• Ron Paul is @ 8% in a weak GOP field trailing Newt Gringrich by 30 pts....Obama beats Ron Paul by an avg. of 7.5 % in 3 polls according to RealClear politics...but to each their own,good luck....:-)

    December 6, 2011 at 5:40 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    December 6, 2011 at 5:24 p.m.

  • Bernie Madoff is the only one who went to jail....I couldn't believe this story......"Though often blamed with making the calls that led the country to the brink of collapse, financial executives likely won't face criminal charges for their practices during the financial crisis, according to a former top U.S. investigator.

    The Justice Department has decided that prosecution of financial executives is "better left to regulators" to take civil-enforcement actions, David Cardona, who was a deputy assistant director at the Federal Bureau of Investigation until last month, told the Wall Street Journal."

    Can someone explain why Martha Stewart went to jail and these other criminals did not?

    December 6, 2011 at 4:43 p.m.

  • You know why Wall Street and the Republicans don't like SS as it is today? They can't get their greedy little hands on it.
    So many people do not know how stocks work, they will not know when they are being played for a fool, and people will take advantage of that, big time. Yes, just another way to steal from the poor, to give to the rich.

    December 6, 2011 at 4:35 p.m.

  • When ever I hear "privatize" connected to our SS system the first thing that comes to mind is Bernie Madoff out of jail already? Maybe we would be better of buying Enron stock.

    Private fund management is only good if there is a death penalty attached to the managers success.

    December 6, 2011 at 4:28 p.m.

  • That's true and it will essentially take away funds from those on Social Security, giving them a legitimate excuse to say now we need to privatize the whole system. All a roach needs is a small crack in the wall....Since we don't anything in place to stop another "Too Bg to Fail" when we have another stock market crash the ones that have their SS tied to the market will go down with it.

    December 6, 2011 at 3:17 p.m.

  • That's sad, because of course, everyone that needs the tax cut to survive, will opt to take it and worry about SS at a later date. Which, btw, is what will happen if SS is ever privatized. No one will save the money if they cannot afford food or other essentials and it's those very people who will need it the most.

    December 6, 2011 at 3:01 p.m.

  • born2Bme
    This what I mean "Freshman Rep. Jeff Landry (R-LA) has come up with an interesting solution to the political debate over the pending expiration of the payroll tax cut: Have workers voluntarily choose whether to continue the cut for themselves — with the tradeoff that for every calendar year they claim the tax cut, they would also cut their own Social Security, delaying the start of benefits by one month....What's that going to do? Conservatives will satisfy their ideological goal of not raising taxes and it will start weaning people off Social Security which is their ultimate goal."

    Now the last GOP candidate that believed in science,Jon Huntsman,is starting to have doubts about climate change. I guess 4% in the polls will do that to you...That's too bad.

    December 6, 2011 at 2:29 p.m.

  • While I understand your sentiment; cutting the pay and benefits of 535 people will get the opposite results you want. Then all you would get would be corporate financed politicians and we have enough them already. I understand that most politicians are millionaires and they have never been without a job, so unemployment benefits and its importance is foreign to them. I get it, the 112th Congress is the worst of all time with 9% percent approval but if they put in enough time they will get a lavish retirement benefit but more importantly to them ;they will get a lucrative job with a lobbyist firm. They will use their expertise as an advantage.... That is just my opinion; who knows what it will accomplish because it has never been tried. BTW I haven't heard about the watchdog angle but that's a pretty good idea.

    I do understand where you're coming from. When we hear a congressperson say that unemployment compensation makes people lazy; it's because they have never been in that predicament. They all know that unemployment compensation is just a temporary solution. Then you hear the same people wanting to eliminate the Labor Department but in essence, they want to repeal the minimum wage laws. Walking in someone else's shoes is not with they are accustomed to... We all remembered when they wanted to raise their pay while refusing to pass unemployment benefits.... There are literally thousands of articles about income inequality; yet all we hear is cutting the corporate rate and retaining the Bush tax cuts which favor the wealthy. I don't know if anybody watched the 60 Minute segment about legal insider trading advantages our legislators have. Then it was an article where former Treasury Secretary gave out sensitive financial information just before the 2008 financial crisis that allowed those in the room to sell their stock before the public had knowledge of it. One congressman has a bill to prevent that,but he can't get any sponsors. Congress won't even contemplate strong financial reform or campaign finance reform.

    December 6, 2011 at 1:52 p.m.

  • Mike, you can go higher up than that. Lets start with cutting the benefits for those we hire, to the same thing they want to do to us. How about going to hourly pay instead of base salary. No retirement pay, insurance paid for by the taxpayers, or any of the other perks they demand, but want to cut from us. Why should they get anything for life just because they filled a job for a few year, and might I say, did a p##s-poor job at that.?
    Make them buy their own insurance, pay for their own housing, live on SS, just like they want us to do. Heck, their pay is high enough to pay for all of that themselves.
    Then, go to hiring more watchdogs to weed out the fraud. That would pay for itself 10 times over.
    None of them can justify what they want to do to us and then draw it themselves. I know that is just a drop in the bucket, but at least people wouldn't feel alone in sharing the pain.

    December 6, 2011 at 1:14 p.m.

  • Get rid of the EPA and then go swimming in our "clean" rivers and lakes. (If you can find any deep enough). Inhale that clean fresh air and watch your play in the sunshine.

    Want to fly with a smaller and weaker FAA?

    Thing about the wealthy is they can profit in the pocketbook with less regulation but they have to live on the same planet.

    The Police, Fire, Health System and Military are part of "big" government and how well we survive with out them. Time to pick out your cave and move in.

    December 6, 2011 at 12:14 p.m.

  • They also praise the constitution and some hold claim to it, but they don't believe in the separation of powers and praise the abuse of executive powers or don't respect the powers of.

    They all claim to want appoint constructionist judges but they want their judges to repeal settled law like Roe v Wade.

    Everyone is for eliminating waste and I'm sure we have some old and ineffective programs that do need eliminating but whole scale elimination based on ideology is what many are balking at. Newt Gingrich wants to repeal child labor laws so that inner city kids can replace UNION janitors. What's more important to him? He doesn't see how he is stereotyping intercity kids or the teasing they would take from their fellow students when they are cleaning up after them. The law was put because of abuse of child labor factories.

    If you listen carefully, it’s not the function that they want to eliminate because that program will go to a corporate donor or they want to send it to the states where a friendly governor can do the same.

    I’m of a mindset if we are going to start cutting, let’s start with the biggest and work our way down, after eliminating obvious waste. That would be Homeland Security and the Defense Dept...Do we really need 18 intelligence gathering departments when they can’t tell us if Iran has one our advanced RQ-170 drone?

    December 6, 2011 at 10:15 a.m.

  • These people who hate the Federal Government, couldn't live without it and the protection that comes with it.

    December 6, 2011 at 9:47 a.m.

  • itisi
    You'd like to use this collective WE as if you are the standard bearer of the forum or an authorized spokesman.I'm not into this " either you are for me or against me" but I am a senior citizen, this is not my first rodeo and I know political rhetoric when I see it. Notice, I used the word" I."

    My main point of this blog was that the debate was tailored for the extreme right wing libertarian/tea party wing of the Republican Party.For example, the two parties are trying to pass a bill (payroll tax cuts)that they have supported in the past and think it should be passed right now but they are unable to do so. Does anyone honestly think Congress could get together and eliminate whole scale programs? It's easy to say I'm going to eliminate this and that without giving a plausible explanation of how you will accomplish that.

    You question my honesty but you throw out an arbitrary number of 50% cut of my retirement, insinuating that I think the rich will cover even a portion of it. First of all, in order to lose any portion of my retirement I believe my former company would have to go into bankruptcy. I did notice pension obligations are the first things American Airlines went for in their bankruptcy. BTW The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) protects the retirement incomes of nearly 44 million American workers in 30,330 private-sector defined benefit pension plans.

    I don't get up every morning hating the federal government or the private sector. I see good and bad in both.

    December 6, 2011 at 9:30 a.m.

  • itisi hits the nail on the head.

    December 6, 2011 at 8:43 a.m.

  • We all know that you're all for big government, just how are we going to pay for your big government? Are you willing to give up 50% of your retirement? That dang ole rich man can't cover it all... So how about an honest answer w/out BS...

    December 5, 2011 at 9:32 p.m.