Cutting the defense budget is a good start and something that's been needed for a long time. But one thing they need to be careful with is the navy. An aging fleet needs a steady stream of ship replacement to be a creditable force.
In addition the F-35 has vertical takeoff capability that may eliminate the need for 90,000 ton aircraft carriers and it could reduce airfield requirements.
In the links provided I saw nothing about closing more bases - hmmmm? I guess that's implied with the reduction in weapons system and personnel.
And finally it's no surprise the DOD books are in a shambles - has anyone seen the books that Congress keeps. In the private sector you would go to jail with books like that.
Gee, Mike, the last time, you were complaining about the F-22. Now, it's the F-35. For some reason, I think you'd rather us go back to using F-4s and F-105s. Do those programs create jobs and do they cost tax money? Yeah, they do. I have NEVER said there isn't waste in government and defense contractors certainly produce their share, but the Pentagon gives the country a lot of bang for the buck. They don't want F-22's, F-35s and a new tanker/transport just for the hell of it. The planes now flying are old and wearing out. Some have been lost because wing spars failed in flight. The KC-135s started coming into service back in the late '50s/early '60s. They've been re-engined and re-furbished, but they are reaching the end of their useful life and we don't have a replacement for them and the KC-10s in the pipeline. The Navy has retired ALL of its F-14, A-4 and A-6 fleets, depending on the F/A-18s to do the air-to-air and air-to-ground work for the Navy.
Oh, boy!...Barny Fife--uhh, I mean Frank is running a committee to find waste! Mike...That's like putting the fox in the hen house. Barny is the single most irresponsible member of congress and HE'S heading a committee seeking to weed out waste. Gawd, I'm glad I'm old and won't live long enough (hopefully) to see the final destruction of the country as a result of those who hate the military.
Tell you what. You want to cut the size of the fleet of the Air Force? Start at Andrews AFB. Tell ALL the Congress critters they can no longer fly USAF. They make enough to buy a ticket on commercial air. Eliminate everything but one 757 and a couple helicopters for the President's travel and maybe keep a G-V for him to use on domestic flights. Tell the press corps to buy tickets on United.
Fox 5’s Paul Yates asked conservative(96% rating) GOP senator Johnny Isakson about legislation he’s pushing that would “dramatically reduce the federal budget deficit in coming years.” Yates asked Isakson which “government programs would have to be cut to make that proposal work.” Isakson responded that “there’s not a government program that shouldn’t be under scrutiny. And that begins with the Department of Defense and goes all the way through:”
The Sustainable Defense Task (SDTF) report released earlier this year. Assembled by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and consisting of the nation’s leading defense and budget experts, the SDTF identified nearly $1 trillion in waste that can be cut from the defense budget over the next ten years simply by eliminating outdated Cold War-era programs.
I don't care who wrote it, it makes sense and is the way I've seen things for a long time and I don't see one thing that isn't true. Big business is not in the business of keeping the middle class strong. All it cares about is their bottom line and creating a class of people that will work for next to nothing, whether it is in this Country or in another country. You cannot argue the fact that it already happening. This economy will never come back until the companies bring the jobs back here. Getting rid of Unions, benefits, overtime pay, healthcare, will not do it because it still isn't comparable to what those workers overseas will accept. And, if big business can bring the jobs back over here at the terms broke Americans will accept, then people will still not have the money to buy, so how is that going to do anything for our problem? We've got a missing link in our economy and no amount of tax cuts, de-unionizing, wishful thinking, is going to solve that problem. This country needs the middle class, but unfortunately the powers-that-be are hell-bent on breaking their backs and bringing them into line at their own expense.
John I agree with just about everything you said except the part about tea party republicans being a good fit.... If you believe their words ,they're not coming to compromise; they're coming to change things, as they see fit.... Included in that bunch are birthers,truthers, libertarians, and a lot of wing nuts who probably made "Fs" when it came to getting along with others.
We've been over this before but that's a vice -versa... The President Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex.... I'm just a lowly poster but our defense secretary doesn't think it's a sacred cow because he's cutting $100 million in waste, duplication, and in some cases fraud. I keep reminding you of that F-35 project scattered over 47 states to ensure congressional votes and the republicans want to reinstate the F-35 bill, if they takeover... They also want to put up a missile defense shield. I just read an article in Newsweek where the secretary of and defense complained of 31 levels of bureaucracy, where generals' were doing the work of second lieutenants and generals'were reporting to generals'..... It doesn't take a mathematical genius to know that the defense budget has been blotted for years. We have 17 intelligence departments employing over 8000 people.....i.e. If we don't have a healthy people working, or falling off bridges in dire need a repair or people suffering without Social Security, then we will become like North Korea; a strong military; nothing else.
Don't worry; I don't expect it to resonate.... Next time I mention it; I will probably get the same response.
Born to be - This article that you cited was written by a progressive liberal/socialist with the following credentials in economics - come on anyone can write this kind of crap. Thom Hartmann.......
"While dropping out of Michigan State during the tumultuous late 1960s, Hartmann received his C.H. (Chartered Herbalist) degree from Dominion Herbal College, an M.H. (Master of Herbology) degree from Emerson College of Herbology, and a Ph.D. in Homeopathic Medicine from Brantridge in England. Brantridge, was considered by experts in the field to be a diploma mill."
Defense is a "sacred cow?" Wow! In my humble opinion, defense is THE most important element in the budget. If we can't defend ourselves, none of the rest of the stuff -- Social Security, energy, roads, health care and the rest -- means anything. Whoever takes us over will deal with those and they won't care about us.
Mike, I can't find where I used the word "agenda", but I probably meant the plans for legislation. If I used the term "socialistic agenda", I meant the overall plan.
Republicans who have been more moderate in the past have not done well in elections. Some are not doing well now, either.
Well, it’s obvious you’re not a maker, just another taker. The CBO has not hit the “MARK” during the tenure of this administration on any item. But if you think you’re right go for it. I’m telling you there are other avenues to seek in order to stabilize this economy, and start moving this economy forward, your side does not have the skills or knowledge to make it happen, this economy is proof positive of that.
What happens when the makers have nothing left? What are the takers going to do then? The Dems just don’t get it. I will say this, I don’t think Obama will get re-elected, but if he doesn’t there will riots in the streets and the takers will burn down every thing the makers built. 2012 will no doubt be an interesting year♣
Everyone should know by now that the current revenues can only pay for entitlements, defense spending and the interest on the debt.... Without legislation the Bush tax cuts would expire.
Simple math: revenues can only pay for the three items I listed.
If the Federal government ENACTS tax cuts legislation; it will mean less revenues coming in to pay for entitlements, defense spending, and interest on the debt..Like the two tax cuts the Bush administration passed through RE conciliation; the money was borrowed adding to the deficit and the debt plus interest.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, extending the Bush tax cuts would add $2.3 trillion to the total 2018 debt. The single biggest step our government could take this year to address the structural deficit would be to let the tax cuts expire. And a credible commitment to long-term fiscal sustainability should reduce interest rates today, helping to stimulate the economy.
Mike, With all due respect as to your issues over 700 billion in taxes because of Bush tax cuts is really not an issue. But this idea the government has to borrow money to pay for Bush era tax cuts is incorrect. You don’t borrow money to pay for taxes.
Capitol gains taxes should be lowered to 10% for a ten year period, this alone would increase revenue two fold, and could have really changed the direction of the economy, and then we would be seeing more job growth in the private sector. Obama was asked during a debate with Hilary about capitol gains, he stated “that it would be unfair too lower capitol gains”, but he did not state as to who it would be unfair too. That statement was a direct shot at middle class America. Then there should have been a across the board freeze on entitlements increases. No new entitlements, such as healthcare. There should have been a complete freeze on all government budgets and hiring. This what I say to you, Bill Clinton, the main reason there was a surplus when he left office, he stopped the growth of our military, closed bases left and right. He froze government budgets and placed hiring freezes on almost all government agencies. Now, if Obama had any economic experience, he should have taken that silver spoon out of his butt and put priorities in order, but he put healthcare above the pain and suffering of the American people. He catered to his far left base and his ideology of wealth redistribution.
The reason Pelosi left DC and didn’t take up tax cuts, is for the following, if the dems lose the House, the Bush era tax cuts will not come to floor for a vote. We will be hit with a huge tax increase. It’s coming, so dig deep in those pockets.
I calls 'em like I sees 'em. It's just what makes sense to me. I was reading last night and found something that IMO is what is happening, and has happened in the past.
" The single- payer universal Health Care caucus of the democratic party were never given consideration. That group then moved on to the "public option" but the president never really endorsed it."
"Then again you end up by taking your finger off the pause button and playback your same old " it's the poor people's fault" talking point."
It's not a talking point, it is the point. What needs to be done is to increase employment, give more people jobs in the private sector. How to do this? First don't take more money out of the private sector. Secondly it is a proven fact that the minimum wage increases unemployment for 16 to 24 year olds, those just trying to enter the labor market.
If I remember right during Bush's term unemployment was 5% or less. And finally exactly what is meant by "trickle down economics." Is it advocating income redistribution like it sounds? Is that what we need to do, make more people depended on the government? How will that help?
I wanted you to define the word " agenda" because I didn't understand whether you thought it was legislation or something else.... I know the lines between liberalism and conservatism and I can find good and bad in both... I know the republican and democratic platform is but I don't know how you define agenda.
The current tea party was formed after the $700 billion bailout and it has evolved since then to several different agendas. So only it's about 20% of the population; who really cares?
Let me give you an example of why the democratic party is a diverse party that does not cater to its conservatives or the liberal base..... The single- payer universal Health Care caucus of the democratic party were never given consideration. That group then moved on to the "public option" but the president never really endorsed it.... Conservative democrats Montana's Max Baucus and North Dakota's Kent Conrad headed up the healthcare plan.... On that Sunday when the final bill was about to pass, the liberals sat ,as a president was signing an abortion waiver for the more conservative democrats in the house. That just on the most important piece of legislation they passed but the president could please his base by just issuing a moratorium on " don't ask don't tell" that takes place immediately and until final action by Congress.... He could also please his liberal base by reining in some of the more abusive practices of the Bush administration.
I will continue to say that voters don't know what goes into the "sausage making" and they're voting against those in power because they are angry.... Remember, establishment republicans are also being defeated.
You are the poster child for" supply side-trickle down economics'' because the last time the minimum wage was raise was 10 years ago and several state's minimum wage or $2 or $3 above the Federal level. You can no more gauge job increases with increase in the minimum wage; than you can with increases in vendor prices... They both affect the bottom line.
You said " To stimulate economic growth the people who do the hiring need the relief from higher wages and higher taxes. ".... The Bush administration cut taxes twice;do a little homework, go back and see how many jobs were created and measure that again stagnant wages and reduced benefits. Remember we were losing 700,000 jobs in the last quarter of 2008 and the Bush tax cuts were in place; in fact they still are.
Then again you end up by taking your finger off the pause button and playback your same old " it's the poor people's fault" talking point.
You said "President Obama proved this by raising enormous amounts of money during the last election. To keep all this money he declined PUBLIC matching funds. So I guess your statement rings hollow on this point. "
You're absolutely right, I either wrote a blog or answered a comment about then candidate Obama opting out of public finance. I think he should have kept his pledge he made with John McCain but that's water under the bridge.... John McCain opted for public finance because he was not receiving the grassroots web donations the Obama campaign was... Remember, McCain went broke one time...Obama's advisers convinced him that he would give up his distinct advantage by opting for public finance... John McCain did not take the high road; it was his only option..... Goldman Sachs and others saw the handwriting on the wall and they made their donations to Obama... Why would they give to a candidate they thought would lose? After the finance reform bill passed ; Wall Street vowed not to make contributions to democrats. There remains a few who were not in favor of reform, so they'll get rewarded nicely,as democrats.
Again, it's not the contributions; is what you do for it.
No, my statement in this case ,does not ring hollow.
You forgot the state" I approve of this message" because it's more of your in" it's the poor people's fault" talking points.
Guess what? We just lost about 37,000 more jobs after seven straight months of gains... The Bush tax cuts are still law.
For the umpteenth time(not that it will penetrate) but our tax revenues are down, consumers have stop spending, now you want the government to stop spending..Who will purchase the goods that remain on the shelves? Right wingers never mention defense spending for futuristic weapons, two wars (two billion per week) or they don't know that we already have " pays as you go" which means that any new piece of legislation will have to be deficit neutral.... Right wingers talk about the deficit and the debt but they want to go out and borrow an extra $700 billion to give a tax cut to the wealthiest 2%, and that's not including the interest.... Welfare..lol
This is not Fox News,so when you say "I think the the democrats stand to gain more from donated monies from george soros and unions than republicans do." that does not automatically does stand up as substantiated facts just because you threw in the right wing boogeymen George Soros & the scary unions.
You won't read them but Fox News gave $1 million to GOP directly and another $1 million to the Chamber of Commerce, The Chamber Commerce will run $75 million of attack ads against democrats and Karl Rowe has about another $52.... But then again, it's what you do for the money such as Joe Barton apologizing to BP, Lisa Murkowski holding up legislation that would have raised the liability cap on companies like BP, and just recently or "Senate Republicans gave no explanation on Monday when they blocked the Presidential Commission on the BP oil spill from having subpoena power to conduct the investigation."
The bulk of the money is being spent by conservatives, who have swamped their Democratic-aligned competition by 7 to 1 in recent weeks. The wave of spending is made possible in part by a series of Supreme Court rulings unleashing the ability of corporations and interest groups to spend money on politics. Conservative operatives also say they are riding the support of donors upset with Democratic policies they perceive as anti-business.
The House of representatives do not need term limits; they only have a two year term.... I'll think we want to amend the constitution to put in "feel good" proposals.
There all in bed with big business, except now the Democrats present more of a threat to business so the lobbyist are especially busy with the Democrats - the Republicans merit little notice.
Obama himself is mighty cozy with Wallstreet especially George Soros and other banking and investment firms.
Borntobe, you often comment about your economic theories. How did you come by these theories? It sounds like your shooting from the hip or worse quoting Karl Marx - just wondering.
Who buys the products that the small businesses make, or provide? Who is crowding out the small businesses?
It takes demand first, doesn't it? No small business has a market without demand.
Can you imagine what the economy would be like without SS, unemployment, food stamps. Basically, the govermnent, (you and I) are propping up the local and state economies because big business is allowed to rape our Country of it's decent-paying jobs. It takes good wages to buy the products from small businesses. Without good wages, people do not have the money for anything other than the basic and apparently the taxpayers have to help them out with that too, since they cannot earn enough on low wages with the prices of everything going up and up and up. So tell me again that it isn't from the bottom up.
Before you say anything, I do agree that the social programs need to be monitored a whole lot closer. There's way too much fraud and not enough watchdogs to catch it. There needs to be a legitimate hotline to report fraud and people who work those hotlines need to be less racially prejudiced.
born2bme "from the bottom up" do you really believe that will work?? Last time I looked not one job was created by increases in the minimum wage. In fact in most cases is has been proven that it costs jobs and raises the price of every thing to cover these higher wages. The only one who benefits from this is the govt as it raises the amount of taxes paid into the system.
To stimulate economic growth the people who do the hiring need the relief from higher wages and higher taxes. I don't back giving money to the wealthiest either because they are not the ones who create the jobs it is the small businesses which create the most jobs so this is the sector that needs to be targeted with tax incentives for hiring and along with this entitlements need to be gradually phased out. The free ride must stop . Welfare, social security and now health care must be available for the needy but must not become a way of life as it has today with 3rd and 4th generation welfare families bleeding the system without ever paying in a dime in taxes to help pay their way.
mike I think the the democrats stand to gain more from donated monies from george soros and unions than republicans do. President Obama proved this by raising enormous amounts of money during the last election. To keep all this money he declined PUBLIC matching funds. So I guess your statement rings hollow on this point.
If you think things are bad now just wait until all the debt we are amassing comes due and payable. Where will all this money come from to pay for all the red ink we are writing the checks with. There is only one way to raise all this money it's called TAXES. Higher taxes in a weak economy can only lead to more jobs lost, more houses foreclosed on, higher interest rates and rampant inflation do to the glut of dollars in the market.
The only way to get things back under control is to STOP SPENDING money we don't have and paying down the debt. This means both parties need to wake up and come back down to reality. To do this the federal govt needs to give back control to the states of things like education, social welfare programs, immigration and other unfunded mandates. We need to return to a smaller federal govt as set forth in the constitution before washington hijacked powers that were given to the states.
TERM limits must be imposed and campaign finance reform is badly needed to eliminate elections being bought by wealthy donors (george soros, unions) in the future. We also need a line item veto and a balanced budget amendment put into effect to force spending cuts and eliminate pork in the budget.
Somebody once said "If you find yourself in a hole STOP DIGGING"
The GOP is more in bed with big business than the Democrats, which is why there is so much misinformation, lobbying, and just plain lies going around about everything the Democrats are trying to do. You still don't see that it has to be from the bottom up and not from the top down. It's not going to work any other way.
Borntobe, you are right we are getting both big government and big business, it's called socialism. The financial reform bill recently passed is not the last nail in the coffin but it's close. Government now determines which business will survive and which will die. The result is that government and lobbyist are, or soon will be joined at the hip.
And Mike you said, "BTW We are in a world financial crisis; today Japan followed suit by lowering their interest rates to nearly zero..We need to increase our exports; any ideas?"
Today's WSJ wrote about this. This move by Japan is in response to the Fed expanding our money supply to stimulate our economy and - wait for it - increase exports. Japan's move is to counter our move and increase their exports. From what I've read hedge fund managers and their "Quants" love these currency wars. It's money for nothing - and so it goes.
Mike the whole point of this post is that you think the Republicans are catering to the Tea Party. You have referred to some of these candidates as right wing nuts, so I think you have a good grasp of right and left.
I think that the Democratic party has been catering to the liberals. It is the views of the liberals that brought about the founding of the Tea Party.
Democrats are running from their accomplishments because is it those accomplishments that have moved the people away from supporting the Democratics. They have nothing left to do but try to make their opponents look worse.
What truly frightens me is that a lot of the people who are running are just saying what they are paid to say by the big money backing them up. They really don't have any ideas of their own, nor will they be acting for the benefit of the Nation. Once they get elected, you will see a whole different person. Once they get into office, nothing will get done that helps the jobless or elderly, or anyone that doesn't have political clout. Big business is gradually becoming our government and once that is done, slavery is on it's way back. Maybe not slavery as it was back then, but a new kind of slavery where every penny that is made by those of lower stature, will be taken back in one way or another. Eminent domain was a starting point, as is the mortgage crisis, and the big farmers choking out the smaller farms, mom and pop stores disappearing, our water rights being in danger, etc. It is happening already. Everything is in place for big business to totally take over the lives of middle and lower class, then it will trickle up. Unfortunately, we will not hear the outcry until it hits those that thought they were safe by electing politicians that side with their un-thought-out beliefs that big government is the problem. It is either going to be big government, or big business who is in charge. At least a government that cares about it's poor and elderly will help if it is needed. Big business will just let people starve to death after they stip them of all they can.
I'm not going to discount that people of your persuasion are upset about which you perceive to be a big swing to the left... That's a judgment call.
As you have, I've been keeping up with politics for many, many, years but you have me confused because I don't really know what the differences between left wing legislation and right wing legislation. Was the seven trillion dollar Medicare prescription drug bill passed at 3:00 AM with some arm twisting in campaign promises being part of the deal; a left wing bill or a right wing bill? What do you call extending unemployment benefits, raising the minimum wage, and reforming Wall Street? Is that left wing or right wing? Who decides? Is it Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or Fox News? I'm serious because it seems like you're all about left and right, conservative and liberal.
I'm sorry; I don't know what incident you are describing because I don't know who your friends are... I don't have a political litmus test for my friends.
The Constitution is not a one way street; it also protects my rights but we already knew that..... The United States Congress should be secular and the Theory of Evolution has been accepted by most, a view contrary to that should be exposed.... Voters have the right to throw anything into the pot, so in that respect is very much a valid question and point.... Many conservatives got upset because Congressman Keith Ellis (a Muslim) did not use a bible to take his oath; he instead chose to use the Koran. Looking back; it really didn't make a difference; did it?
The whole point of the blog was to point out in any other year; mainstream republicans would never allow the fringe element to take over their party.
I don't really know what you mean by unattractive side of conservatives or liberals.... I think it would be more accurate to say unattractive sides of human beings. Unless you think we are born with a liberal or a conservative gene.
Mike, you have a very different perspective from where you sit. Yes, people are upset about the economy. But many people are very upset at not only the big swing left, but at the way some of the unpopular legislation was manuvered. It has opened some eyes to the goals some of our leaders have.
Every new candidate has ideas. Some forget for awhile that they are elected to represent a group of voters. They think their ideas are going to be popular so they run them by their supporters. Some of their ideas have only been thought out from one perspective, and they have to move to things that are more acceptable. It is a process. Most conform. If they continue with unpopular ideas they lose support.
You and born2b have seen the unattractive side of conservatives. I have seen the unattractive side of liberals. I was shocked when some of my "friends" jumped on the bandwagon with the liberals. My disagreement with their ideas caused a side of them to be exposed that I had not seen. I see this with the media and with some of the candidates, as well as some members of Congress. I do not need to name names, or back up my statements with something someone else wrote. This is my personal observation, I am a witness.
Believe it or not, the Constitution was written to protect our right to believe what we want to. So any comments you or anyone else have about our creation or evolution are not valid consideration on this topic.
KyleC As you probably remember, there were three republican presidential candidates that did not believe in the Theory of Evolution. There were senators Tom Tancredo and Sam Brownback and former governor Mike Huckabee. I don't believe there are more than a handful of republicans in the house or the senate that believe in climate change. Many are against embryonic stem cell research..... Different strokes for different folks. I guess.
I do know that Congressman Joe (I apologize, BP) Barton,will head up the Energy and Commerce Committee, so we will not have any alternative fuel legislation because republicans like the status quo of dirty coal and fossil fuels.
jbj said "the democrats have allowed this to happen. They have let the liberal voices dominate and this is not a popular move."
Despite what some pundits will try to tell you; Americans have always voted with their pocketbook. High unemployment is a casualty that the democrats really did have any control of because they misread the economy. It wasn't about any kind a liberal or conservative ideas; it was about a world financial crisis where consumers are in debt and not spending.... At best, if the democrats would have used all that stimulus money on high speed rail, unemployment would probably have been at 9.5%.... That's the only number the independents are looking at..." Do I have a job and will I keep it?"
Jbj said"Wing nuts without the party behind them won't go far and will learn to work with the system or they will be out next turn over."...... We are in need of good candidates right now; not about political gain..... The unemployed do not wanna wait another two years.
jbj said"There is no group anywhere and has never been before a group as ignorant, elitist, partial and I will add hateful as some of the liberals we are hoping to move out of Congress in this election. "
That's a personal opinion; can you back that up by naming names?... Are you taking the republican high road? As most of the pundits say I have said" in the past both parties have had their crazies but this year the right wing crazies and outnumber their counterparts by 10-1." It's not even close.
Christine O'Donnell is kind of a fruit cake, but I think she said many of those crazy things when she was a teenager. Besides it would be difficult for her to be worse than Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi or the guy who thought Guam would sink if we stationed Marines there - good lord!
And something will have to be done about entitlement spending - yes it will be unpleasant, but what is the alternative? I don't hear any ideas from the Democrats except to spend more not less - keep the foot on the gas pedal - wheeee!
REPUBLICAN senate candidate, Christine O'Donnell, said she decided against being a Buddhist because she didn't want to become a vegetarian. She also said we have put a human brain into a mouse. This is the tea party candidate that would be eligible to serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee or hold up legislation because of her religious beliefs ... After all,God told her she should run. I wonder if God told her that she was 15 points behind.... If you haven't seen it, she just made a new commercial where she starts out by saying" I'm not a witch."
That's a good point because one senator can hold up legislation, confirmations, and hearings. They can't do as much harm in the house where 534 representatives can override their foolishness..Ron Paul for example.
Rand Paul thinks that a a business should be allowed to discriminate; despite the civil rights legislation.
There are nine republican candidates and several incumbents that think Social Security should be privatized.
There are two senate candidates that think we should repeal the minimum wage act...Joe Miller of Alaska and Linda McMahon of Connecticut.
Right now, the real minority leader,Jim DeMint is holding up any legislation between now and December.... Minority leader Mitch McConnell doesn't have much to say.
I'm looking forward, with palpable excitement, to sending more lawmakers to Capitol Hill who believe that evolution is a myth. These folk will do great things for our country.
"Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?" - Christine O'Donnell
Born2b, the democrats have allowed this to happen. They have let the liberal voices dominate and this is not a popular move.
Yes, we will lose some great people in the shuffle. But it won't necessarily be a waste of time. Wing nuts without the party behind them won't go far and will learn to work with the system or they will be out next turn over.
There is no group anywhere and has never been before a group as ignorant, elitist, partial and I will add hateful as some of the liberals we are hoping to move out of Congress in this election.
TARP averted a depression not the stimulus. The stimulus was a bailout of mainly state governments and more will be needed especially for California et al. It was also used to fund and expand the federal government. The Democrats did not need any GOP votes to pass the stimulus. The Republicans were not the party of no, they were completely irrelevant.
And you are right people are angry about the spending and the mounting debt, there is not only anger out there, there is also fear. Everywhere I go people are talking about this - you cannot hardly get passed "hello how are you" before being blasted with a political harangue.
There is also mounting trouble with mortgages. Banks are finding it impossible to foreclose on delinquent mortgages because of legal issues. Many mortgages are already being forgiven - where this ends is anybody's guess, but I doubt it ends well.
I see there is also much concern about local taxes and spending and rightly so. Taxes are increasing along with the pot holes in the roads. Why can't county and city budgets be posted online along with the salaries and benefits of the officials and employees - people are concerned about this because of what happened in Bell, California - a little transparency will go a long way.
And you mentioned the two wars. Afghanistan is now Obama's war, it is a war that is slowly spinning out of control. Those incursions into Pakistan are the best recruiting tool for the Taliban and Al Qaeda since Gitmo even better than the Iraq war. Yes, this is now a full blown "tar baby" I just hope we can get out of there and soon.
Color you socialists (red) OK, but don't color me the same - I don't wannabe a stinking socialist.
jbj We can kick around the word " representative" all day long but I don't have any idea what you are talking about,when you said "She and her buddies have done their best to "clean the swamp". "
Yesterday, I heard a New York Times reporter say that pundits put too much emphasis on what the voters thinks... He said he can go into the New York streets and very few people would know that the democrats are trying to hold onto their seats, the name of the vice president, or the shenanigans of Congress. People are busy trying to keep their jobs or are out looking for a job.. I believe that.
As I said before, we live in a multiculture country, so it's pretty hard to say a voter in Hawaii will be is angry as one in Michigan. It's very hard to say what Americans think. We can say that "jobs" our top priority for the voters in Nevada and Michigan but Utah all seems to be doing OK. I think Texas leads the nation in jobs created.
I think people should be very careful of what they wish of, because they just might get it. The Democrats haven't been perfect, but they have done a lot of good things. Firing all the incumbants just because they are tired of both parties isn't going to solve the problems. If some of those loonies get into office, Lord help us all. They are some of the most ignorant, elitist, partial, people I have ever heard and there will be gridlock and infighting, such that has never been seen before. Th next two years will be more of a waste of time than Conservatives think the last two were.
Come on Mike, its just Nancy's way of keeping a campaign promise. She and her buddies have done their best to "clean the swamp". They may very well succeed.
I am sure there are some candidates that will not be as "good" as those we are losing. But people have different ways of defining good.
These "good" people have shown us how it is possible for them to wheel and deal and pass unpopular legislation that many of the voters did not want. They seem to have forgotton the meaning of the word, "representative".
Now maybe my view does not reflect that of most of the voters. We are going to find out in less than a month.
Taxpayers are up to their eyeballs in debt, so they are not spending; creating a demand problem.
If the inventories do not come off the shelf; how can we expect companies to start hiring?
Our manufacturing base started outsourcing years ago,so the democrats wanted to repeal their tax incentives but the republicans refused.
We have already propped up Wall Street,the banks, and the Fortune 500 companies have access to nearly 0% interest money but they don't really need i,t since they have a $1.8 trillion cash surplus.
You have don't have any confidence that the Sociocrats can get the consumer to start spending; do you have a solution?
BTW We are in a world financial crisis;today Japan followed suit by lowering their interest rates to nearly zero..We need to increase our exports;any ideas?
You're absolutely right, "it's about the economy...stupid!" because unemployment will still be at 9.7 or higher in November; possibly through all of next year. We averted a depression because the republicorps just said “NO”{right..wink wink}. We were losing over 700,000 jobs a month, in the last quarter of 2008 in the first quarter of 2009.... We’ve had eight straight months of job growth in the private sector but not nearly enough; that was because the republicorps just said “NO”.{right..wink wink}
You're absolutely right, Christina Romer, (speaking for the administration) should never have said that unemployment would never go over 8%, if the stimulus package passed... Most economists and insiders knew the stimulus was not going to be enough but that was all they could ever hope for. They made another mistake by agreeing to 30% in tax cuts; just to get 3 GOP votes... That's water under the bridge.... The stimulus did save or created three million jobs, according to CBO. I know it's only teachers, firemen, policemen and unnecessary public jobs.
If you look inside the polls; you will find that republicorps are against Obamacare while the Sociocrats didn't think it went far enough. The polls are turning as Americans are learning that that their child with a pre existing condition is now able to obtain Health Care, they get to keep their 26 year old dependent on their plan, employers will get a 35% tax credit to help them pay for their employees Health Care plan, and that just after the 23rd of September... The full plan won't be implemented until 2014.
I see the polls tightening because the republicorps have a senate candidate in Alaska saying that the minimum wage is unconstitutional, another candidate that falsified her employment records by overstating her college credentials and once said she had information that China was trying to overtake us, and another candidate calling for second amendment remedies, if the outcome of the election did not come their way. Those are just starters.
If it's socialist to pass" equal pay for equal work," increasing the minimum wage, stopping predatory credit card companies from overcharging consumers, wanting to reform Wall Street, wanting to preserve Social Security and Medicare, and wanting to get out of expensive, endless, wars ,that are not in our best interest; color me socialist.
I just don't know WHY the Democrats aren't running on their accomplishments. It couldn't be because Obamacare isn't as popular as the Sociocrats thought, could it? What about all that stimulus spending that really brought down the unemployment like they claimed? This election is just like '92 when your buddy, James Carville, said it's the economy, stupid. Yep, people will vote their pocketbooks and the sociocrats will be left sitting on their .. well, you've got a picture of it sitting right in front of your name.
Newsletter
Comments
Cutting the defense budget is a good start and something that's been needed for a long time. But one thing they need to be careful with is the navy. An aging fleet needs a steady stream of ship replacement to be a creditable force.
In addition the F-35 has vertical takeoff capability that may eliminate the need for 90,000 ton aircraft carriers and it could reduce airfield requirements.
In the links provided I saw nothing about closing more bases - hmmmm? I guess that's implied with the reduction in weapons system and personnel.
And finally it's no surprise the DOD books are in a shambles - has anyone seen the books that Congress keeps. In the private sector you would go to jail with books like that.
October 6, 2010 at 6:16 p.m.Gee, Mike, the last time, you were complaining about the F-22. Now, it's the F-35. For some reason, I think you'd rather us go back to using F-4s and F-105s. Do those programs create jobs and do they cost tax money? Yeah, they do. I have NEVER said there isn't waste in government and defense contractors certainly produce their share, but the Pentagon gives the country a lot of bang for the buck. They don't want F-22's, F-35s and a new tanker/transport just for the hell of it. The planes now flying are old and wearing out. Some have been lost because wing spars failed in flight. The KC-135s started coming into service back in the late '50s/early '60s. They've been re-engined and re-furbished, but they are reaching the end of their useful life and we don't have a replacement for them and the KC-10s in the pipeline. The Navy has retired ALL of its F-14, A-4 and A-6 fleets, depending on the F/A-18s to do the air-to-air and air-to-ground work for the Navy.
Oh, boy!...Barny Fife--uhh, I mean Frank is running a committee to find waste! Mike...That's like putting the fox in the hen house. Barny is the single most irresponsible member of congress and HE'S heading a committee seeking to weed out waste. Gawd, I'm glad I'm old and won't live long enough (hopefully) to see the final destruction of the country as a result of those who hate the military.
Tell you what. You want to cut the size of the fleet of the Air Force? Start at Andrews AFB. Tell ALL the Congress critters they can no longer fly USAF. They make enough to buy a ticket on commercial air. Eliminate everything but one 757 and a couple helicopters for the President's travel and maybe keep a G-V for him to use on domestic flights. Tell the press corps to buy tickets on United.
October 6, 2010 at 5:51 p.m.waywardwind
What a coincidence; I found this gem.
Fox 5’s Paul Yates asked conservative(96% rating) GOP senator Johnny Isakson about legislation he’s pushing that would “dramatically reduce the federal budget deficit in coming years.” Yates asked Isakson which “government programs would have to be cut to make that proposal work.” Isakson responded that “there’s not a government program that shouldn’t be under scrutiny. And that begins with the Department of Defense and goes all the way through:”
http://www.truemajority.org/csba/prio...
The Sustainable Defense Task (SDTF) report released earlier this year. Assembled by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and consisting of the nation’s leading defense and budget experts, the SDTF identified nearly $1 trillion in waste that can be cut from the defense budget over the next ten years simply by eliminating outdated Cold War-era programs.
http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/1006...
October 6, 2010 at 4:08 p.m.rollinstone,
I don't care who wrote it, it makes sense and is the way I've seen things for a long time and I don't see one thing that isn't true.
October 6, 2010 at 4:02 p.m.Big business is not in the business of keeping the middle class strong. All it cares about is their bottom line and creating a class of people that will work for next to nothing, whether it is in this Country or in another country. You cannot argue the fact that it already happening.
This economy will never come back until the companies bring the jobs back here. Getting rid of Unions, benefits, overtime pay, healthcare, will not do it because it still isn't comparable to what those workers overseas will accept.
And, if big business can bring the jobs back over here at the terms broke Americans will accept, then people will still not have the money to buy, so how is that going to do anything for our problem?
We've got a missing link in our economy and no amount of tax cuts, de-unionizing, wishful thinking, is going to solve that problem. This country needs the middle class, but unfortunately the powers-that-be are hell-bent on breaking their backs and bringing them into line at their own expense.
John
You're just saying that, you will figure something out.
Maybe not today but you always have that thinking cap on.
Have a good one
October 6, 2010 at 2:47 p.m.This comment was removed by the user.
October 6, 2010 at 2:41 p.m.John
October 6, 2010 at 2:37 p.m.I agree with just about everything you said except the part about tea party republicans being a good fit.... If you believe their words ,they're not coming to compromise; they're coming to change things, as they see fit.... Included in that bunch are birthers,truthers, libertarians, and a lot of wing nuts who probably made "Fs" when it came to getting along with others.
waywardwind
We've been over this before but that's a vice -versa... The President Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex.... I'm just a lowly poster but our defense secretary doesn't think it's a sacred cow because he's cutting $100 million in waste, duplication, and in some cases fraud. I keep reminding you of that F-35 project scattered over 47 states to ensure congressional votes and the republicans want to reinstate the F-35 bill, if they takeover... They also want to put up a missile defense shield. I just read an article in Newsweek where the secretary of and defense complained of 31 levels of bureaucracy, where generals' were doing the work of second lieutenants and generals'were reporting to generals'..... It doesn't take a mathematical genius to know that the defense budget has been blotted for years. We have 17 intelligence departments employing over 8000 people.....i.e. If we don't have a healthy people working, or falling off bridges in dire need a repair or people suffering without Social Security, then we will become like North Korea; a strong military; nothing else.
Don't worry; I don't expect it to resonate.... Next time I mention it; I will probably get the same response.
October 6, 2010 at 1:48 p.m.If not extending the Bush tax cuts will reduce government spending and the deficits then I'm all for it. But you and I know this is bull sh*t.
This "increased revenue" will be used to redistribute income and other social programs; it will only expand government and put us deeper in the hole.
October 6, 2010 at 12:37 p.m.Born to be - This article that you cited was written by a progressive liberal/socialist with the following credentials in economics - come on anyone can write this kind of crap. Thom Hartmann.......
"While dropping out of Michigan State during the tumultuous late 1960s, Hartmann received his C.H. (Chartered Herbalist) degree from Dominion Herbal College, an M.H. (Master of Herbology) degree from Emerson College of Herbology, and a Ph.D. in Homeopathic Medicine from Brantridge in England. Brantridge, was considered by experts in the field to be a diploma mill."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thom_Har...
October 6, 2010 at 12:21 p.m.Defense is a "sacred cow?" Wow! In my humble opinion, defense is THE most important element in the budget. If we can't defend ourselves, none of the rest of the stuff -- Social Security, energy, roads, health care and the rest -- means anything. Whoever takes us over will deal with those and they won't care about us.
October 6, 2010 at 12:15 p.m.Mike, I can't find where I used the word "agenda", but I probably meant the plans for legislation. If I used the term "socialistic agenda", I meant the overall plan.
Republicans who have been more moderate in the past have not done well in elections. Some are not doing well now, either.
October 6, 2010 at 12:10 p.m.Well, it’s obvious you’re not a maker, just another taker. The CBO has not hit the “MARK” during the tenure of this administration on any item. But if you think you’re right go for it. I’m telling you there are other avenues to seek in order to stabilize this economy, and start moving this economy forward, your side does not have the skills or knowledge to make it happen, this economy is proof positive of that.
What happens when the makers have nothing left? What are the takers going to do then? The Dems just don’t get it. I will say this, I don’t think Obama will get re-elected, but if he doesn’t there will riots in the streets and the takers will burn down every thing the makers built. 2012 will no doubt be an interesting year♣
October 6, 2010 at 12:08 p.m.This comment was removed by the user.
October 6, 2010 at 11:51 a.m.John
I'm certainly not ashamed of being called a liberal but sacred cows could be defense spending and tax cuts for the rich.
Lol... You're also said that boom unemployment would be ~ 6% by January of this year, not blaming you but putting things in perspective.
I'm looking forward to 2012 because seriously; can you name one republican that can beat President Obama?
October 6, 2010 at 11:25 a.m.Everyone should know by now that the current revenues can only pay for entitlements, defense spending and the interest on the debt.... Without legislation the Bush tax cuts would expire.
Simple math: revenues can only pay for the three items I listed.
If the Federal government ENACTS tax cuts legislation; it will mean less revenues coming in to pay for entitlements, defense spending, and interest on the debt..Like the two tax cuts the Bush administration passed through RE conciliation; the money was borrowed adding to the deficit and the debt plus interest.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, extending the Bush tax cuts would add $2.3 trillion to the total 2018 debt. The single biggest step our government could take this year to address the structural deficit would be to let the tax cuts expire. And a credible commitment to long-term fiscal sustainability should reduce interest rates today, helping to stimulate the economy.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/201...
I rest my case... I do not wanna spend my morning arguing “ supply side trickle down economics'”
Doesn’t work.... Give the money to the corporations; they will gladly take it and outsource the jobs.....
October 6, 2010 at 11:13 a.m.This comment was removed by the user.
October 6, 2010 at 11:11 a.m.well darn, I cannot remove my last post. I got the address wrong. Forgot to C&P and it posted the last addy I copied. Here's the one I wanted to post.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0...
October 6, 2010 at 10:53 a.m.Mike,
With all due respect as to your issues over 700 billion in taxes because of Bush tax cuts is really not an issue. But this idea the government has to borrow money to pay for Bush era tax cuts is incorrect. You don’t borrow money to pay for taxes.
Capitol gains taxes should be lowered to 10% for a ten year period, this alone would increase revenue two fold, and could have really changed the direction of the economy, and then we would be seeing more job growth in the private sector. Obama was asked during a debate with Hilary about capitol gains, he stated “that it would be unfair too lower capitol gains”, but he did not state as to who it would be unfair too. That statement was a direct shot at middle class America. Then there should have been a across the board freeze on entitlements increases. No new entitlements, such as healthcare. There should have been a complete freeze on all government budgets and hiring. This what I say to you, Bill Clinton, the main reason there was a surplus when he left office, he stopped the growth of our military, closed bases left and right. He froze government budgets and placed hiring freezes on almost all government agencies. Now, if Obama had any economic experience, he should have taken that silver spoon out of his butt and put priorities in order, but he put healthcare above the pain and suffering of the American people. He catered to his far left base and his ideology of wealth redistribution.
The reason Pelosi left DC and didn’t take up tax cuts, is for the following, if the dems lose the House, the Bush era tax cuts will not come to floor for a vote. We will be hit with a huge tax increase. It’s coming, so dig deep in those pockets.
October 6, 2010 at 10:50 a.m.rollinstone,
I calls 'em like I sees 'em. It's just what makes sense to me. I was reading last night and found something that IMO is what is happening, and has happened in the past.
http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/...
I know a lot of you will scoff at this, but it sums up my feeling about things.
October 6, 2010 at 10:50 a.m." The single- payer universal Health Care caucus of the democratic party were never given consideration. That group then moved on to the "public option" but the president never really endorsed it."
WTH?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92...
October 6, 2010 at 9:55 a.m."Then again you end up by taking your finger off the pause button and playback your same old " it's the poor people's fault" talking point."
It's not a talking point, it is the point. What needs to be done is to increase employment, give more people jobs in the private sector. How to do this? First don't take more money out of the private sector. Secondly it is a proven fact that the minimum wage increases unemployment for 16 to 24 year olds, those just trying to enter the labor market.
If I remember right during Bush's term unemployment was 5% or less. And finally exactly what is meant by "trickle down economics." Is it advocating income redistribution like it sounds? Is that what we need to do, make more people depended on the government? How will that help?
October 6, 2010 at 9:50 a.m.jbj
I wanted you to define the word " agenda" because I didn't understand whether you thought it was legislation or something else.... I know the lines between liberalism and conservatism and I can find good and bad in both... I know the republican and democratic platform is but I don't know how you define agenda.
The current tea party was formed after the $700 billion bailout and it has evolved since then to several different agendas. So only it's about 20% of the population; who really cares?
Let me give you an example of why the democratic party is a diverse party that does not cater to its conservatives or the liberal base..... The single- payer universal Health Care caucus of the democratic party were never given consideration. That group then moved on to the "public option" but the president never really endorsed it.... Conservative democrats Montana's Max Baucus and North Dakota's Kent Conrad headed up the healthcare plan.... On that Sunday when the final bill was about to pass, the liberals sat ,as a president was signing an abortion waiver for the more conservative democrats in the house. That just on the most important piece of legislation they passed but the president could please his base by just issuing a moratorium on " don't ask don't tell" that takes place immediately and until final action by Congress.... He could also please his liberal base by reining in some of the more abusive practices of the Bush administration.
I will continue to say that voters don't know what goes into the "sausage making" and they're voting against those in power because they are angry.... Remember, establishment republicans are also being defeated.
October 6, 2010 at 9:49 a.m.holly1
You are the poster child for" supply side-trickle down economics'' because the last time the minimum wage was raise was 10 years ago and several state's minimum wage or $2 or $3 above the Federal level. You can no more gauge job increases with increase in the minimum wage; than you can with increases in vendor prices... They both affect the bottom line.
You said " To stimulate economic growth the people who do the hiring need the relief from higher wages and higher taxes. ".... The Bush administration cut taxes twice;do a little homework, go back and see how many jobs were created and measure that again stagnant wages and reduced benefits. Remember we were losing 700,000 jobs in the last quarter of 2008 and the Bush tax cuts were in place; in fact they still are.
Then again you end up by taking your finger off the pause button and playback your same old " it's the poor people's fault" talking point.
October 6, 2010 at 9:23 a.m.holly1 cont.
You said "President Obama proved this by raising enormous amounts of money during the last election. To keep all this money he declined PUBLIC matching funds. So I guess your statement rings hollow on this point. "
You're absolutely right, I either wrote a blog or answered a comment about then candidate Obama opting out of public finance. I think he should have kept his pledge he made with John McCain but that's water under the bridge.... John McCain opted for public finance because he was not receiving the grassroots web donations the Obama campaign was... Remember, McCain went broke one time...Obama's advisers convinced him that he would give up his distinct advantage by opting for public finance... John McCain did not take the high road; it was his only option..... Goldman Sachs and others saw the handwriting on the wall and they made their donations to Obama... Why would they give to a candidate they thought would lose? After the finance reform bill passed ; Wall Street vowed not to make contributions to democrats. There remains a few who were not in favor of reform, so they'll get rewarded nicely,as democrats.
Again, it's not the contributions; is what you do for it.
No, my statement in this case ,does not ring hollow.
October 6, 2010 at 9:11 a.m.holly1
You forgot the state" I approve of this message" because it's more of your in" it's the poor people's fault" talking points.
Guess what? We just lost about 37,000 more jobs after seven straight months of gains... The Bush tax cuts are still law.
For the umpteenth time(not that it will penetrate) but our tax revenues are down, consumers have stop spending, now you want the government to stop spending..Who will purchase the goods that remain on the shelves? Right wingers never mention defense spending for futuristic weapons, two wars (two billion per week) or they don't know that we already have " pays as you go" which means that any new piece of legislation will have to be deficit neutral.... Right wingers talk about the deficit and the debt but they want to go out and borrow an extra $700 billion to give a tax cut to the wealthiest 2%, and that's not including the interest.... Welfare..lol
This is not Fox News,so when you say "I think the the democrats stand to gain more from donated monies from george soros and unions than republicans do." that does not automatically does stand up as substantiated facts just because you threw in the right wing boogeymen George Soros & the scary unions.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
You won't read them but Fox News gave $1 million to GOP directly and another $1 million to the Chamber of Commerce, The Chamber Commerce will run $75 million of attack ads against democrats and Karl Rowe has about another $52.... But then again, it's what you do for the money such as Joe Barton apologizing to BP, Lisa Murkowski holding up legislation that would have raised the liability cap on companies like BP, and just recently or "Senate Republicans gave no explanation on Monday when they blocked the Presidential Commission on the BP oil spill from having subpoena power to conduct the investigation."
http://www.examiner.com/political-spi...
republicans-block-subpoena-power-for-bp-oil-spill-investigation
The bulk of the money is being spent by conservatives, who have swamped their Democratic-aligned competition by 7 to 1 in recent weeks. The wave of spending is made possible in part by a series of Supreme Court rulings unleashing the ability of corporations and interest groups to spend money on politics. Conservative operatives also say they are riding the support of donors upset with Democratic policies they perceive as anti-business.
ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/03/AR2010100303664.html
The House of representatives do not need term limits; they only have a two year term.... I'll think we want to amend the constitution to put in "feel good" proposals.
October 6, 2010 at 8:57 a.m.There all in bed with big business, except now the Democrats present more of a threat to business so the lobbyist are especially busy with the Democrats - the Republicans merit little notice.
Obama himself is mighty cozy with Wallstreet especially George Soros and other banking and investment firms.
Borntobe, you often comment about your economic theories. How did you come by these theories? It sounds like your shooting from the hip or worse quoting Karl Marx - just wondering.
October 6, 2010 at 8:33 a.m.holly1,
Who buys the products that the small businesses make, or provide?
Who is crowding out the small businesses?
It takes demand first, doesn't it? No small business has a market without demand.
Can you imagine what the economy would be like without SS, unemployment, food stamps. Basically, the govermnent, (you and I) are propping up the local and state economies because big business is allowed to rape our Country of it's decent-paying jobs.
It takes good wages to buy the products from small businesses. Without good wages, people do not have the money for anything other than the basic and apparently the taxpayers have to help them out with that too, since they cannot earn enough on low wages with the prices of everything going up and up and up.
So tell me again that it isn't from the bottom up.
Before you say anything, I do agree that the social programs need to be monitored a whole lot closer. There's way too much fraud and not enough watchdogs to catch it. There needs to be a legitimate hotline to report fraud and people who work those hotlines need to be less racially prejudiced.
October 5, 2010 at 11:26 p.m.born2bme
"from the bottom up" do you really believe that will work?? Last time I looked not one job was created by increases in the minimum wage. In fact in most cases is has been proven that it costs jobs and raises the price of every thing to cover these higher wages. The only one who benefits from this is the govt as it raises the amount of taxes paid into the system.
To stimulate economic growth the people who do the hiring need the relief from higher wages and higher taxes. I don't back giving money to the wealthiest either because they are not the ones who create the jobs it is the small businesses which create the most jobs so this is the sector that needs to be targeted with tax incentives for hiring and along with this entitlements need to be gradually phased out. The free ride must stop . Welfare, social security and now health care must be available for the needy but must not become a way of life as it has today with 3rd and 4th generation welfare families bleeding the system without ever paying in a dime in taxes to help pay their way.
October 5, 2010 at 11:02 p.m.mike
I think the the democrats stand to gain more from donated monies from george soros and unions than republicans do. President Obama proved this by raising enormous amounts of money during the last election. To keep all this money he declined PUBLIC matching funds. So I guess your statement rings hollow on this point.
If you think things are bad now just wait until all the debt we are amassing comes due and payable. Where will all this money come from to pay for all the red ink we are writing the checks with. There is only one way to raise all this money it's called TAXES. Higher taxes in a weak economy can only lead to more jobs lost, more houses foreclosed on, higher interest rates and rampant inflation do to the glut of dollars in the market.
The only way to get things back under control is to STOP SPENDING money we don't have and paying down the debt. This means both parties need to wake up and come back down to reality. To do this the federal govt needs to give back control to the states of things like education, social welfare programs, immigration and other unfunded mandates. We need to return to a smaller federal govt as set forth in the constitution before washington hijacked powers that were given to the states.
TERM limits must be imposed and campaign finance reform is badly needed to eliminate elections being bought by wealthy donors (george soros, unions) in the future. We also need a line item veto and a balanced budget amendment put into effect to force spending cuts and eliminate pork in the budget.
Somebody once said "If you find yourself in a hole STOP DIGGING"
October 5, 2010 at 10:42 p.m.rollinstone,
The GOP is more in bed with big business than the Democrats, which is why there is so much misinformation, lobbying, and just plain lies going around about everything the Democrats are trying to do.
October 5, 2010 at 10:22 p.m.You still don't see that it has to be from the bottom up and not from the top down. It's not going to work any other way.
Borntobe, you are right we are getting both big government and big business, it's called socialism. The financial reform bill recently passed is not the last nail in the coffin but it's close. Government now determines which business will survive and which will die. The result is that government and lobbyist are, or soon will be joined at the hip.
And Mike you said, "BTW We are in a world financial crisis; today Japan followed suit by lowering their interest rates to nearly zero..We need to increase our exports; any ideas?"
Today's WSJ wrote about this. This move by Japan is in response to the Fed expanding our money supply to stimulate our economy and - wait for it - increase exports. Japan's move is to counter our move and increase their exports. From what I've read hedge fund managers and their "Quants" love these currency wars. It's money for nothing - and so it goes.
October 5, 2010 at 7:47 p.m.Mike the whole point of this post is that you think the Republicans are catering to the Tea Party. You have referred to some of these candidates as right wing nuts, so I think you have a good grasp of right and left.
I think that the Democratic party has been catering to the liberals. It is the views of the liberals that brought about the founding of the Tea Party.
Democrats are running from their accomplishments because is it those accomplishments that have moved the people away from supporting the Democratics. They have nothing left to do but try to make their opponents look worse.
October 5, 2010 at 6:17 p.m.What truly frightens me is that a lot of the people who are running are just saying what they are paid to say by the big money backing them up. They really don't have any ideas of their own, nor will they be acting for the benefit of the Nation. Once they get elected, you will see a whole different person.
October 5, 2010 at 2:47 p.m.Once they get into office, nothing will get done that helps the jobless or elderly, or anyone that doesn't have political clout.
Big business is gradually becoming our government and once that is done, slavery is on it's way back. Maybe not slavery as it was back then, but a new kind of slavery where every penny that is made by those of lower stature, will be taken back in one way or another.
Eminent domain was a starting point, as is the mortgage crisis, and the big farmers choking out the smaller farms, mom and pop stores disappearing, our water rights being in danger, etc.
It is happening already. Everything is in place for big business to totally take over the lives of middle and lower class, then it will trickle up. Unfortunately, we will not hear the outcry until it hits those that thought they were safe by electing politicians that side with their un-thought-out beliefs that big government is the problem. It is either going to be big government, or big business who is in charge. At least a government that cares about it's poor and elderly will help if it is needed. Big business will just let people starve to death after they stip them of all they can.
jbj
I'm not going to discount that people of your persuasion are upset about which you perceive to be a big swing to the left... That's a judgment call.
As you have, I've been keeping up with politics for many, many, years but you have me confused because I don't really know what the differences between left wing legislation and right wing legislation. Was the seven trillion dollar Medicare prescription drug bill passed at 3:00 AM with some arm twisting in campaign promises being part of the deal; a left wing bill or a right wing bill? What do you call extending unemployment benefits, raising the minimum wage, and reforming Wall Street? Is that left wing or right wing? Who decides? Is it Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or Fox News? I'm serious because it seems like you're all about left and right, conservative and liberal.
I'm sorry; I don't know what incident you are describing because I don't know who your friends are... I don't have a political litmus test for my friends.
The Constitution is not a one way street; it also protects my rights but we already knew that..... The United States Congress should be secular and the Theory of Evolution has been accepted by most, a view contrary to that should be exposed.... Voters have the right to throw anything into the pot, so in that respect is very much a valid question and point.... Many conservatives got upset because Congressman Keith Ellis (a Muslim) did not use a bible to take his oath; he instead chose to use the Koran. Looking back; it really didn't make a difference; did it?
The whole point of the blog was to point out in any other year; mainstream republicans would never allow the fringe element to take over their party.
I don't really know what you mean by unattractive side of conservatives or liberals.... I think it would be more accurate to say unattractive sides of human beings. Unless you think we are born with a liberal or a conservative gene.
October 5, 2010 at 2:02 p.m.Mike, you have a very different perspective from where you sit. Yes, people are upset about the economy. But many people are very upset at not only the big swing left, but at the way some of the unpopular legislation was manuvered. It has opened some eyes to the goals some of our leaders have.
Every new candidate has ideas. Some forget for awhile that they are elected to represent a group of voters. They think their ideas are going to be popular so they run them by their supporters. Some of their ideas have only been thought out from one perspective, and they have to move to things that are more acceptable. It is a process. Most conform. If they continue with unpopular ideas they lose support.
You and born2b have seen the unattractive side of conservatives. I have seen the unattractive side of liberals. I was shocked when some of my "friends" jumped on the bandwagon with the liberals. My disagreement with their ideas caused a side of them to be exposed that I had not seen. I see this with the media and with some of the candidates, as well as some members of Congress. I do not need to name names, or back up my statements with something someone else wrote. This is my personal observation, I am a witness.
Believe it or not, the Constitution was written to protect our right to believe what we want to. So any comments you or anyone else have about our creation or evolution are not valid consideration on this topic.
October 5, 2010 at 1:27 p.m.This is what Huckabee said about evolution - yeah pretty extreme.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-BFEh...
October 5, 2010 at 11:24 a.m.KyleC
As you probably remember, there were three republican presidential candidates that did not believe in the Theory of Evolution. There were senators Tom Tancredo and Sam Brownback and former governor Mike Huckabee. I don't believe there are more than a handful of republicans in the house or the senate that believe in climate change. Many are against embryonic stem cell research..... Different strokes for different folks. I guess.
I do know that Congressman Joe (I apologize, BP) Barton,will head up the Energy and Commerce Committee, so we will not have any alternative fuel legislation because republicans like the status quo of dirty coal and fossil fuels.
October 5, 2010 at 11:06 a.m.jbj said "the democrats have allowed this to happen. They have let the liberal voices dominate and this is not a popular move."
Despite what some pundits will try to tell you; Americans have always voted with their pocketbook. High unemployment is a casualty that the democrats really did have any control of because they misread the economy. It wasn't about any kind a liberal or conservative ideas; it was about a world financial crisis where consumers are in debt and not spending.... At best, if the democrats would have used all that stimulus money on high speed rail, unemployment would probably have been at 9.5%.... That's the only number the independents are looking at..." Do I have a job and will I keep it?"
Jbj said"Wing nuts without the party behind them won't go far and will learn to work with the system or they will be out next turn over."...... We are in need of good candidates right now; not about political gain..... The unemployed do not wanna wait another two years.
jbj said"There is no group anywhere and has never been before a group as ignorant, elitist, partial and I will add hateful as some of the liberals we are hoping to move out of Congress in this election. "
That's a personal opinion; can you back that up by naming names?... Are you taking the republican high road? As most of the pundits say I have said" in the past both parties have had their crazies but this year the right wing crazies and outnumber their counterparts by 10-1." It's not even close.
October 5, 2010 at 10:47 a.m.Christine O'Donnell is kind of a fruit cake, but I think she said many of those crazy things when she was a teenager. Besides it would be difficult for her to be worse than Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi or the guy who thought Guam would sink if we stationed Marines there - good lord!
And something will have to be done about entitlement spending - yes it will be unpleasant, but what is the alternative? I don't hear any ideas from the Democrats except to spend more not less - keep the foot on the gas pedal - wheeee!
October 5, 2010 at 10:36 a.m.REPUBLICAN senate candidate, Christine O'Donnell, said she decided against being a Buddhist because she didn't want to become a vegetarian. She also said we have put a human brain into a mouse. This is the tea party candidate that would be eligible to serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee or hold up legislation because of her religious beliefs ... After all,God told her she should run. I wonder if God told her that she was 15 points behind.... If you haven't seen it, she just made a new commercial where she starts out by saying" I'm not a witch."
October 5, 2010 at 10:19 a.m.That's a good point because one senator can hold up legislation, confirmations, and hearings. They can't do as much harm in the house where 534 representatives can override their foolishness..Ron Paul for example.
Rand Paul thinks that a a business should be allowed to discriminate; despite the civil rights legislation.
There are nine republican candidates and several incumbents that think Social Security should be privatized.
There are two senate candidates that think we should repeal the minimum wage act...Joe Miller of Alaska and Linda McMahon of Connecticut.
Right now, the real minority leader,Jim DeMint is holding up any legislation between now and December.... Minority leader Mitch McConnell doesn't have much to say.
October 5, 2010 at 10:09 a.m.I'm looking forward, with palpable excitement, to sending more lawmakers to Capitol Hill who believe that evolution is a myth. These folk will do great things for our country.
"Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?" - Christine O'Donnell
October 5, 2010 at 10:04 a.m.Born2b, the democrats have allowed this to happen. They have let the liberal voices dominate and this is not a popular move.
Yes, we will lose some great people in the shuffle. But it won't necessarily be a waste of time. Wing nuts without the party behind them won't go far and will learn to work with the system or they will be out next turn over.
There is no group anywhere and has never been before a group as ignorant, elitist, partial and I will add hateful as some of the liberals we are hoping to move out of Congress in this election.
October 5, 2010 at 10:01 a.m.TARP averted a depression not the stimulus. The stimulus was a bailout of mainly state governments and more will be needed especially for California et al. It was also used to fund and expand the federal government. The Democrats did not need any GOP votes to pass the stimulus. The Republicans were not the party of no, they were completely irrelevant.
And you are right people are angry about the spending and the mounting debt, there is not only anger out there, there is also fear. Everywhere I go people are talking about this - you cannot hardly get passed "hello how are you" before being blasted with a political harangue.
There is also mounting trouble with mortgages. Banks are finding it impossible to foreclose on delinquent mortgages because of legal issues. Many mortgages are already being forgiven - where this ends is anybody's guess, but I doubt it ends well.
I see there is also much concern about local taxes and spending and rightly so. Taxes are increasing along with the pot holes in the roads. Why can't county and city budgets be posted online along with the salaries and benefits of the officials and employees - people are concerned about this because of what happened in Bell, California - a little transparency will go a long way.
And you mentioned the two wars. Afghanistan is now Obama's war, it is a war that is slowly spinning out of control. Those incursions into Pakistan are the best recruiting tool for the Taliban and Al Qaeda since Gitmo even better than the Iraq war. Yes, this is now a full blown "tar baby" I just hope we can get out of there and soon.
Color you socialists (red) OK, but don't color me the same - I don't wannabe a stinking socialist.
October 5, 2010 at 9:59 a.m.jbj
We can kick around the word " representative" all day long but I don't have any idea what you are talking about,when you said "She and her buddies have done their best to "clean the swamp". "
Yesterday, I heard a New York Times reporter say that pundits put too much emphasis on what the voters thinks... He said he can go into the New York streets and very few people would know that the democrats are trying to hold onto their seats, the name of the vice president, or the shenanigans of Congress. People are busy trying to keep their jobs or are out looking for a job.. I believe that.
As I said before, we live in a multiculture country, so it's pretty hard to say a voter in Hawaii will be is angry as one in Michigan. It's very hard to say what Americans think. We can say that "jobs" our top priority for the voters in Nevada and Michigan but Utah all seems to be doing OK. I think Texas leads the nation in jobs created.
October 5, 2010 at 9:57 a.m.I think people should be very careful of what they wish of, because they just might get it.
October 5, 2010 at 9:48 a.m.The Democrats haven't been perfect, but they have done a lot of good things.
Firing all the incumbants just because they are tired of both parties isn't going to solve the problems. If some of those loonies get into office, Lord help us all. They are some of the most ignorant, elitist, partial, people I have ever heard and there will be gridlock and infighting, such that has never been seen before.
Th next two years will be more of a waste of time than Conservatives think the last two were.
Come on Mike, its just Nancy's way of keeping a campaign promise. She and her buddies have done their best to "clean the swamp". They may very well succeed.
I am sure there are some candidates that will not be as "good" as those we are losing. But people have different ways of defining good.
These "good" people have shown us how it is possible for them to wheel and deal and pass unpopular legislation that many of the voters did not want. They seem to have forgotton the meaning of the word, "representative".
Now maybe my view does not reflect that of most of the voters. We are going to find out in less than a month.
October 5, 2010 at 9:41 a.m.reeder cont.
Taxpayers are up to their eyeballs in debt, so they are not spending; creating a demand problem.
If the inventories do not come off the shelf; how can we expect companies to start hiring?
Our manufacturing base started outsourcing years ago,so the democrats wanted to repeal their tax incentives but the republicans refused.
We have already propped up Wall Street,the banks, and the Fortune 500 companies have access to nearly 0% interest money but they don't really need i,t since they have a $1.8 trillion cash surplus.
You have don't have any confidence that the Sociocrats can get the consumer to start spending; do you have a solution?
BTW We are in a world financial crisis;today Japan followed suit by lowering their interest rates to nearly zero..We need to increase our exports;any ideas?
October 5, 2010 at 9:34 a.m.reeder
You're absolutely right, "it's about the economy...stupid!"
because unemployment will still be at 9.7 or higher in November; possibly through all of next year. We averted a depression because the republicorps just said “NO”{right..wink wink}. We were losing over 700,000 jobs a month, in the last quarter of 2008 in the first quarter of 2009.... We’ve had eight straight months of job growth in the private sector but not nearly enough; that was because the republicorps just said “NO”.{right..wink wink}
You're absolutely right, Christina Romer, (speaking for the administration) should never have said that unemployment would never go over 8%, if the stimulus package passed... Most economists and insiders knew the stimulus was not going to be enough but that was all they could ever hope for. They made another mistake by agreeing to 30% in tax cuts; just to get 3 GOP votes... That's water under the bridge.... The stimulus did save or created three million jobs, according to CBO. I know it's only teachers, firemen, policemen and unnecessary public jobs.
If you look inside the polls; you will find that republicorps are against Obamacare while the Sociocrats didn't think it went far enough. The polls are turning as Americans are learning that that their child with a pre existing condition is now able to obtain Health Care, they get to keep their 26 year old dependent on their plan, employers will get a 35% tax credit to help them pay for their employees Health Care plan, and that just after the 23rd of September... The full plan won't be implemented until 2014.
I see the polls tightening because the republicorps have a senate candidate in Alaska saying that the minimum wage is unconstitutional, another candidate that falsified her employment records by overstating her college credentials and once said she had information that China was trying to overtake us, and another candidate calling for second amendment remedies, if the outcome of the election did not come their way. Those are just starters.
If it's socialist to pass" equal pay for equal work," increasing the minimum wage, stopping predatory credit card companies from overcharging consumers, wanting to reform Wall Street, wanting to preserve Social Security and Medicare, and wanting to get out of expensive, endless, wars ,that are not in our best interest; color me socialist.
October 5, 2010 at 9:17 a.m.This comment was removed by the user.
October 5, 2010 at 9:10 a.m.I just don't know WHY the Democrats aren't running on their accomplishments. It couldn't be because Obamacare isn't as popular as the Sociocrats thought, could it? What about all that stimulus spending that really brought down the unemployment like they claimed? This election is just like '92 when your buddy, James Carville, said it's the economy, stupid. Yep, people will vote their pocketbooks and the sociocrats will be left sitting on their .. well, you've got a picture of it sitting right in front of your name.
October 5, 2010 at 4:16 a.m.