the "undecided center" leads to ineffective campaign tactics. It is time to get the average citizen fired up about the GOP efforts to kill unions and enrich the disgustingly well off in this country. It is true that unions have some problems, but they are the only effective deterrent against a return to the sweat shop days of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Do you think individuals can negotiate effectively with managers and executives of multinational organizations? For your answer just look at the conditions forced on "exempt" employees working 80+ hours a week in constant fear of losing their jobs. Look at the trend to moving professional jobs offshore and the importing of foreign professionals at lower pay than factory workers. US workers need unions to defend themselves from Wall Street's insatiable craving for money. That is why this defeat is so sad and so shameful for the Democrats who lost their nerve.”
billjmcdaniel on Aug 10, 2011 at 16:28:22
“I think its time that we in the classification of "undecided center" stop supporting either end and find others in the center who by and large represent the majority of people, and on average I'd venture a guess are the most tolerant bunch of people interested in politics, and form a real 3rd party. My hopes rest with progressivesunited.org and Mr. Feingold.”
“Why is it not OK for a government bureaucrat to ration care dollars but OK for an insurance company bureaucrat to do the same thing? I do not understand the difference, except that no insurance company makes a profit when a government bureaucrat does the rationing.”
Jannsmoor on Jun 27, 2011 at 11:49:10
“Oregon put together a panel of doctors and came up with a plan. They decided they were not going to pay for very expensive procedures for people who are in the last weeks of their life. They did this because they decided the money would save more lives if it was directed to people who could recover. They also reviewed every prescription drug and determined that a number of off patent drugs were actually more effective than the newer, much higher cost patent drugs. Accordingly, they require physicians to prescribe the more effective drug unless the Doctor articulates a reason the patient needs the newer, more expensive drug. They do not review the reason.”
Jose J Martinez on Jun 27, 2011 at 11:48:18
“Because, people will call it socialism, and that word scares a lot of them. But what they don't realize is we have socialism establishments throughout our society.
The military, public schools, police, firefighters, etc.. etc.. etc...”
“If I believed in conspiracy theories, I would think that the leaders of American corporations were conspiring to hold back the economy in hopes that US citizens will elect a president who will favor their economic causes. I am sure there is no such conspiracy, but, one must admit that every CEO and COO and every corporate policy-maker in every US corporation must have thought if he or she starts hiring now, it woud virtually guarantee a second term for President Obama.
It is the ultimate economic hypocrisy to maintain that US corporations are out to encourage “innovation” when they will not augment their staffing enough to give workers time to just think. US corporations are doing just fine with the status quo. They have trillions in the bank and cash flowing in constantly. They do not need to expand their capacity or invent new products. They can hold the economy hostage to their political desires, and they seem to be doing just that, whether it is intentional or not.
All the government stimulus in the world cannot improve the economy while corporate managers keep the lid on domestic hiring. People need to be able to buy things if the US economy is to grow.”
“Right on! Why is this even an issue. According to the US laws in effect at the time of his birth, President Obama is a citizen by birthright whether he was born in Hawaii or Timbuktu, because his mother was a citizen. Here are the rules:
For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth, and the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth. (That is any time prior to the person's birth, not immediately prior).
All the controversy would evaporate if people would take the trouble to look up the law, but then that would expose the birthers to charges of ignorance.”
Dosadi on Apr 7, 2011 at 20:49:27
“They should all start with the Constituiton.
Article 4, section 1 says Hawaii can present a hollowed out coconut and that would be legal and must be respected by everyone.”
“I forgot to mention that earmarks are frequently the price for a legislator's vote. In business that would be called a kickback payment. The practice is completely unethical, and it should be abolished.”
massjim on Dec 15, 2010 at 13:13:38
“And the Dems voted against getting rid of earmarks. They love them. Yum Yum.”
“It's not just Nancy and company. The Republicans are jostling for a space at the trough as well. Earmarks are a bipartisan problem that deserves to be rooted out of the legislative process completely.”
“Earmarks were bad when only senior legislators could use them and they are 10 times worse when every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the back bench can have them. I don't care if a legislator's earmarks are for hospitals and orphanages, they are nothing but thinly disguised bids for votes and contributions to stay in office. The primary beneficiary of an earmark is the legislator who proposes it. They should be illegal. In fact they should be grounds for removal from office.”
Rodger leMonde on Dec 15, 2010 at 13:00:08
“A bit simplistic. Federal funds do need to be spent. It is the allocation process that has been corrupted. If the legislature doesn't do it the job falls to the executive branch.”
“It is looking more and more as if the "Tea Party" is against any legislation that has this President's finger prints on it. I would bet about a year's salary that they would criticize President Obama if he supported the elimination of any government social program in HHS or the Department of Education. The real agenda here is to prevent President Obama from being reelected in 2012.”
Foodgrade on Dec 15, 2010 at 12:53:17
“The Teaparty is nothing but a bunch of bigots who want to destroy a black man. Thay don't actually have a platform.”
howlando on Dec 15, 2010 at 12:53:15
“You'd lose about a year's salary. Its not complicated, the tea party is consistent in my experience in this issue. They don't want taxes to be increased, they want them to go down if anything and don't want compromise since by definition that means they are going up, and its just a matter of how much.
To understand the tea party on this issue, you have to think like a tea partier. Pulling numbers completely out of thin air to illustrate the point, lets say you have to cut spending by 20% just to cut the budget. A tea partier says great, then what we want to see happen is cutting taxes by 20% and spending by 40%.
It doesn't have anything to do with the president at all, they have just as big a beef with politicians on the right that aren't following that mantra, which is whats happening here. But there should be no surprise if you understand how they actually think.”
FJ 1200 on Dec 15, 2010 at 12:47:49
“And he doesn't see it. He doesn't have the chops to play hardball with the wingers.”
kimbanyc on Dec 15, 2010 at 12:46:47
“Yes that's true. Another example of GOBP exceptionalism at work.”
“The arguments against government administered health care burst with false choices. For instance, why is it worse for a government bureaucrat to deny me needed coverage or tell me which doctors I may see than it is when an insurance company bureaucrat does the same things. The effect on me is the same. The difference: when the government does it no insurance company makes a profit.”
dizmo4 on Dec 8, 2010 at 17:38:22
“The difference is that if a private company denies your coverage because they put profits first, you have 0 recourse. Even if you walk you end up with no insurance and no ability to buy new insurance due to pre-existing conditions.
With government bureaucrats you have a recourse. That is contacting your member of Congress. And if they don't help, that is voting them out.”
RUKidding0 on Dec 8, 2010 at 17:06:33
“The difference: when the government does it, you have no option, because it is LAW, moreover, your participation in it is literally at the point of a gun.
Until ObamaCare, no one forced you to buy health insurance, although this doesn't mean that insurance companies don't require regulation to pay for care their insured insured against.
“If health care reform is not repealed, the key provision will be declared unconstitutional. There is no language in the Constitution that allows congress to require individuals to buy health insurance or any other commercial product. The president and the congress took the path favored by the insurance lobby rather than tackle the tough issue of a single payer system. How is it that nobody could forsee the consequences of this legislative overreach? We elect too many people who are smart, but very few who are wise.”
maxwelldog on Dec 8, 2010 at 17:26:40
“there was no language in the Constitution about marijuana, either.
How did THAT work out?
Or alcohol, which kills some 65000-80000 people every year. But then, prohibition really fixed that, eh?
Now, if you want to talk Constitutional language...anything in there about the 490000 people who die EVERY YEAR from using tobacco?
(ps...marijuana, zero deaths per year)
The Constitution almost didn't get signed by General Washington because there were no provisions to improve it over time.
Or, to be more specific, there's nothing in the Constitution about gas guzzling big wheeled trucks, even though they rarely have any purpose at all.”
Em Smilez on Dec 8, 2010 at 16:50:12
“You're right about Congress not having Constitutional authority to require individuals to purchase health insurance. And if Congress does not have this authority, they certainly do not have Constitutional authority to enact a single payer system.
“The Westboro congregation exercised its Constitutional rights freely and can continue to do so, regardless of the Supreme court's ruling. This case is not about freedom of expression. The Westboro Baptist Church seems to be trying to dodge its civil responsibility for the consequences of its congregation's behavior, a $5 million civil judgement. The Westboro congregation's protest was emotionally hurtful and slanderous to the Snyder family. The church should pay.”
“I would bet about a year's pay that Toyota's acceleration problems are rooted in the programming of their electronic control modules, a.k.a. computers.
I worked for many years as an expert in software safety. From the information available in the news, this problem has all the earmarks of a software error, and that probably has the Toyota engineers scared witless. Automobiles require computers with millions of lines of complicated code, and finding the root cause of performance malfunctions is a nearly impossible task.
This may be the first instance to demonstrate that inadequate software development practices can put the public at great risk.”
“I am not sure how relevant this is to the article, but every day I live it becomes clearer to me that commercial interests own Washington, D.C., lock, stock, and barrel. One can probably count on two hands the number of congressmen who are committed to fighting for the interests of the common man. In the Senate you could complete the count on one hand.
How have the parties, both of them, bamboozled the people into voting against their own best interests? Tom Jefferson was right. Democracy requires an informed public, and the public today is about as ill-informed as it has ever been since our republic was founded. Between high school graduates who can't read or write, and news media that report far less than the whole story, it is no wonder the voters get fooled over and over again.
Wasn't there a time when informed, intelligent and civil people were held in high esteem? Today those traits are viewed with suspicion if not downright disdain. Have the politicians planned this? Who knows, but they are not doing anything to improve the situation. To paraphrase an old proverb: "All that is necessary for ignorance to triumph is for intelligent people to suffer in silence." That, my friends, is where we are today.
A patriotic critic.”
flyovermark on Jan 20, 2010 at 18:05:21
“Republicans have recognised the stranger in their house, and made him unwelcome. Until Democrats do likewise, they will continue to be the puppets of that stranger. He is duplicitous and self-serving; a master of propaganda and spin. He will say or do anything to get what he wants, because the means are always justified by the ends. He is a relentless opponent, well-versed in using the "Rules for Radicals" to destroy his opponent personally rather than let his marxist dogma have to compete in the marketplace of ideas. He holds no loyalty for party, president, or nation and is no friend to individual liberty. He will co-opt any cause to serve his agenda, be it education, environment, or healthcare, and if it cannot be "transformed" to serve him, he labors to destroy it. He is the progressive, and the harsh taskmaster that Democrats serve whether they know it or not.”