• back to my earlier post. I forgot to put in the totals so here they are

    1) 12,000.00 in monthly checks.
    2) 3000.00 earned income credits
    3) 2400.00 a year in food stamps
    4) 2000.00-6000.00 a year (what most pay to have health insurance} that is free to public assistance families
    5) 4000.00-6000.00 in rent subsidies
    6) up to 3000.00 a year in subsidized utility bills
    7) 1000.00-2000.00 a year in WIC checks.
    8) ????? in free college tuition payments.

    for a GRAND TOTAL of between 20,000.00 minimum yearly to a high of over 30,000.00 a year if you use the high end of the ranges.

    HMMM!!! I think I'll quit my job making 14.00+ an hour and go on welfare, I'd make more money if I did!!!!!!!!!!!

    February 2, 2011 at 6:57 a.m.

  • Here is another example of a GOVT LIE that both parties over look.

    Unemployment rate 9.4-7% LIE
    TRUTH 9.4-7% getting Unemployment checks
    another 2-6% who have used up their unemployment benefits and
    another 15-20% on welfare or other form of public program
    This adds up to almost 35% of the population who are REALLY unemployed. Add this to the growing number of people on social security and you are left with about 30-35% of the population supporting the other 65-70% of the population with the number of working people shrinking as the baby boomers retire.

    This is the cold hard truth. Soon there will be far too few workers paying in to cover whats going out. Where will the Govt get the money then????

    February 2, 2011 at 6:35 a.m.

  • Mike makes a good point when he said we already have govt run health care with medicare and medicaid. With that said since I don't often agree with him, Do we really want the govt to have more control of health care with the record they have running the programs in place now??? both are very much in debt and going broke fast.

    Any system that is free for some and costly for the rest will never be liked by those who have to pay for it. Maybe a way to off set the rising costs would be to deduct the same amount from the welfare checks that working people have to pay for there insurance plans. At least then it would be fair to those who have to work for the money they get if some of their tax money was deducted from the free money given to the " less fortunate poor people " while we are at it make them pay taxes on that money since a lot of them get more free money than those who work for minimum wage get in their checks after taxes. Well heck why don't we just simplify the tax code and do away with all the loopholes and earned income credits for those who do not work. Earned income credit payments to people on public assistance?? how did they earn that credit??? Earned income implies one having a job and getting a paycheck to get this credit.

    If you add up all the money those on welfare get it would shock most Americans.

    1) monthly check of over 1000.00 in most cases.
    2) Food stamps
    3) free health care
    4) wic checks for families with children
    5) free college tuition for their kids.
    6) free housing
    7) utilities paid in some states and cases
    8) earned income credit payments of over 3,000.00 a year in most cases.

    when you add all these up most people on welfare make over 20,000 a year without lifting a finger to earn it. This is way more than what some one working for minimum wage makes, whats fair about this to those who work for less and have to pay for all this plus their own bills. Not only do we need health care reform we need major reforms in the welfare system as well.

    February 2, 2011 at 6:13 a.m.

  • Everyone wants health care, problem is this bill that was passed is not about either. If Republicans repeal this law they will replace it with something more people will be happy with or they will be packing and going home next election. If they are smart and listen to the people as they promised, we will have a better plan that will keep the good things and fix what is wrong.

    I would have expected Obama to step up to the plate and say, "I can see that the health care law has some flaws and we need to address them now." If two out of four federal judges have called this law unconstitutional, there is something out of whack and it needs to be changed. If he does not fix something he worked so hard to pass it will be repealed sooner or later. The ball is in his court but if he passes on this he can expect to have his work undone.

    He already looks pretty silly giving waivers to the unions who supported the health care bill.

    But if there is one thing I would change about Congress, it is the practice of attaching an unrelated bill to another one to get it passed, such as putting repeal of health care on an aviation bill. I don't think the health care law is good for us, but I would like to see it repealed on its own merits or lack thereof.

    February 1, 2011 at 9:26 p.m.

  • Gibberish, authentic but still gibberish.

    February 1, 2011 at 8:23 p.m.

  • Truth is republicans want to kill the health care law for political reasons. They will add an amendment to the Federal Aviation Administration funding bill to repeal health care... Republicans have never liked Health Care legislation and this time that made no bones about it... They don't have an alternative plan because is not in their best interest for reelection..... Some are lying by calling for a do over or is they put it " starting from scratch."..... They know darn good and well, that the emphasis is on jobs and the GOP's primary goal is to defeat Obama....As Jim Demint said " it will be his Waterloo.".... It will backfire.... Republicans like CBO when the numbers favor them but discredited when it favors the democrats.... They let the cat out of the bag today.

    Anyone with a keyboard can predict gloom and doom or lollipops for everyone. All smoke and mirrors.

    It's never been the cost for Republicans,it's always been about favoring the status quo for their donors,insurance companies. ..They passed the muti -trillion dollar Part D and wouldn't think twice about adding to the $2 billion a week for wars...It's all about the lobbyist and the 2012 presidential election.

    That's it for today.

    February 1, 2011 at 6:07 p.m.

  • "I really think that "most Americans" want some kind of healthcare reform."

    Some may want it they just don't want to pay for it - they want "someone else" to pay for it.

    These are the facts: Obamacare will increase costs and reduce care. This is according to Richard Foster an actuary for Medicare and Medicaid - "You can't enroll another 30 million people and not expect costs to go up."

    He also predicted a shortage of doctors because their incomes will be reduced while their workloads will increase due to increase demand - that happens when you make things free.

    Oh, I know the CBO has estimated Obamacare will save money and we should believe their estimate because they have such a great track record estimating the cost of entitlement programs.

    All we have to do is look at the financial condition of Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare cost are increasing at 8% per year, it is racked with fraud and corruption and Medicaid is bankrupting the states.

    I've also heard that the new taxes associated with Obamacare are a confusing, irrational pile of crap..... oops, there's that word again. Hmmmm, I'll have to come up with something different. Hogwash and flapdoodle has already been tried and rejected - whatever.

    February 1, 2011 at 5:46 p.m.

  • @Hicktoria

    I really think that "most Americans" want some kind of healthcare reform. No one was happy with the way things were going and passage of this healthcare bill brought all of that into the limelight, so it was a good thing.
    The people who elected President Obama, on his promise to reform healthcare, are not happy with the way it turned out. They are upset that they let republicans goad them into changing things too much. They really do not want insurance companies calling the shots when it was them who created the problem in the first place.
    Many of the polls reflect that dissatisfaction with the final bill, but that does not mean that they do not want healthcare reform.
    And, I don't care how you look at, the polls show that fewer Americans want to repeal this bill outright. They do not want time taken up on this issue when jobs are more important in their minds.
    The republicans are going to make the same mistake that the Democrats did. They are going to spend too much time on this and not put the time to better use.

    February 1, 2011 at 2:22 p.m.

  • Ok Hictoria ,the poll did not favor your side but I will C &P this article on how to read the poll...This issue is taking up a great deal of my time.

    Do Americans really want health law fully repealed?
    By Greg Sargent

    Paging all polling experts...

    It's becoming more and more obvious that polling on whether the public supports repeal of health reform turns very, very heavily on the question wording. Specifically: Polls that offer a straight up choice -- do you support full repeal, or do you support letting the law stand as is? -- show more support for repeal.

    But polls that take a finer-grained approach by offering a range of options, including partial repeal and expanding the law, find less support for doing away with it entirely.

    Two new polls in the former category -- a straight choice -- came out today. Quinnipiac finds that people favor repeal over letting the health bill stand, 48-43. CNN finds that people want full repeal by 50-42.

    But when people are offered a broader set of choices, opinion shifts. The Associated Press released a poll this weekend finding that 43 percent want the law changed so it does more, versus only 26 percent who want it fully repealed. A Marist poll last week found the same, with 35 percent wanting the law expanded versus 30 percent who want it scrapped completely.

    This pattern now seems obvious. How to explain it? One possibility is that while there's no quibbling with the fact that health reform is unpopular, there are many differing reasons why people don't like the law. When people are given the opportunity to tell pollsters that they don't think the bill is ambitous enough, a third or more of Americans do just that. Another chunk of voters says there are some problems with the bill, and it needs to be partially scaled back. Result: The sum total calling for full repeal drops sharply.

    But when they are given only a straight up choice -- keep the bill as is, or get rid of it -- the number who opt for blowing it up is considerably higher. This probably reflects a high degree of frustration with the current law, but it seems to exaggerate the depth of support for doing away with reform completely.

    At bottom, this discrepancy probably signals that public opinion on the new law is complicated, that it is not monolithic on either side, and that it is volatile and remains in flux. In other words, there's plenty of room on both sides to make gains in the war over repeal, which is expected to drag on for months, or even years. At any rate, this pattern now seems pretty clear, and I'd love to hear some polling guru types take a crack at explaining it.

    February 1, 2011 at 1:16 p.m.

  • Hictoria

    These are your words "The American people do not want government controlled health care! Plain and simple."...It's not a government run system and a majority don't want total repeal...I think when you use the words "American people" it assumes majority..... Then again we are 180° apart.

    February 1, 2011 at 1:07 p.m.

  • born - guess you did not look at his Washington poll huh?

    February 1, 2011 at 1:06 p.m.

  • The way I learned math, 32% is not majority??

    February 1, 2011 at 1:02 p.m.

  • Mike I never said "ALL" I said majority, did I not? AND, according to your facts,it backs up what I said.

    February 1, 2011 at 12:58 p.m.

  • Gallup Poll when asked "Now thinking about the health care law
    passed last year, would you like to see Congress -- [ROTATED: keep the health care law in place as it is, make minor changes to the health care law, make major changes to the health care law, (or) repeal the health care law entirely]?

    13% thought "keep as is"
    29% "make minor changes"
    24% make major changes
    3% no opinion
    Now what part of" ALL AMERICANS" want total repeal...I waiting or do you need more polls?

    The last poll didn't come out too well ,use the link.

    February 1, 2011 at 12:29 p.m.

  • @Hicktoria

    Only the right wing want it repealed entirely. Other people want it tweeked a little bit.
    Personally, I would only want it repealed if it went to a better plan and I do not mean buying insurance across state lines, because that idea is just ignorant. Single payer would work for me.
    I DO NOT want it repealed to go back like it was and I don't think anyone with half a brain would want that either.

    February 1, 2011 at 12:13 p.m.

  • 1/16/11 - Summary Table*
    Do you approve or disapprove of the way Obama is handling [ITEM]? Do you approve/disapprove strongly or somewhat?

    -------- Approve -------- ------- Disapprove ------ No
    NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly opinion
    a. The economy 46 22 24 51 13 38 2
    b. Health care 43 26 18 52 11 41 5
    c. The situation
    in Afghanistan 49 19 30 41 17 24 10
    d. The federal
    budget deficit 43 21 22 52 11 41 6
    e. Taxes 50 23 27 44 14 31 6
    f. U.S. relations
    with China 43 17 26 35 15 19 23

    Overall, Americans' views of the sweeping health-care overhaul, again under debate on Capitol Hill, remain firmly entrenched, with little change in stiff partisanship on the issue. Some 45 percent of those polled support the law, and 50 percent oppose it, numbers that exactly match their averages in Post-ABC polls going back to August 2009. But few opponents of the law advocate an immediate, wholesale repeal of the legislation.

    Several polls with similar results but why do I always have to show proof, you will not look at, much less be swayed because you think the whole country has a right- wing mindset..... There's more to this world than talk radio.

    February 1, 2011 at noon

  • I do not have to be "elected". I am an American, which I do believe still has rights (At least for now) to convey my confident opinion without being controlled by our current government. (I bet that would "change" if there were no more people like myself to stand up to that control they so desperately seek. I know you are an educated person Mike. I am sure you have looked at the polls and would agree that they would show that the majority of the American people want the repeal. So, I ask you to argue that substantiated fact sir.

    February 1, 2011 at 11:33 a.m.

  • By now I think everyone knows that the words " government run Health Care" is just a talking point for those who opposed the Health care Law..... Medicare, Medicaid , and the VA is government run Health Care which all of us will belong to..... Try to repeal the government run Health Care, Medicare, and watch the outrage.... As long as private insurance companies take payment for the insurance they provide; that's not government run.

    February 1, 2011 at 11:23 a.m.

  • Hictoria
    When were you elected to be the spokesman for the American people? Sometimes confidence and a personal opinion means the same thing.

    February 1, 2011 at 11:17 a.m.

  • Mike, I do not care about a template. All I care about is what has passed and what WILL be repealed. The American people do not want government controlled health care! Plain and simple. I am confident it will be on the basis that it is unconstitutional. Which it is!

    February 1, 2011 at 11:12 a.m.

  • Looks like I'm getting what now, Hictoria?

    February 1, 2011 at 10:27 a.m.

  • Hictoria

    Pull up Bob Dole's, President Nixon's, and Mitt Romney's health care plan and you will see the template that was used.. Compare the two and you will find the similarities.... Then again, the facts may not be important to you.

    February 1, 2011 at 10:15 a.m.

  • lol..Brainwashed ,cuts both ways.

    February 1, 2011 at 10:03 a.m.

  • Probably because they have been brainwashed by their governments to beleive it is OK to do what they say...(or else) lol

    February 1, 2011 at 9:59 a.m.

  • Drew Altman, President of the Kaiser Family Foundation said in an interview with the BBC regarding the new Health Care laws:

    "This is by any standard is a middle of the road, centrist legislation that builds on our existing system," Mr Altman says. "It must look awfully strange to people in other countries to see it be debated as though it's radical legislation."


    February 1, 2011 at 9:46 a.m.

  • Thanks but I have 3 Politico apps on my iPad that are read every morning..One is from Mike Allen,another is Politicio and and a brand new one called Politicio Huddle....That was 5 days ago.

    February 1, 2011 at 9:27 a.m.

  • Another note you may be interested in...

    February 1, 2011 at 9:23 a.m.

  • Have another cup coffee and rethink before you post.... I'm on Medicare , workers have their own plan, there's Medicaid for the poor but the "individual mandate" will probably affect the indestructibly young worker who feels he doesn't need health insurance..One auto accident disproves their theory.

    It's not always "class warfare" or welfare because unemployment is 9.4%,so guess who is uninsured?

    February 1, 2011 at 8:56 a.m.

  • Look at it this way Mike, if we a required to purchase insurance, then homeless people should be required to buy a house. Another problem solved right?

    February 1, 2011 at 8:49 a.m.

  • I guess we'll find out whether the individual mandate is unconstitutional when the Supreme Court decides sometime in 2012. In the past, the courts have sided with the government, when it came to the “general welfare clause" in the constitution. Whatever the outcome, it will be political.

    It's funny. The "individual mandate" was not unconstitutional when republicans: Bob Dole, Orrin Hatch, and Chuck Grassley introduced it, way back in 1992-93. Where was these constitutional experts back then? Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, as governor was pretty instrumental in making sure the “individual mandate" was in the health care plan for Massachusetts.

    Candidate Obama was against the “individual mandate" on political grounds, but he was persuaded by his advisers and the insurance companies, that it was a necessary component that the insurance companies needed to take on 31 million new customers with pre existing conditions. Last night I heard a conservative say that if given a choice between a" public option" and an individual mandate; he would have voted for the public option.

    The "individual mandate" is for the insurance companies;it's like collateral....The Dems wanted a "Public Option" which would lower the cost.

    February 1, 2011 at 8:39 a.m.

  • What are you trying to say born? Sounds like you are getting it now!

    February 1, 2011 at 8:31 a.m.

  • Let me get this straight. It is unconstitutional to make us get healthcare insurance, but it is not unconstitutional to make us all pay for those who choose not to get insurance?
    Isn't there something wrong with that picture?

    February 1, 2011 at 8:12 a.m.

  • Any law maker who votes for a bill with out reading it is not representing the people who sent them to washington. we expect them to read these bills and then vote the way WE THE PEOPLE they represent tell them to. If they ignore us then we need a way to oust them from that duty and put some one who will in their place.

    February 1, 2011 at 4:35 a.m.

  • hey mike

    finally some one with the brains to see how destructive obama care is to freedom of choice. Can you say UNCONSTITUTIONAL as in mandated= no choice. The simple Idea that we have the right to choose in this country is the basis of every other right we have. Obama care would have stripped us of that right and even made it criminal to express ones right to choose not to enroll in mandated health care.

    If you recall I stated the same reasons this judge has in ruling the bill unconstitutional way back before the bill was forced on the american people. Any bill passed into law that limits one's freedom of choice or speech or religion is by constitutional law unconstitutional. The fundamental right to freedom of choice is by far the most sacred right we have as free men/women and any attempt to limit that freedom by govt IMO is grounds for removal from office no matter what party that person belongs to.

    If I am not mistaken all elected office holders take an oath to support, uphold and defend the constitution.

    No bill should be 2000 pages long. The greatest document on this planet ( the Constitution ) had no need for that many pages. Nor did the first ten amendments, most in fact are less than a page in length. The only reason for 2000 page bills is to hide the true intent of that bill under pages of legal jibberish no one could possibly make sense of.

    Mike as usual I expect you to call me names and label me a right wing, fox news watching monster spouting the gospel of saint beck and father hannity but who knows maybe some day you will wake up and see how important freedom of choice and personal liberty is. For someone so eager to give up these things you fail to see that doing so will in the end also strip you of your right to post freely your opinion in a forum such as this.

    Any govt that would take from those who work hard to get ahead and give it to those who won't is by default acting outside the principals and beliefs our founding fathers held so dear and put to ink and paper.

    February 1, 2011 at 4:17 a.m.

  • Yeah, you are right, Mike. If they get anything passed it will be a matter of both parties.

    ".. only a handful of senators looked at it before voting... " Where have I heard that before? Guess they need to start reading the info.

    January 31, 2011 at 8:06 p.m.

  • jbj

    I missed your statement "Now that they have a voice, if what they want is passed and it goes south, it will be their fault. If both parties vote for it, they are both to blame. Kind of like the Iraq war.

    NO, WAR should be overwhelmingly approved because people's lives are at stake. We can always recoup money and legislation can be repealed but lives cannot.... That's why I say if we had the draft, more skin would be in a game and Congress th would think twice but invading a country that had no WMD and had nothing to do with 9/11.... There was contradicting evidence but only a handful of senators looked at it before voting for the war resolution... If you would take time to read the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Phase I and phase II, you would see the hyped information and propaganda that were used but you won't because it contradicts what you want to believe.

    jbj, the GOP only won the house, so they can pass anything there but the democrats still control the senate and the president can veto legislation. The legislation has to be passed on a bipartisan vote before they can be given equal credit for success or failure in the 112th Congress...The GOP cannot pass or fail on their own with the makeup of Congress.

    January 31, 2011 at 4:31 p.m.

  • Sorry ,I was busy doing something else Hictoria but this last judge " declined to issue an order blocking enforcement of the law. "

    As I and about every pundit and several others have said " It all depends on how Justice Kennedy feels on the day of the SCOTUS hearing..he is the swing vote, 4 will vote for and 4 will vote against...In the meantime I will not lose any sleep over it but I will feel sorry for those seniors that have to give back the $250 donut hole relief,the unemployed who just got on with a preexisting condition,or the 26 year old that will no longer be covered etc.

    January 31, 2011 at 4:10 p.m.

  • What I always think it's 2 to 2 on fed judges and the SCOTUS will decide but the Health Care Law will stand with some changes but the more pressing thing is Jobs, followed by jobs and then jobs...The repeal of health care is a right wing thing.

    January 31, 2011 at 3:54 p.m.


    Not sure Mike what do you think?

    January 31, 2011 at 3:50 p.m.

  • Lol..jbj,again you sound like the 45 year old man still bragging about his little league championship..Guess what another election in 2010...

    That' one fed judge that sided with GOP and two fed judges that sided with the Obama administration,unless something changed today.

    BTW Do some research and you will be surprised how much your favorite poster(mmm) rollingstone has used that word against his opponents..Take off the rose colored glasses.

    January 31, 2011 at 3:34 p.m.

  • Well, Mike, we really don't need to say much about the health care bill. Federal judges are doing it for us. Someone is reading it thank goodness.

    I don't know where you got it that I blame Obama alone but if you insist, I guess he is to blame. After all, the GOP was in the back seat. Now that they have a voice, if what they want is passed and it goes south, it will be their fault. If both parties vote for it, they are both to blame. Kind of like the Iraq war.

    BTW, the attitude "your opinion is crap" is the reason the Democrats lost so many seats in Nov.

    January 31, 2011 at 3:18 p.m.

  • Hictoria, believe it or not,you don't have the only dictionary in the country...It's a great analogy but I can see why it offends.
    Don't worry about it.

    January 31, 2011 at 2:58 p.m.

  • "Bill’s argument is a flawed one. “Redistributing wealth” in the form of socialism is an incorrect analogy. Rather, the NFL is really “investing” in teams, so that they can build a fan base in the region – which makes perfect business sense. If there was always a dominant dynasty, then there would be no market for the NFL; no fans buying tickets or apparel. Investing in a team so that they have a fighting chance, and structuring the draft the way they do, is really more of an investment. Capitalism centers around investing – which is distributing your wealth to someone else in the interest of profitable gains in the future. That’s not the same as socialism. Socialism is taking wealth against other people’s wills, and redistributing them to people (sometimes the less fortunate) with no measurable amount of gain involved. The NFL doesn’t “take” anything from anybody – but rather, take what they already have, and invest in teams to build an empire. That’s capitalism." Anonymous

    Not to mention there is a thing called a salary cap in the NFL...

    January 31, 2011 at 2:52 p.m.

  • Bill Maher knowledge of politics and current events supersedes Michelle Bachmann Sarah Palin,Glenn Beck,Rush and all the others some get their marching orders from. He is intelligent and he doesn't take it as an insult, when someone asks him what he reads. He knows that the founders weren't working on ending slavery or that the Sputnik launch bankrupted Russia(the old USSR).

    Your opinion like your post is crap to me.,,But you already knew that.,,As long as I am not aligned with your thoughts or opinions,I will continue to be a happy man.

    About 2/3 of the NFL's money comes from the TV deal. The players get about 2/3 of team revenue. So, more or less, the TV contract goes to pay the players. These contracts are typically for about 5 years, and every time they are renegotiated the price goes up. So do player's salaries.

    The money from the TV contract is share and share alike - the Redskins, Cowboys, Bills, and Packers get identical checks. This money is key to the success of the smaller franchises. Without the TV contract money, there is simply no way on earth that Green Bay could ever field a competitive team.

    If you are still try to discount Bill Maher's statement, then it has a level truth that you're trying you best to stifle...It won't work.

    Keep trying,You might impress someone that thinks like you but I'm through with the subject in...It's posted ,filed, and saved in the VA archives.

    January 31, 2011 at 1:48 p.m.

  • I suppose.

    The TV revenue goes almost entirely for player salaries. But again this is not socialism, not even close. It is a business model where the entire league is a corporation with each franchise representing a local market.

    If anything the NFL is a monopoly. It does not have government central planning or control that is the essence of socialism - BTW, socialism crushes competition hardly the case in the NFL. So I repeat, we agree Bill Maher is a lousy comedian. Therefore I would be careful using him as a reference - that is if you don't want people to think you're full of crap.

    January 31, 2011 at 1:38 p.m.

  • I am sure you can relate

    January 31, 2011 at 1:12 p.m.

  • Oh, he was making a joke, so it was just a bunch of crap, pretty much like the rest of the stuff he says.

    Thanks for clearing that up.

    January 31, 2011 at 1:08 p.m.

  • "I have been using a pat answer for those that say baseball is boring."

    Well if you have to have a "pat answer"... you must of heard it on more than one occasion.

    I understand baseball, I grew up with it. As you said, it is my self righteous opinion. It is what it is. But to use it in relation to the current government issues is beyond me... I guess I am too young to "get it".

    January 31, 2011 at 12:39 p.m.

  • I have been using a pat answer for those that say baseball is boring.

    1. You are a football fan..You like video type action every minute
    2. You didn't grow up playing baseball
    3. You don't know inside baseball such as..player's and their stats,history of the game, or the things that make the game pleasurable to its fans.
    4. You don't know that every sport has its appeal to their fan base.

    Different is not always bad.

    January 31, 2011 at 11:55 a.m.

  • Hictoria

    I have enough confidence in my ability to understand current events,politics,financial matters.....Watching,listening or reading left or right wing blogs watching comedy,hate radio,mainstream media is just info that I sort out...And I'm old enough that I don't have to account my position on anything..I despise plagiarism,so I give credit to those I quote...Your self righteous opinion is just that. I don't have to be judgmental to offer or accept an opinion. We all have our faults.

    January 31, 2011 at 11:47 a.m.

  • I see your point, however the analogy I can not agree with. Personally, I think the reason baseball has fallen, started way back when they protested. That angered loyal fans. I do not think they ever recovered from that. Also, it is boring IMO.

    January 31, 2011 at 11:42 a.m.

  • Read carefully instead of a habit of criticizing first.
    The NFL redistributes the television revenues among the 32 teams..That's socialism.."..The Tea Party republicans equate redistributing with socialism...Bill Maher also said last year's World Series received about 80 million less viewers than what Sunday's Super Bowl will get..In Major league baseball, the fact that the rich get richer (Boston,NY,Philadelphia) is the major reason fan attendance drops after July in the small market....You have to put it all together.

    Bill Maher was mocking the GOP for saying raising taxes on the rich is "punishing success",when he mentioned the draft...Bill Maher's and Jon Stewart's jokes are not funny for those that don't keep up with politics on a daily basis.

    The post was not for a literal interpretation;it was a comical statement with a lot of truth attached.

    January 31, 2011 at 11:36 a.m.

  • Mike - Please tell me you have not fallen to Bill Maher to try and defend your personal stance on matters. I know you can do better than that. At best, Maher is nothing more than a marijuana smoking, right wing bashing liberal who would probably agree/mock anything GOP related. Additionally, your football analogy is well...WRONG! I guess you did not know Green Bay is owned by the public...

    January 31, 2011 at 11:30 a.m.

  • And while I'm at it the NFL draft rules are not socialism - it is a means to maximize revenues for the entire league. Something baseball should consider. After all what good is a league with two or three profitable franchises.

    January 31, 2011 at 11:08 a.m.

  • Iraq has a miserable healthcare system - free or otherwise.

    January 31, 2011 at 11:03 a.m.

  • jbj
    Why am I not surprised that you agree with a fellow tea party republican's infomercial? Holly1 usually posts his monthly one sided message on my blog.

    During the 2008 presidential campaign, I thought Joe Biden delivered a great line in describing Rudy Giuliani's campaign. He said Rudy's message is “a noun, a verb, and 9/11.".... You're starting to remind me of Rudy Giuliani, but" you are a noun, a verb, and health care."

    You know how republicans and members of the tea party call democrats, the president, and liberals’ socialist? Bill Maher mocked that assumption with his "new rules" segment last Friday night... "He said they like to promote a rough persona that loves their NFL football... Green Bay has a population of about 100,000 people and their opponent Pittsburgh is considered to be a successful low market team. You see. The NFL redistributes the television revenues among the 32 teams..That's socialism... The winner of the Super Bowl will pick last in next year's draft or as the republicans call it" punishing success."

    I might add that some preach " self reliance" but in Iraq the first thing we did was set up free health care for all, build schools, and set up an environment of dependence....We don't have money for infrastructure at home but we nation build elsewhere.....It's all about priority.

    I get your message of, if something goes wrong while the GOP is in power, it's a bipartisan mistake, but if it happens on Obama's watch, it's his alone....That's OK, admitting guilt is not a sign of weakness in my book.

    January 31, 2011 at 9:30 a.m.

  • Holly's right.

    But on the issue of social security, it is a program paid for by the people, not the government. Yes, there are some problems with it now but part is that the funds were used elsewhere by our trusty all knowing federal government. Ever wonder why they cannot make what they manage work? Because they misappropriate funds, and both parties do it. If the funds were left alone, adjustments could be made to accomodate the changes society is seeing, such as people living longer. But by robbing the system, it has been put in such a bind it will take some real sacrifices to make it work for those who have been paying into it and counting on it doing what it was planned to do.

    Medicare is even worse off, and people are paying for it now. We need to look at this health care law, instead of thinking of new ways to tax people, read it line by line and take out things that spend money and are not directly related to the improvement of health care. After reading the Constitution, they should have read the health care bill. Line by line. Maybe they would learn to write bills that address the issues, and not put over 2000 pages of garbage no one wants to read.

    Both parties should take the basics of the Tea Party and move toward those goals of having the federal government back off of issues that should be left to the states, and living within their budget. If the two parties would come together on issues most agree on and forget the attacks both sides have been guilty of, ignore those on the fringes, and move toward a healthy and strong America, we would get our vehicle out of the ditch sooner than one would expect.

    January 30, 2011 at 9:08 a.m.

  • Mike

    why is it that your party always wants to tax the rich more? The rich are the ones who own businesses, run corporations, were wise investors and do most of the hiring of workers. Taxing them into poverty will only kill more jobs and force these jobs overseas. Instead of taxing the rich maybe cutting spending, lifting stupid govt regulations on business and stop giving out free rides for life (welfare) to those to lazy to get a job and returning to the simple idea that the best government is the smallest one needed to do the job as set forth in the constitution.

    The govt we now have in washington, dem and gop, has taken control of things that were meant to be controlled at the state and local levels. The federal govt was never granted the power to control education, health care or for that matter levy taxes on income, sale of goods, or give out free handouts (welfare) or provide for the masses of retired workers with a social security check in the mail every month.

    Since when is it the duty of the govt to care for anyone at the taxpayer's expense.

    The old adage ( and I,m not infusing religion here) that god takes care of those who take care of themselves is still the best philosophy. Every one needs to do their best to provide for themselves instead of relying on uncle sam to do it for them.

    The govt needs to return to the taxpayer all the money it takes and let the people spend it on their needs. This would also create jobs as the people would have more money to buy cars, houses, clothes, food and many other things.

    a huge over controlling federal govt that won't live with-in it's means and spends way more than it has in the check book on entitlement programs IS THE PROBLEM not the evil rich people.

    January 30, 2011 at 7:19 a.m.

  • Mike

    But I guess that you agree with the we know whats best for you ignorant voters philosophy that pelosi and other dem leaders have.

    I for one take major offense to that and is the main reason I dislike your party so much.

    with that said that only leaves the gop as my other choice unless the tea party does evolve into a true party of the people.

    If that happens I will never vote gop again but until it does this IGNORANT VOTER will always vote gop unless there is a dem who supports less government, less spending etc. etc....

    January 30, 2011 at 6:33 a.m.

  • mike

    My sheeple comment was meant as a poke in the eye to all those who think any president has any effect on the economy or how any money is spent as it is congress who spends the money.

    Just like the president has no control of the gas prices, stock market or any other money matter.

    Yes there are sheeple on both sides of the aisle. If the gop does something stupid like obamacare then I will post a blog against that.

    I, as a libertarian, do believe that both parties are to powerful and that the tea party will evolve into a party that reflects the wish of the people. that wish is for a government that is less corrupt, more financially prudent and respects the will of the people unlike your party did with obamacare when the people said no to it and still had it pushed on them.

    January 30, 2011 at 6:19 a.m.

  • I'll save you the trouble of scrolling down--it was I! I mentioned Bush. It was the only way I could address what rollingstone was saying about Clinton. But it was kind of redundant--we all know it's been validated that Bush needed an excuse for going to war. But that's another thread, another time, right?

    Sorry for mucking up your thread, Mike!

    January 29, 2011 at 4:13 p.m.

  • There are things about Clinton I liked then and I like now. There are things I didn't like. I guess if we had to measure Clinton, Bush and Obama lies, we could add up some pretty sad stats for the men we would most like to admire. I am not taking up for anyone. But I do believe Bush believed there were weapons, and I think Obama probably believeed the things he said when he was saying them. If Clinton believed he never had sex with that woman that would depend on the meaning of ... well you have already heard that one.

    I didn't say I would vote FOR Ron Paul, I said I would have voted WITH him on the issue of the Iraq war. I do, however, vote for him for Congressman.

    Several dems probably would have apologized for voting for the health care bill, but they didn't get a chance.

    Scroll down if you want to see who is talking about Bush.

    January 29, 2011 at 3:51 p.m.

  • Actually republicans are actually warming to Clinton and who is talking about President Bush anymore?Unless it is to refreshen memories of those who think the GOP is perfect and have selective memories.

    January 29, 2011 at 1:54 p.m.

  • That's old jbj,I must have posted the list 10times in the last 10 years ...26 dems in the senate and the majority of dems in the house did not vote for resolution but the the president pulls the actual trigger..Obama escalated the war in Afghanistan,he has the ultimate responsibility for his actions..

    Difference several Dems apologized for their vote and said it was a mistake. ..Voting for Ron Paul will never make a difference because he can't win a national election...He only received 42 delegates. That's a poor showing.

    January 29, 2011 at 1:50 p.m.

  • bringing up clinton lies : Republican strategy
    bringing up bush lies : Democratic strategy

    January 29, 2011 at 1:44 p.m.

  • In case anyone is interested, here is a site that lists who voted for and against the Iraq war.

    Just so you know it was not decided by resolution or on a vacation. or Christmas Eve.

    I would have voted with Ron Paul, myself. But lest we forget it was a bipartisian vote.

    January 29, 2011 at 1:42 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    January 28, 2011 at 9:06 p.m.

  • or balanced.

    January 28, 2011 at 9:03 p.m.

  • What? It doesn't work both ways?

    That's not fair.

    January 28, 2011 at 8:59 p.m.

  • Whatever.

    January 28, 2011 at 8:57 p.m.

  • Oh, so sorry, rollingstone! I get it. Kind of like the lies from the Bush Adminstration, right?

    1."We found the weapons of mass destruction."
    2."Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
    3.“Mission Accomplished”

    And a host of others too numerous to mention as you well know.

    I hear you about the nausea—I feel the same way when I think about the lies from the Bush Administration.

    But, yeah—thanks for bringing Clinton's history up, a typical republican strategy.

    January 28, 2011 at 8:50 p.m.

  • Oh, I guess they weren't speeches just a bunch of impromptu denials, disposition, testimony, you know crap like "Listen up here, I did not have sex with that women" etc.

    Excuse me I feel nauseous just thinking about this again, he was our President. I'm sorry I brought it up.

    January 28, 2011 at 8:06 p.m.

  • Bill Clinton gave speeches about being a serial rapist?
    Your reference, please, rollingstone.

    January 28, 2011 at 7:47 p.m.

  • Clinton besides being a Rhodes Scholar, he was also a serial rapist - he gave several speeches in that regard.

    And of course if the Republicans nominate Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann there will be jubilation from the liberal, left wing media - manna from heaven. What I hope they do is nominate Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio.

    Now that would be the a ticket.

    January 28, 2011 at 7:25 p.m.

  • I think Jon Favreau is still one of President Obama's speech writers,he is between 28-30 years old..You have to be 35 years old to run for president but you knew that being the constitutional expert and all.

    January 28, 2011 at 5:54 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    January 28, 2011 at 5:51 p.m.

  • Oh Really waywardwind,care to wager on how much input Clinton & Obama had in their speeches?The information is available...

    All it takes is intelligence,you know like the president of Harvard Law review or a Rhodes Scholar.

    True a lot of the speeches are complied from months of input from various sources and put into templates...It still takes general knowledge of the subject to deliver the message.

    Texas will give their electoral votes to the the republican nominee,so it doesn't really matter. Even if the nominee is Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann,

    January 28, 2011 at 5:43 p.m.

  • On election day next time, I think I'm going to write in the name of the speech writer. I've never seen a president who wrote his own speeches or had much in the way of an original idea. The ideas come from others. Those are the people we need to put into office so we can either reward them with another term or hold them accountable and vote'em out.

    January 28, 2011 at 5:19 p.m.

  • "Me thinks that some on here are a little worried that the momentum is about to start swinging the other way."

    Momentum has three elements; mass, speed and direction. You have lost some mass and speed, but the direction is the same - it's toward an abyss.

    January 28, 2011 at 5:12 p.m.

  • It's hard to say,born2Bme,the only thing that last poster left out was flower child, hippie, peaceniks and George Soros..etc....That was 45 years ago and some people are still holding a grudge.

    But I must have blacked out because I can't remember ever demonstrating for any cause or I don't remember all the houses and building that that were burnt down. The only times I have seen the east or west coast cities; I was a tourist. Hope to see the Washington monument this year as a tourist but I don't think we're going to leave trash behind.

    They mock president Obama for using a teleprompter but they don't realize they are all reading the same talking points.... Original thought is foreign to them.

    I don't know the Mr. & Mrs Haves that built buildings the evil liberals burnt down,that story must have been a Fox News exclusive. I don't think Fox News carried the 2006 and 2008 election because the right wingers just remember last year's election.... I wonder if they know that we're going to have a another election in 2012?

    January 28, 2011 at 1:34 p.m.

  • Mike,

    Me thinks that some on here are a little worried that the momentum is about to start swinging the other way.

    Deja Vu

    January 28, 2011 at 12:44 p.m.

  • itisi

    As I said yesterday, if you and your ilk are the standard bearers for the republican party and conservatism; I consider myself lucky to be 180° opposite.

    I am not and never will be your brother in any sense of the word. That's insulting.

    When someone feels the need to take a stance of superiority; it's usually because they're insecure.

    If you, your ideology, political affiliation, and thoughts are that superior; others will take notice without your input.

    January 28, 2011 at 11:09 a.m.

  • itsi,

    How on Earth do you manage to hold up such a broad paintbrush with only two hands and dip it in the "Shade of bullcrap" emulsion you so enjoy painting the world with?

    January 28, 2011 at 11:04 a.m.

  • itisi

    This blog is not about me and check your facts before you attack..My service number started with an RA,but that is germane to the subject of this blog...US or RA,I served with both and didn't need to feel superior because it didn't really matter.

    What's with right wingers that insult your character and then end it with an insincere "have a good week end."

    Just go away..I don't really need your opinions ,thoughts, or your insincere well wishes....

    January 28, 2011 at 10:55 a.m.

  • Oh, my brother…… my brother……. Mike the things I could say to you, but I would have too make a trip to church and ask forgiveness for inappropriate use of bad adjectives.

    My reference to Hanoi Jane is as follows, that is the rock salt of your liberalism or monolith possible, either way there was an addiction caused by extreme liberalism.
    My guess you were drafted and had to report to duty in the U.S. Army, and you are still to this day pissed off.

    The “haves” built buildings, liberalism burned them down along with the very neighbor hoods you all lived in, of course that happen during protest march and you approved of it. You can fill the Washington monument mall with hundreds of thousand, but you can’t clean-up the crap you left behind,and that was just a few months ago, but the liberals will always depend on someone else to clean-up at taxpayer expense. (Photo’s You Tube).

    Profiteering, that is exactly what you liberals are doing today in the 21st century and if you say that is not happen, you should have a consultation on American History after a reading comprehension test♠ Liberalism has destroyed the values and morals in this country from Hollywood to McDonalds. There are 300 million people that live in this country, but a bad apple shows up and does something stupid, then you liberals will pass some stupid legislation because of one person, and you wonder why your butts were kick at election time. You will go to anti-war, food, gas, save the dang tree rally’s, then you will insist that the government do something, then set back and wait for the Government to save your butt.

    I know this small summary on liberalism, but it is fact, I just don’t care to waste my valuable time writing about liberals that think they have the market cornered on intelligence, basically I call it stupidity. I want be annoying you any further and maybe you can try writing some truth about every day people that don’t suck the thumb of government.

    Have a nice weekend Mike

    January 28, 2011 at 10:42 a.m.

  • holly1,what a way to start a day.


    Let me spin your little fairy tale the other way.... Seems to me that the GOP benefited by being the party of NO...We cannot be dismissive of Senator Jim DeMint's Waterloo comment or Mitch McConnell's words bragging on his moves to obstruct legislation and a record amount of filibusters.

    I don't see any indication of playing nice by president Obama. He is just using the tactics that previous presidents have used to get re-elected.

    Let's see what the GOP house has done.

    H.R.1 =?
    H.R.2=A symbolic repeal of the health care law
    H.R 3=No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act ...
    H.R. 4.= the repeal of the 1099 reporting act....Dems and Pres are for that

    Where are the jobs bills, spending cuts, and legislation where the GOP Congress can claim credit for improving the economy?....BTW you republicans are great at blaming the president and the democrats for the economy but if it improves even more; you want equal sounds like Michelle Bachmann's rebuttal the other night.

    Sheeple often post one- sided hypotheticals.

    Your Tea Party leaders, Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann are hurting the Republican Party with their fictional account of history and are moving the party to the far unelectable right...Palin thinks the Sputnik launch led Russia to bankruptcy and they beats us to the moon...Bachmann said " the founders that wrote the constitution worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States....Men like John Quincy Adams, who would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country."

    Read more:

    January 28, 2011 at 10:38 a.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    January 28, 2011 at 10:08 a.m.

  • Mike

    Good post.

    china has had the same foreign policy for 2000 years that is to take small nibbles every few decades then wait for the world to forget about it and then nibble some more.

    Right out of the pages of the book " The Art of War " written over 2500 years ago and still the best textbook on waging war ever wrote. It's principals work in war and in economic realms as well.

    I will give Pres. Obama credit for one thing he sure knows how to sell a story. If he truly wanted to work with the GOP he should have done so 2 years ago when the Dems were writing that monster of a health care bill by allowing the GOP at least a tiny bit of input into the process. He only wants to play nice now because his party can't cram any more bills like the health bill on to the GOP or the People any more. But maybe the leopard has changed his spots and really wants to play nice now only time will tell.

    BTW all By moving to the center and playing nice if the country does well in the next 2 years he will take all the credit for it and say what a great job he did even if it is the GOP and TEA party congress that really did the work And will get re-elected.

    I just hope the Sheeple will see through the smoke and mirror game and give the credit to the New gop congress and not to Obama.

    January 28, 2011 at 7:53 a.m.

  • Hello maryann

    You read my thoughts, that's how I started but after many political wars, the old donkey decided to sit down and relax because the present day warriors don't hold a candle to the previous ones.

    I've seen your comments in the forum; you haven't lost a step...:-)

    Thanks for the hello....Take care.

    January 27, 2011 at 2:30 p.m.

  • I remember too when that donkey used to kick! Especially around election time.

    Hey, Mike, how are you? Good to see you here. Take care!

    January 27, 2011 at 2:24 p.m.

  • lol.... That particular donkey has been sitting on his rear for five years; he is not fazed by right wing rhetoric.... Tomorrow, next week, and months from now he will be sitting in the same position.

    It doesn't take but a couple minutes to come up with the correct definition of war profiteering.


    Political figures taking bribes and favors from corporations involved with war production have been called war profiteers. Abraham Lincoln's first Secretary of War, Simon Cameron, was forced to resign in early 1862 after charges of corruption relating to war contracts. In 1947, Kentucky congressman Andrew J. May, Chairman of the powerful Committee on Military Affairs, was convicted for taking bribes in exchange for war contracts.
    [edit] Civilian contractors

    More recently, companies involved with supplying the coalition forces in the Iraq War, such as Bechtel, KBR, Blackwater and Halliburton, have come under fire for allegedly overcharging for their services.[1] The modern private military company is also offered as an example of sanctioned war profiteering.[2] [3] On the opposing side, companies like Huawei Technologies, which upgraded Saddam's air-defense system between the two Gulf Wars, face accusations for dealing with Saddam Hussein or nuclear aspirant Iran.[4] [5]

    Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 yet it was invaded on a pretense of WMD... Let the war profiteering began.

    January 27, 2011 at 2:20 p.m.

  • Hictoria:

    I grade politicians on a curve regardless of political
    affiliation,although 99% of the time I side with the democrats...What I don't like resolute or politicians that are unwilling to compromise. I really despise whack jobs because they are just ideologues who shouldn't be in government..IMO

    Politicians are like used car salesmen, and Wall Street brokers, there's is always doubt that they are telling you the complete truth. Then again, some of their of their constituents and customers are no better. That's why I say you have to grade on a curve.

    I don't like politicians that think they are the sole proprietors of the constitution, God, military, or know the fiscal policies that are a truth certain.

    January 27, 2011 at 2:11 p.m.

  • Sorry Mike, I did not realize you were asking me a question. But, to answer what I think you are asking, I guess I would agree with anyone who keeps promises and follows through with them. That being said, I know your knowledgeable to see who those folks are and are not, regardless of political affiliation.

    January 27, 2011 at 1 p.m.

  • itisi

    Take it as you you wish but is "Hanoi Jane" the best you have..lo

    Was that supposed to sting?

    Get out the 60s and come into the 21st century.

    January 27, 2011 at 11:38 a.m.

  • Mike,
    one other thing don’t insult my ‘SON” he is Texas breed, a Texas A&M graduate, and a dang fine engineer. He is not a war profiteer.

    The best to you and Hanoi Jane

    January 27, 2011 at 11:34 a.m.

  • itisi

    Texas is the most conservative state in the union, yet we have a $27,000,000,000 budget shortfall.... That's fiscal conservatism????They want to cut public school funding by $9 billion rather than using the rainy day fund or God forbid raise taxes.

    The days when you can just sit around and say I'm conservative, as if if it's some sort of instant credibility are over..... When you have to resort to labels, you lost the argument because it normally means you have nothing else.

    Throughout the blog and in my comments I have never mentioned that the government is the ONLY solution, but then again, I'm not an anti government zealot.

    I am a proud liberal because I actually know the definition of the label... It's certainly nothing to be ashamed of, but if some of these posters are the epitome of conservatism; I want to be 180°of that position.

    January 27, 2011 at 11:32 a.m.

  • I remember when gasoline was 19.9 but the president had nothing to do with that...Is Pt. Lavaca group think?..:-)

    You didn't answer the question so you just want to stay above the fray and take pop shots.

    January 27, 2011 at 11:26 a.m.

  • "We tried eight years of " cowboy diplomacy" but the trade imbalance with China still grew."

    At least the gas was cheaper!

    January 27, 2011 at 11:20 a.m.

  • Mike,

    you have absolutely no idea how to make dime or turn it into a dollar. You had rather set on your butt and wait on the GOVERNEMNT to answer and solve your problems. If you want to make money get out of that liberal thinking “box.”

    Good day gents

    January 27, 2011 at 11:07 a.m.

  • Lol.... And China should listen and be intimidated because?

    We tried eight years of " cowboy diplomacy" but the trade imbalance with China still grew.

    January 27, 2011 at 11:04 a.m.

  • Hictoria said "Personally, to me all we did in 2008 was jump out of the fire into the skillet."..

    Get some skin in a game by saying who you would've thought would have done a better job,so your choice can be criticized.... It's easy to try and stay above the fray without your own personal choice being an object of criticism...:-)

    January 27, 2011 at 11 a.m.

  • John Lara,

    The President needs to get some back bone, and put an end to China’s strong arm tactics, he needs to rise import tax, China does not hold all of our debt, he should have not had some stupid steak dinner, he should have drug that sucker into his office and had a long talk about who in the H@@@ is in charge, instead he done that butt kissing thing he does so well with foreign leaders. I don’t think he understands China is the enemy; we still have missile point at those suckers.

    January 27, 2011 at 10:59 a.m.

  • That's OK,John Lara, that 2008 statement about 190,000 contractors and " one could assume that free market enterprise does work on the other side of the world. is not mine... I would never th post anything like that.

    But there is a fine line between the real free market enterprise and war profiteering...IMO

    January 27, 2011 at 10:54 a.m.

  • JohnLara - "If you despite my position on this, then so be it, it’s America…and a Bush is not in office."

    This is the second time I have see you make this comment. Personally, to me all we did in 2008 was jump out of the fire into the skillet...

    January 27, 2011 at 10:51 a.m.

  • 2008? I shall, take your information on face value at this time but do not understand what is your rebuttal? I simply am unable to see anything, that I have said, dispute anything that your are saying?

    No pun intended, what is your point or contention with what I have said?

    In short, my whole discussion was to place emphasis on parts of President’s Obama’s State of the Union Address; because it is my opinion that those courses of action are the responsible and necessary steps to ensure Americas ability to assert its own destiny in a world dominated by China‘s economic influence.

    China, will become the worlds “sole super power“, if we do not take necessary steps in education, small U.S. tech company development, deficit control, a corporate tax system that recoups lost tax revenue from outsourced jobs and businesses from imports, and an Individual National Sales Tax that encourages job creation instead of robbing personal incomes.

    Also, I do not believe in the double tax, which small business owners know all to well.

    If you despite my position on this, then so be it, it’s America…and a Bush is not in office.

    Anything else, I have no idea too what you are referring, and am truly sorry for any misunderstanding.

    Sorry Mike, If I went…a little off subject. President Obama spoke plainly and sensible, regardless of your party affiliation, this you can not deny. If did not attempt give the impression of forcing his opinion and when out of his way to make it as sincere as possible, that he welcomes the opinions of others.

    Each man, must have a strong will or his will, will been to all; so no one should fault President Obama for speaking as a man. Yet, he also made it clear, Common Sense must be applied, because the people desire nothing less and they are elected to do the “business of the people”.

    Republicans, are already showing signs of taking it upon themselves to exercise the same force of will and dedication too service, as the President. In their own right, independent of any influence, they are doing good work to make government accountable. It may not be said often but it should be said now, I am proud of both the current actions of the President, Republicans, and Democrats. Tomorrow is another story.

    January 27, 2011 at 10:39 a.m.

  • jbj

    You won't have to wait long because after listening to Obama's speeches for two years prior to the 2008 elections, two years in office, I can unequivocally tell you that president Obama is not a climate change denier, and he agrees with the EPA that CO2 is a pollutant. One State of the Union does not change a person overnight. He is not gonna have a difficult time with that idea... For the umpteenth time, the people wearing masks during the Beijing Olympics is proof enough that CO2 is indeed a pollutant. I think the oil,coal, and petrochemical companies know that; that's why they're trying to scrub and monitor the emissions.

    Freezing Federal pay as I've said in the past is like vetoing earmarks... Cosmetic, feels good, but it is just another tactic that doesn't really dwell into the real problems.

    It's only natural that republicans would criticize the speech because only a few moments after speech Mitch McConnell said""If the president is willing to do what I and my members would do anyway, we’re not going to say no."

    BTW President Obama's oratory skills is a given; so it's unnecessary to praise his presentation, save a few keystrokes and just go to the meat and potatoes...:-)

    January 27, 2011 at 10:18 a.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    January 27, 2011 at 9:40 a.m.

  • I thought he demonstrated that he is a really great speaker, and he did a good job of saying things people hoped he would say. Critics would say he did not go far enough in one area or another, those who are less critical seem to think he is heading the right direction.

    I liked that he said that he will look at the regulations and see if he can free up some businesses to grow and hire. We will see, this is a man who thinks CO2 is poison. I think he will have a difficult time with this idea.

    Freezing spending is not going to be enough, and I will be waiting to see where he intends to go with this idea.

    Mr. Foster just stated on Assoc. Press that the Health Care Law will likely cost much more than anticipated and the idea that people can keep their insurance if they like it will probably not be a promise that will be kept.

    So I am going to wait to see what he does.

    January 27, 2011 at 9:23 a.m.

  • John Lara,

    I don’t know if you know this, but in 2008 there were over 190,000 contractors in Iraq, more than half were U.S. contractors. The average construction worker made over 80,000 a year with housing and food provided. The source of my information is from my son, which is a site manager for a large construction company, and it is not Halliburton. There is also a large number oil companies from Texas making that black gold. So one could assume that free market enterprise does work on the other side of the world. From the civilian aspect there is a lot of money to be made, so what is your point?

    January 27, 2011 at 7:47 a.m.

  • In October [2010], China's CNOOC agreed to pay $1.1 billion for a 33 percent stake in Chesapeake Energy's Eagle Ford acreage.

    January 26, 2011 at 7:21 p.m.

  • I probably missed a a lot more than that because I just kinda skimmed over the gibberish,considered the source and went on about my business.

    January 26, 2011 at 4:07 p.m.

  • You missed the point about flapdoodle and hogwash? The irony?

    January 26, 2011 at 4:04 p.m.

  • LMAO!!

    The Chinese dealing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Peru, etc.. are not new too me, and I’m monitoring their activities every so often.

    Their dealings are in indifferent to us or our concerns, we do not matter in their negotiations, nor do we truly benefit.

    They just want resources and export markets.

    January 26, 2011 at 3:57 p.m.

  • I'm not sure what that last post was about, rollingstone. It was just mumble jumble to me.

    I don't know if it was an attempt at humor, sarcasm(most likely), or some attempt to make a point. It might just mean you need a nap.


    January 26, 2011 at 3:56 p.m.

  • That's a good point,Hictoria, and it may be part of a trade agreement but as Tom Friedman said" while we're gearing up for the next war; China ,India, and Brazile are working hard to overtake us economically.".... I'm paraphrasing.

    January 26, 2011 at 3:40 p.m.

  • Mike, your comment kinda reminded me of these lines from Huckleberry Finn - The King and the Duke were con men conducting a funeral.

    "Well, by and by the king he gets up and comes forward a little, and works himself up and slobbers out a speech, all full of tears and flapdoodle..... and all that kind of rot and slush, till it was just sickening; and then he blubbers out a pious goody-goody Amen, and turns himself loose and goes to crying fit to bust.

    ...... it just warmed you up and made you feel as good as church letting out. Music is a good thing; and after all that soul-butter and hogwash I never see it freshen up things so, and sound so honest and bully. "

    January 26, 2011 at 3:40 p.m.

  • Correct me if I am Wrong Mike...but don't we owe China anyway?

    January 26, 2011 at 3:27 p.m.

  • John Lara

    I agree with a lot of what you say... We spent our money and lives in Iraq, yet China will get some of the oil. It's the same way in Afghanistan. While we're fighting the Taliban,China is mining the minerals of Afghanistan.

    January 26, 2011 at 3:22 p.m.

  • All in all, I was moved. He spoke sensible, pragmatic, and sincere…the manner, in which a President is suppose to perform his responsibilities.

    Obviously, we do not live in a dictatorship…There is not a Bush in Office.

    As an independent, it’s my humble opinion that he demonstrated exactly what is needed right now from our President.

    He knows, that China is creating the infrastructure and making trade agreements with countries around the world, to secure resources and markets.

    Coincidentally, I support an eclectic rail system across the country powered by alternative energy. Who wouldn’t? I mean, as fuel prices go up so too the cost of goods, unless they are transported and manufactured using alternative energies. Which, are not dependent on exhaustible resources, duh!

    These technologies, require a more educated and mobile workforce, duh!

    A more mobile workforce, requires a more modern tax system…Corporate and Individual, duh!

    Pretty much, what I have been saying on here since day (one).

    This State of the Union, for me, put the burden of evidence on Republicans. If Republicans, still do not have a clue as to how, to spend more money while not increasing the deficit…look at all corporate tax breaks, subsidies, and research grants.

    My suggestion for simplifying the corporate tax, is this. Eliminate all corporate tax incentives (breaks, subsidies, etc..), then switch over to a National Corporate Sales tax.

    Businesses are taxed on what they spend, not what they earn. Obviously, proof must be provided that income was attained from taxed expenditures or any unverified income would be taxable. Tax all imports according to lost revenue. Labor cost would be according to an American standard wage for occupations required to produce items.

    Businesses that required inspections, roads, bridges, electric, and other public funded services would be taxed accordingly.

    Basically, everything that has value, that is used for the business would be a taxable expenditure. A National Corporate Tax in place of the existing Corporate Income Tax creates a more accountable economic system. Business will succeed or fail on their own efforts and government would only benefit financially if they successful not regardless of it.

    January 26, 2011 at 3:14 p.m.

  • It only goes to show that Kool Aid comes in all flavors.

    On my way to the bank, yesterday, I heard Hannity give the "investment" scary boogie man talk before Obama uttered one word. That's all I've been hearing all week from republicans...Wind them up Frank Luntz and watch them parrot the latest talking point.

    Most people take the SOTU for what it is...George W. Bush said " we are addicted to oil”, yet we remain on oil.

    Erin Burnett put it in perspective. We are not like Greece or other European countries. We do need to cut wasteful programs, but we need to stay competitive and we are not broke...Our nation has a $14 trillion economy. The market is doing great, company profits up but all of our wealth is with the top 1%....We have $105 trillion of assets (mortgages, equipment, buildings, etc.) $45 trillion of debt and a $60 trillion net worth…Her message” it’s all right to be concerned and informed, but there is no need to panic right now, unless congress does not act.”…Knee jerk solutions will kill the growth.

    We have yet to see all the budget cuts by the local and state governments, those cuts will cause the Federal government to rein in spending. And if those cut lead to more bankruptcies, the Federal government will be forced to cut spending… There’s no doubt that spending will be cut; the only question is where, how much, and the time period.

    The president hinted at it but he needs to tell the American people that the manufacturing jobs that went overseas aren’t coming back. Pretending they are put us in a state of denial. We can still have a manufacturing base, but it has to be in new technology before other countries beat us to it… We cannot adopt a tunnel vision approach.

    January 26, 2011 at 3:10 p.m.

  • The federal government is on course to have a deficit of 1.6 trillion dollars this fiscal year - that's considered sane?

    While trying to cut 500 billion in unnecessary, wasteful, reckless spending this year is considered insane?

    And then he (Obuma) has the nerve to propose more spending .....uh, I mean "investment" - put down the Kool Aid Mr. President no one is going to buy that crap.

    January 26, 2011 at 2:30 p.m.

  • I always get a kick of other partisans calling me a partisan.

    Your fantasy list of cuts will never happen.

    I have limited myself to one blog a week,so your evaluation on how I view the president, is just a figment of your imagination.

    This president is not unlike all the of the president's who give their laundry list of projects. They never meet the audit test. I thought everyone knew that .

    January 26, 2011 at 12:45 p.m.

  • Mike, very nice State of the Union statement although some what convoluted due to your partisanship♣

    The President sang the same song and dance, he only changed the octave or tone. I don’t know how you can use cut spending and investing within the context of his speech. Does it mean offset cutting spending by investing or investing by offsetting cutting spending?

    Lets due away with the EPA turn it over to the states. Then we can put more people back to work at quicker rate.

    No more Federal land management let the states have their land back.

    Abolish the Department of Education, a totally waste of taxes payer money, which is the states job not the fed♣ Jimmy Carter BS♣

    I do applaud the Speaker and Reid for trying to present some civility at the State of the Union.

    I really want thank the Speaker for making a “fool” out of Nancy Pelosi by not using the USAF as his personal air carry, which has saved hundreds of thousands dollars♠♠♠

    I noticed lately that you have not been up on your “soap box” about President Obama. Could it be he might be moving to the center just a little not much tho only a little bit or is due to the election results?

    January 26, 2011 at 12:31 p.m.

  • Hictoria

    Did you miss the part where I said "I think the speech was intended for the independent voters because at times it angered the left and then less than 5 minutes later; his prepared text angered the right?"

    Historically, the words from a SOTU speech do not last over two days. The president's recent appointments and this speech was intended to bring back the independent voters he lost in the last election.

    BTW the president may have bully pulpit but legislation starts with Congress and ends with the president's signature. We don't have a dictator but he does have that veto pen.

    January 26, 2011 at 11:35 a.m.

  • Mike he is a great speaker. But, we both know this was just a ploy for re-election. Hopefully, the people will see through this and do the right thing come 2012. I would change my position if a lot of the things he claimed we needed to do would actually happen. Until that happens, I will continue to stick to my guns.

    January 26, 2011 at 11:25 a.m.