The Republican Choice of Evil

@Emmadadog, there's no empathy in throwing other people's money at the poor. There's no caring involved in pointing to the rich and saying "TAKE HIS MONEY!" and pointing to the poor and saying "GIVE HIM THE RICH GUY MONEY"!

Do you think that's empathy? Do you think that shows you care? I simply don't.

A Republican and a Democrat are walking down the street when they happen upon a Christmas bellringer. The Democrat looks at the Republican and says "YOU DON'T CARE ENOUGH TO GIVE!!!" and the Republican pulls out his wallet, pulls out a $10 bill, and drops it into the kettle. The Democrat, not to be outdone, grabs the Republicans wallet, pulls out a $20 bill, and drops it into the kettle. He then declares "You see?? I care TWICE AS MUCH as you do, you greedy bastard!"

You cannot show compassion with other people's money. When you stand before God on Judgment Day, and God asks of you "what have you done for the poor?" then you'd best have an answer better than "I voted for Obama to tax the rich" because if God weren't immortal, then he'd die laughing at you.

If you believe in going to Hell, then using the government to care for others like your hired guns of compassion is probably a good way to start the trip.

You cannot show compassion with other people's money.

Problem here is, the money you claim belongs to the wealthy was stolen from the poor, working and middle class. Your-hand-in-my-pocket is the disease the rich have inflicted on the majority of Americans, whether it takes the form of no-bid contracts for Halliburton, the Bush regime's practice of favoritism in the awarding of HUD contracts to its political donors, cutting taxes on the wealthy while cutting services to the poor, tax payer subsidies to Exxon-Mobil, GE and other oligarchic entities, paying mercenaries with tax payer dollars three times the wage of our soldiers, publicly funded sports arena's used to enrich the coffers of the billionaire class-- whatever example one cites, the pattern is obvious: the democratic nature of our once great nation has been desecrated by the wealthy's dependence on the corporate nanny state.

When you stand before God on Judgment Day, and God asks of you "what have you done for the poor?" then you'd best have an answer better than "I voted for Obama to tax the rich" because if God weren't immortal, then he'd die laughing at you.

@!$%# your god and your fairy tales.

Problem here is, the money you claim belongs to the wealthy was stolen from the poor, working and middle class.

Stolen?

Thats really funny...and pathetic.

Po@!$%# your god and your fairy tales

Very classy...you should be so proud.

Thats really funny...and pathetic.

Can you provide links to prove it's funny and pathetic? Of course not, It Aint So, you're well known around here as someone who presents hormonal secretions in place of rational argument. Ever win converts that way?

And I call you out and put you in your place every single time...

Problem here is, the money you claim belongs to the wealthy was stolen from the poor, working and middle class.

That says it all, Sam...pathetic.

Sam Spade,

One honest question I'm sure will blow your gasket. Why in every study of charitable spending do those who classify themselves as Conservatives outspend those who classify themselves as liberals?

And I call you out and put you in your place every single time...

That is so funny. I am, like, paralyzed with laughter. I provide specific examples of corruption and theft of taxpayer dollars, and you call names.

And I call you out and put you in your place every single time...

Can you provide links to prove that?

Why in every study of charitable spending do those who classify themselves as Conservatives outspend those who classify themselves as liberals?

Four words, seperate or in tandem.

Self-serving. Tax deductions.

Pfffft.

Lightweight.

Why in every study of charitable spending do those who classify themselves as Conservatives outspend those who classify themselves as liberals?

For a point of information, many large charitable donations are not in the form of money or time and actually do not benefit anyone. For example, conervation easements, mining easements etc are classified on tax returns as charitable donations when they actually only benefit the land owner. Many people with the ability to buy land, (in this economy, the rich), purchase land at bargain prices, get an easement through the government that basically states they will never mine the land or sell the water right from the land and in return they get a tax credit. They can sell 50% of the tax credit's up-front for a large chuck of cash and then evade paying taxes for several years after.

That is not actual charity but represents 100's and 100's of millions of dollars on tax returns.

One honest question I'm sure will blow your gasket. Why in every study of charitable spending do those who classify themselves as Conservatives outspend those who classify themselves as liberals?

I'd say two things: I reject the premise that most charity is given by "conservatives", and charity is no substitution for a government program of social spending.

In the wake of the growing scandals surrounding SOLYNDRA and now, LIGHTSQUARED, we are seeing the ''Halliburtons'' of the new administration. Obviously these too were billions fronted for ''no-bid'' contracts, and LIGHTSQUARED would have had the deal sewn up along with its billionaire Obama bundler, Phil Falcone, had Air Force General William Shelton not thrown a stick in their spokes casting yet another glaring light on pay-to-play in Washington, this time, courtesy of the Democrats.

Now. While Americans suffer no end of end-time nonsense from the liberal-left as it applies to the TP, they had best get used to the fact that these so-called antichrists and jihadists have ideas sound enough for even Obama to embrace. It was not he, or Democrats, but tea party lawmakers beginning with Ryan who raised hell over patent submission red-tape fouling up American innovation. And it becomes Cain who is pushing for the most forceful, along with Ryan, overhaul of the nations tax codes seen since the New Deal in this nation which will provide such benefits to both business and consumers, again, Obama acknowledging the need for such reforms in last weeks speech.

What we have been provided for by the Democrats is less than zero. Apart from their strident whining regarding the TP, of which the Congressional Black Caucus and the DNCs Wasserman-Schultz make the most odious pair, they have refused to pass a budget for nearly three years, are now engaged in infighting over what gets cut to pay for Obamas still-to-be-seen jobs bill,cannot get past teeth-gritting within the serial fiascoes of Operation GUNRUNNER, SOLYNDRA,and now, LIGHTSQUARED, allowed their California cohort in both the House and Senate to be ripped off by a flim-flam artist to the tune of over a million dollars in contributions, lost two races in NY and Nevada, a recall in Wisconsin,yet another nail in Obamacares coffin by a PA federal judge,and while demanding that businesses start hiring people, this.

REUTERS Sept.16,2011: ''Geither Urges EU To Act, Meets Resistance''.

While the DOW moved artificially higher upon the sole word that the FED had agreed to a credit swap with endangered European currencies and the Japanese yen which include several hundred billion in dollar-to-euro swaps, an ''alarmed'' US sent Geithner packing to Brussels to find out what the Euros were doing about Greece and Italy. Answer: Not much.

Greece has now tipped its bonds into default at a ''90%'' chance area of sovereign default [ which would occur within the next two weeks if left out of control],while Italy, is estimated by EU financial commissioners at hovering at about ''65%''.

It does not take a Trump or Buffet to figure out where all of this is going. American businesses are going to stay right where they are as should Italy crumple with Greece, the entire spread of dough is wiped out by the Fed holding euros that are not worth the paper they are printed on and will generate panic as investors begin to sell gold off to achieve liquid capital.

Thus it is insane to the degree of being trapped within a Kafka short story that liberals are airily demanding that if business begins hiring now, we will all be below 8% right about their time their man is up for another four-year re-run.

Not on a bet. All anyone can do now is to hope that the Supercommittee hasn't been entirely infested by lobbyists by now, who have snuck in to hover near both Democrat and GOP sides, and that Obama had better provide more wisdom in a jobs package nobody has seen yet than he did with his SOLYNDRA boondoggle with our dough .He will have to cut deals with Boehner, this much is obvious.

In the wake of the growing scandals surrounding SOLYNDRA and now, LIGHTSQUARED, we are seeing the ''Halliburtons'' of the new administration. Obviously these too were billions fronted for ''no-bid'' contracts

Don't believe the hype. The phony scandal around Solyndra is an attempt by reactionaries and oil interests to attack green energy (and of course Obama with it). Obama's attempt to grow this strategic industry as a way of both pulling the economy out of a depression and to combat China for dominance in the key strategic industry, is the correct one.

It's a lie that Solyndra got a sweetheart deal because of connections to the Obama administration. Fox Noise cites George Kaiser, an Obama contributor, as the one who benefited from the low interest loans provided to Solyndra. What Fox doesn't tell its viewers is that Kaiser did not invest in Solyndra; his foundation did. Kaiser had no involvement and no discussion with Obama about the loan. His foundation is philanthropic, which means Kaiser could not personally benefit from that government loan. The company went belly up because China, which subsidizes its solar industry, was undercutting the price of solar panels.

One would think the reactionary right, always crying about ending our dependence on foreign oil, would support investment in solar energy. Of course they don't. The second biggest investor in NewsCorp is Saudi Prince al-Walled-- an oil mogul. The Heritage Foundation has been waging a protracted war against green energy for years. Their Green Jobs Panel was completely financed by ExxonMobil. Par for the course with The Heritage Foundation, they populated the panel not with unbiased academics and economists, but with people who were on the payroll of ExxonMobil.

The real lesson here is that whatever the Teapublicans advocate, we need to do the opposite. If China subsidizes key industries, like green energy, so should we... or when our country grinds to a halt for lack of oil, the Christian Right (read: The Republican Party) will really experience what it means to "be left behind."

@Emmadadog, there's no empathy in throwing other people's money at the poor. There's no caring involved in pointing to the rich and saying "TAKE HIS MONEY!" and pointing to the poor and saying "GIVE HIM THE RICH GUY MONEY"!

Do you think that's empathy? Do you think that shows you care? I simply don't.

The problem with this description is that it assumes that both the rich's wealth and the poor's lack of wealth exist in isolation, which is simply wrong. Moreover, it ignores the fact that this is society-wide stuff, not random incidents. There is value in keeping the bottom parts of society afloat, value that has nothing to do with empathy or compassion.

You cannot show compassion with other people's money. When you stand before God on Judgment Day, and God asks of you "what have you done for the poor?" then you'd best have an answer better than "I voted for Obama to tax the rich" because if God weren't immortal, then he'd die laughing at you.

I don't know what church you went to, but in every variant of Christianity I've ever heard, Jesus was really big on giving to the poor and needy, and frowned on the materially wealthy.

The problem with this description is that it assumes that both the rich's wealth and the poor's lack of wealth exist in isolation, which is simply wrong. Moreover, it ignores the fact that this is society-wide stuff, not random incidents. There is value in keeping the bottom parts of society afloat, value that has nothing to do with empathy or compassion.

The problem with punishing success like it's some kind of a crime is that like everything else that happens to the rich, it will trickle down and hit the poor ten times as hard. Taxing the rich = killing the poor.

Let me give you an example. In 1991, the stupid Federal Government decided to impose a "Luxury Yacht Tax" on any Yacht sale over $1 Million of 10%. Figuring (wrongly) that a man rich enough to buy a $1,000,000 boat would happily part with $100,000 in added taxes, liberals squealed with delight when this tax passed.

Their squeals of delight turned to screams of horror when they realized what their tax had done to the workers who build these luxury boats. You see, a man who can afford a $100,000 tax can pretty well afford to travel overseas, buy a foreign-made yacht, and sail back to the USA, bypassing the tax. US shipyards, robbed of sales by this tax-the-rich scheme, started laying off workers by the hundreds. These workers were not rich, but their lives were affected harshly by a tax upon the rich. With egg on their liberal faces, Congress had this idiotic luxury tax quickly and quietly repealed, never to be spoken of again.

I don't know what church you went to, but in every variant of Christianity I've ever heard, Jesus was really big on giving to the poor and needy, and frowned on the materially wealthy.

The idea that Jesus was a pauper is incorrect. We know that Jesus was literate in a time when literacy was a luxury enjoyed by a mere 10% of the population. We know that Jesus spoke Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin, which points to a better education than 99% of the 'poor' who had no time or money for such a grand scholarship. Jesus was easily the wealthiest man in that Bible.

Jesus is the son of god he could speak any language he wanted to! He was the wealthest man in the world, but it was the wealth of spirit not of money! He gave his soul to us when he died on the cross! What church does MeanGene go to, the church of money?

Joe, all churches are the church of money. Church isn't about saving souls, it's about investing in art and real estate. The Gross Worth of the Catholic Church is estimated to be in excess of $5 Trillion. If it were a corporation it would dwarf Microsoft's measly $250 Billion.

Praise the Lord and pass the plate! In case you haven't noticed, I'm a bit cynical about most things.

Christ didn't "give" anything. He was nailed to the cross by a Roman Centurion. Nobody thanks the Romans for that. Pontius Pilate did more for saving souls than any bleeding on some wooden sticks ever did.

I feel sorry for you MeanGene if you feel like this, if I went to the Catholic Church I probably would feel the same way, they make their own rules! You can't judge all churches by them! There are many others out there that are not that way. I have quit churches becouse of that same reason.

The problem with punishing success like it's some kind of a crime is that like everything else that happens to the rich, it will trickle down and hit the poor ten times as hard. Taxing the rich = killing the poor.

Wrong. If you look at nations that do what the U.S. used to do-- operate with a progressive tax system-- the quality of life for all their citizens is better than in the U.S. Anytime you have mega rich at the highend of society, you will find grinding poverty and brutal existence at the other end. Most 3rd World nations have the kind of inegalitarian income distribution the U.S. is trending toward. Whereas in the mixed economies of Asia, of many countries in Europe and Scandanavia, of the U.S. from WWII to the mid-seventies, all citizens have a good quality of life.

You can only make MeanGene's a priori argument if you divorce yourself from the real world. Economics is an empirical science. Step away from your keyboard, travel to foreign lands, and no, don't kill them, but learn about them.

"The selfish spirit of commerce... knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain." --Thomas Jefferson to Larkin Smith, 1809.

"Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains." --Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, 1814.

Jefferson wrote in 1825 to William Branch Giles of "a vast accession of strength from their younger recruits, who, having nothing in them of the feelings or principles of '76, now look to a single and splendid government of an aristocracy, founded on banking institutions, and monied incorporations under the guise and cloak of their favored branches of manufactures, commerce and navigation, riding and ruling over the plundered ploughman and beggared yeomanry."

Sam Spades ideological contortions regarding SOLYNDRA may be viewed in their dismantled state here.

www.crew.org Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington,

and here.

www.opensecrets.org The Center for Responsive Politics. ''Before Collapse And Government Investigation, SOLYNDRA Was A Rising Star''.

The problem with punishing success like it's some kind of a crime is that like everything else that happens to the rich, it will trickle down and hit the poor ten times as hard. Taxing the rich = killing the poor.

Your example is of taxing a product, not taxing the rich. Granted, a product targeted at the wealthy, but it's not the same thing. Taxing a product will certainly lower demand (though this is not always a bad thing if there's a economic bubble involved), taxing income doesn't have quite the same effect.

Taxing the wealthy may lower their discretionary spending somewhat, but the reverse is empirically not true. Discretionary spending by the wealthy is not nearly as elastic as it is for the middle class and lower.

Further, show me a single wealthy person who became that way solely on their own. You won't find one. The sense of entitlement I've seen among the wealthy honestly rivals that of many on the bottom end of society.

As for punishing success - diminishing returns is not remotely the same as a negative. Economics is about incentives - and regardless of taxes, I sincerely doubt that there are any shortage of incentives to becoming and staying wealthy (nor do social safety nets provide an incentive to be poor).

Further, show me a single wealthy person who became that way solely on their own.

Cheers.

How many poor have fought and died in this countries history to preserve the environment that permits those who desire it the opportunity to acquire wealth? Yet they are the ones who whine bitch and moan the most and the loudest when they have to pay taxes.

No you can't, because you are all STILL completely clueless to what the Tea Party is. You've got it 100% wrong.

The TEA party is striping women? DUDE! Body painting is so cool!! We got zebra stripes, tiger stripes, skunk stripes, anything you want on a woman, the TEA party can do that.

Oh, yeah, getting serious... You're talking about abortion, I suppose, as a "woman's right to choose". Do you know that has nothing to do with freeing women? It really doesn't.

Men are pigs. I can say that because I'm a man.

Who got more freedom from Abortion Rights? Male or Female? If you say "Female" then you're totally freakin' wrong, and here's the reason why:

Men are the hands down winners of the sexual revolution. The women have to take all the pills. The women have to get the implants, the women have to undergo the surgeries, and all the men have to do is point and laugh at it all. Abortions don't sound like fun to me. If men had to get abortions, then perhaps men would take birth control a little more seriously, but they don't.

It used to be that a man getting a woman "in trouble" was a big deal. You either married the woman (and if she wasn't worth marrying, then what the heck were you doing in bed with her?) or you paid full on child support for at least 18 years. Sex had consequences, so men would be careful about that.

Not anymore. Men sow their wild oats all they want, one night stands and flings are no problem at all getting women to do the "baby dance" because, after all, the worst that could happen is paying for a free gov't-funded abortion. The guy has nothing to lose by knocking up a gal anymore!

Child support got blindsided by abortion. It really did, because juries are not sympathetic to women who "chose to have the baby" when she could have just had that fetus sucked right out with a visit to a free clinic instead of burdening a man with child support.

Roe V. Wade was all about excusing men from any responsibility at all for what happens after the "baby dance".

My own brother owed child support to three different women. None of them opted for abortions, and he thought they should have. He owed $600 per kid per month, two by one woman and one each by two others, four kids total. He was supposed to pay $2,400 per month in child support and he never did. Not that he could, as he never made that much money, but his justification for his being a deadbeat Dad was simple and irrefutable. Those bimbos all could have gotten abortions for free and let him off the hook. He owes them nothing.

Roe V. Wade was a meal ticket for deadbeat Dads. It made the world worse for women overall.

Mg, you could have written episodes for Twilight Zone.

you are all STILL completely clueless to what the Tea Party is.

why don't you enlighten us Deb...because from what I have seen it is not pretty....what do they stand for? What rights have you lost as they 1st proposed. The phony birther movement came from them (you)..they said we need to "take back our Country"..from who? the poor that have been raped by corporate America.....so what are you all about..love for your fellow man??? your group has already proved that they aren't...give me somthing!!!

Strange, they told us from the beginning that they were teabaggers, and I took them at their word.

Mg, you could have written episodes for Twilight Zone.

No, he could have written for SNL, but he could have played a role in a Twilight Zone episode.

i wrote this on my blog about the right's chauvinistic attitude to women. cannot understand women embracing such a org. Stockholm syndrome maybe? those men, a loose term, feel some inherent urge to dominate women maybe their femininity side is becoming more dominant and this is their way of fighting against it. progressives as a party don't feel that need, what have we learned from this?? one thing maybe this is why those manly men don't want gay's in the service, to close to home?? and beatdown attitude toward women, hate what they can never be. just sayin'

VERY SIMULAR

Hello, just thinking middle east men notorious for lack of women's rights, hmmmm republicans notorious for trying to take women's rights, right to choose,equal pay,denigrate them in porn showing full body, wonder why men don't "a little shy maybe" or fear of being laughed at can't really condemn them when you are so similar? TAKE A STROLL THROUGH YOUR MIND, YOU'LL BE SURPRISED AT WHAT YOU MAY FIND, (courtesy of the Temptations) but oh so true

5/14/11 by nick johnson

Comment #4 is good. In fact, it's great.

Voted up.

jwc2blue, you are good at this. No one can dispute what you have said. You need to seed and not just comment.

I can.

To begin with Ireland and Greece never went through any ''austerity''measures worth even minutely mentioning, with the wreckage of its economy vested , not in the measures in and of themselves, but resulting from a leftwing social and publics sector compact [ Oh,Wisconsin..California..New York..Massachusetts, etc] that brought it to its present pass. Now, the EU has demanded austerity with teeth in it and this week, on Sept.11, the nation adopted a new round of austerity measures with the assistance of the Germans, whose own adaptation kept their own economy running above all others in Europe during this crisis.

Pass to the GOP, and their ideas are so ''worthless'' that Obama has adopted one [patent streamlining in which he signed the bill today], and considered three others in his speech which bear upon tax code reform [ firmly embraced by the Ryan faction of the TP and candidates Cain, Romney, and Huntsman], entitlements reform,[ embraced by the TP and all GOP candidates], and free trade [ embraced by the GOP with actually some TP resistance].

The idea that the GOP is opposed to Obama on racial grounds is a dullwitted reading of increasing American anger at this president which only liberals are obtuse enough to advance, as it is easier than more complex reasons why fewer and fewer Americans are taking Obama seriously. Apart from his SOLYNDRA and LIGHTSQUARED fiascoes involving billionaire Democratic Party bundlers, there is also his try at passing his own budget which was defeated 97-0. His Obamacare fiasco that is firmly opposed by an majority of Americans. His ''jobs bills''that are not ''jobs bills'' [ at least in any form that can be discerned]. His rank amateurism and lack of engagement with the European debt and now, banking crisis, a mutinous party within his own in Congress, upset at the twin losses in NY and Nevada, the inept Operation GUNRUNNER operation, and his inability to deal with the looming crises in the Middle East, especially with regards to the newest loose cannon on the decks, Turkeys Erdogan.

Americans are scared and angry. Obama is not rising to the occasion. He is not, the one.

www.gallup.com

THE HILL Sept.16,2011: ''White House Seeks To Quell Unruly Democrats''.

I can.

You could, but you'd be wrong.

The "austerity" programs that the GOTP proposes have failed before and will fail again because they take money out of the hands of people who spend it, which stimulates the economy, and give it to the rich who invest it in THEMSELVES. This has been the result over and over during the past 30 years, and anyone who can think for themselves can see it.

Americans are scared and angry

Anyone who is "scared and angry" believes the Right's lies and scare tactics. The reaction to the new jobs bill is just more of the breath-holding temper tantrums that is all the Teapublicans have to offer this country.

Me, I'm just angry that this mob of liars is driving America into the ground.

Trickle down doesn't work. We found that out with Reagan. Deregulation doesn't work. We learned that from Wall Street. Lowering taxes for the rich doesn't work. Our own economy has taught us that. Yet these are the only tricks the Right knows, and they fight tooth and nail to stop anything else.

Copy that.

jwc my friend how are you? greed and power and for the lower echelons Bush said it best "you can fool some of the people all of the time and those are the one's you want to concentrate on". got to give props to the right wing machine Hitler had nothing on them, they had a plan, i have been looking for the second post i made in July for ever we all have been concentrated on some escaped others still in the bowel's of Fox.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-roger-ailes-built-the-fox-news-fear-factory-20110525

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/43648488#43614920

http://jjohnson3157491.newsvine.com/_news/2011/07/06/7028672-fox-in-the-21st-century this is an eye opener for those who have control of their eyes.

jwc2blue: You are engaging in revisionist history, which is liberalisms most enduring and most dubious quality.

For , in not one single instance, do we find that the nation has ever adopted austerity, as a means of fiscal policy at any point since World War II, and this includes all Democrat, all GOP, and their congresses since this period. You are promoting a dishonest reading of what is plainly, the greatest amounts of debts and spendings in our history, and the largest ratios of debt-to-GDP since the end of WWII. [ and it has no end in sight].

Pass to the scared and angered among Americans, and we find that you are wrong there as well. Obama amateurism at this point in his presidency in its low of a mere 39% in approval, is matched by only one other president in the modern era. Carter, who as he was in the center of his third year, garnered only 32% support. Obamas support is thus diminishing even among Democrats, who will be the last to buy into the ''Rights lies and scare tactics''. [ which were promoted by liberals in any event, and not the right, as we well saw with no end of cable news networks and even establishment media during the debt-ceiling crisis referring to the GOP as ''jihadists'' and ''terrorists'' along with commercials showing Ryan -lookalikes shoving granny off of cliffs in wheelchairs]. You people are the very architects of fear, and with your penchants for dishonesty, amateurishly project this on to others.

www.gallup.com Sept. 17,2011.

jwc2blue: You are engaging in revisionist history, which is liberalisms most enduring and most dubious quality.

Putting truth on its head is the source of all evil and the only conservative tool.

"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality." George Washington, [1790]

"Laws will be wisely formed and honestly administered in proportion as those who form and administer them are wise and honest; whence it becomes expedient for promoting the public happiness that those persons whom nature has endowed with genius and virtue should be rendered by liberal education worthy to receive and able to guard the sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens; and that they should be called to that charge without regard to wealth, birth or other accidental condition or circumstance. But the indigence of the greater number disabling them from so educating at their own expense those of their children whom nature has fitly formed and disposed to become useful instruments for the public, it is better that such should be sought for and educated at the common expense of all, than that the happiness of all should be confined to the weak or wicked." --Thomas Jefferson: Diffusion of Knowledge Bill, 1779.

Laws for the liberal education of youth, especially of the lower class of people, are so extremely wise and useful, that, to a humane and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant. John Adams (1776)

Obama amateurism at this point in his presidency in its low of a mere 39% in approval, is matched by only one other president in the modern era. Carter, who as he was in the center of his third year, garnered only 32% support.

Tell you what Orly, before you start accusing anyone of engaging in "revisionist history," maybe you should refrain from doing so yourself. http://articles.cnn.com/2008-03-19/politics/bush.poll_1_iraq-war-approval-number-approval-rating?_s=PM:POLITICS

In March of 2008; "The 31 percent approval number is a new low for Bush in CNN polling and is 40 points lower than the president's number at the start of the Iraq war."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111280/bush-approval-rating-doldrums-continue.aspx

By October of 2008; PRINCETON, NJ - "George W. Bush averaged just 29.4% job approval for his 31st quarter in office, spanning July 20-Oct. 19. Despite the generally downward trend in Bush's ratings over the last eight years, his rating for the current quarter is slightly better than his 29.0% average rating in the prior quarter"

Bush's numbers are a full 10 points lower than Obama's are Orly. That's a fact, though as I state in #4, I've very little hope that you will be gracious enough to conceed that you have been mis-informed and are willing to even entertain the thought that you are wrong.

For , in not one single instance, do we find that the nation has ever adopted austerity, as a means of fiscal policy at any point since World War II, and this includes all Democrat, all GOP, and their congresses since this period

If you read what I wrote, you would understand that the Republican proposals are their version of the E.U.'s austerity programs, and all have failed in the past, and will continue to fail because they don't work.

The Teapublicans want to de-regulate business and to regulate people.

I'm really not sure how you figure that when Obama is the one who wants total access to your bank account, your 401K and every other investment you have that the Republicans are so evil. I don't see too many on either side worth their weight in sand much less salt.

I don't like Obama; that is no secret, I don't like it either when anyone threaten the freedom of America or chooses not to protect our freedoms. American's have been hiding under blankets for a long time and there are now a whole boat load of people in the goverment offices who need to be replaced because they are distroying the Freedoms that Americans have.

I listen to the facts and if the facts are NOT against America, and if the Facts sound as though they can be credible then that person is worth listening too. I never felt that with the last election from either candidate. This year I pray for a Man who will lead our country not spend our country into the future.

Obama is the one who wants total access to your bank account, your 401K and every other investment you have

I listen to the facts and if the facts are NOT against America, and if the Facts sound as though they can be credible then that person is worth listening too.

I'd like to see your "facts" on that assertion.

"Facts" as you put it do not have a bias. They are either true, or they are not fact. As to whether or not they "sound reasonable," that sounds like a personal bias.

I will find the page as soon as I can in the Healthcare bill. It is very clear that the government is to have total access to all American's bank accounts, 401K, etc.

http://www.infowars.com/obama-health-bill-allows-government-real-time-access-to-bank-accounts/

I'm still reading the bill to locate section 163 but you can read it yourself too.

Also if you get a chance to read the bill you will find that after you get a certain age you can't be covered by this insurance bill any longer. Section 163 of the "healthcare" bill starts on page 57.

Big wishful thinking there Allen. The Republicans not only have not added a single thing to the Healthcare bill, they didn't even vote for it. It is 100% the Democrats piece of @!$%# legislation. Read it and weep. Yes, they definitely WILL have access to our checking accts. Debora is correct. Not to mention the Dems have already stolen $500 billion from Medicare to pay for the Healthcare bill. So while you're worried about the Republicans messing with Medicare, the Dems ALREADY DID right under your nose!

Come on everybody, 'Lets Twist and Shout'!

This is the link to healthcare.gov faq page where you can download the law. There is no Section 163 in the law, so please show us where in the law the information regarding direct access to bank accounts exists. I cannot find it doing a search on bank accounts or 401K.

Fireyone, thanks, I will watch also.

I'm betting that my question does not get answered...but only because it isn't in there. :)

Debora, do you know who added those provisions to the health-care Bill?

The link she provided is to a Right Wing site that lists some Patriot Act stuff that they are claiming is in the bill. Many of the ideas in this bill came from the Right.

I'd like to see the actual language of the section. No doubt it's innocuous stuff that is getting blown out of proportion.

It is 100% the Democrats piece of @!$%# legislation. Read it and weep.

Maybe you should tell Mitt that. I'm sure he could use some good news.

The article is about the Republicans and their lack of interest in representing the people of America instead of doing whatever it takes to get Obama out of office.

What are your thoughts (if any) on that and why do you defend them?

I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong, I went to PolitiFact here and found this:

Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer. Barely True: Section 163 sets out goals for electronic health records. One of the goals is to include features that "enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation" between payment and billing. The legislative summary says the intent in the section is "to adopt standards for typical transactions" between insurance companies and health care providers. The legislation generically describes typical electronic banking transactions and does not outline any special access privileges.

Taking the term electronic funds transfer, I did find it in the law:

(ii) ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFERS AND HEALTH
CARE PAYMENT AND REMITTANCE ADVICE.—The set of
operating rules for electronic funds transfers and
health care payment and remittance advice transactions
shall—
‘‘(I) allow for automated reconciliation of the
electronic payment with the remittance advice;
and
‘‘(II) be adopted not later than July 1, 2012, in
a manner ensuring that such operating rules are
effective not later than January 1, 2014.

I don't think this means direct access to individual bank accounts.

Obama is the one who wants total access to your bank account,

Thank you Fireryone for posting this;

I went to PolitiFact here and found this:

Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer. Barely True: Section 163 sets out goals for electronic health records. One of the goals is to include features that "enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation" between payment and billing. The legislative summary says the intent in the section is "to adopt standards for typical transactions" between insurance companies and health care providers. The legislation generically describes typical electronic banking transactions and does not outline any special access privileges.

Taking the term electronic funds transfer, I did find it in the law:

(ii) ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFERS AND HEALTH
CARE PAYMENT AND REMITTANCE ADVICE.—The set of
operating rules for electronic funds transfers and
health care payment and remittance advice transactions
shall—
‘‘(I) allow for automated reconciliation of the
electronic payment with the remittance advice;
and
‘‘(II) be adopted not later than July 1, 2012, in
a manner ensuring that such operating rules are
effective not later than January 1, 2014.

And so there you are Debora, another Right Wing talking point effectively shown by a non-partisan source to be a scare tactic at worst and a fairy tale at best.

I'm interested in hearing your opinion on that.

another Right Wing talking point effectively shown by a non-partisan source to be a scare tactic at worst and a fairy tale at best.

As usual. Worse, Debora and others like her fell for it hook line and sinker like every other chain email they get.

Google is my friend. :)

Thanks for the correct info, fireryone and jwc2blue.

That is the reason why I can't believe anything that comes out of the mouths of those who say they oppose Obama based on his policies and agendas.

I spent over a week going over the healthcare rules and made calls to my friend who works for an insurance agency, and nothing of what Deb or Debora say is proving to be the facts.

How can they still stick by their claim that their opposition to the Obama presidency is about his agenda, including the new healthcare law.

Up to this point, all of us should be aware that every challenge to that law has been struck down in federal courts, and the majority of the judges sitting in on the suits have been Republicans.

Talk about wasting the taxpayer dollars on looking for a needle in a haystack.

I just wish that for once when someone who supports the Republican/Tea Party, they would admit to being wrong on a policy of the President's that they claim is damaging our economy.

Now we can see the proof of who is legislating to damage what. John Boehner, where are the jobs, jobs, jobs???

The healthcare bill is online, that's how I got it. The link above will connect you to the entire bill.

I don't know who added it but I don't like the idea of anyone having their hands in the account that pays my bills and takes care of the fun my grand babies will want to have. Rebpubs or Dems or any other party need to keep their hands out of our/individual tax payers bank accounts.

I don't know who added it but I don't like the idea of anyone having their hands in the account that pays my bills and takes care of the fun my grand babies will want to have. Rebpubs or Dems or any other party need to keep their hands out of our/individual tax payers bank accounts.

I agree that I don't want either the dems or r/tps to have info on my personal bank info but isn't it already too little, too late? The IRS has had access to your personal banking records for several decades already, so shouldn't the screaming and outrage have been shown when that provision was first enacted?

I am an independent who normally votes on the side of the dems, because I can't abide with allowing the little guy to be took advantage of constantly by the big guy. In my view, it is better to let 50 people get away with beating the system than it is to screw one or two who are in true need. The r/tp motto appears to be so what if we hurt 100 innocent, or truly needy people, as long as we can stop at least one person from beating the system.

That personal observation only seems to hold true though if it is a poor and needy person that gets shafted. If it is a large corporation, wealthy banker or wall street donor getting a hand up, then no one had better dare question the "need" of the rich donor, as that is just the usual partisan politics and is just down right wrong.

I am not in favor of anyone cheating the system but if I only had the two choices above, I stand with helping the needy poor.

Both sides are crooked as the day is long, both sides are in the game for what the can shaft the common peon for, and too many people turn their eyes to the wrongdoings of their favorites, regardless of the harm it is doing to the country as a whole, as long as they think they may actually get a piece of the crumbs that the greed mongers happen to drop.

The right refuses to listen to anything as long as the current person is POTUS, so what hope is their for any meaningful reform in this country? I sure would hate to see this country fall into another civil war, but unless both sides try to be honest and actually "listen" to the other side, is there any hope that peace can prevail, at a price that doesn't kill, lock out, or lock up anyone who doesn't profess to believe the lies?

Too many people demand to be "right" no matter what the cost and no matter how stupid or insignificant the point being argued is. When you have a large majority of uncaring, ungrateful, uneducated, lazy, greedy, selfish, and inconsiderate citizens demanding they get theirs and screw everybody else, where does that leave us any common ground to try to stop the insanity?

When you have a bunch of politicians who aren't sure what opening they are supposed to be wiping with the tp in their hand, and is infecting their mind, is there any hope for "real' solutions short of civil war?

I feel sorrow for the hopes and dreams of the common citizen and what may happen to this country before the start of 2013. I just hope that there is something worth saving when the elections take place next year. Too many people have already done a tremendous amount of damage to this once great nation. I hope it is not too late for the honest people to have a chance to save this country.

Good luck to us all. We are going to need it.

I don't know who added it but I don't like the idea of anyone having their hands in the account that pays my bills and takes care of the fun my grand babies will want to have.

Good rear-views on that bicycle?

Debora-389330

The healthcare bill is online, that's how I got it. The link above will connect you to the entire bill.

No, Deb, the link which you posted goes to Alex Jones' "Infowars" website, home of crackpot conspiracy theories.

The official website is here, as previously posted.

http://answers.healthcare.gov/questions/7732

Also previously posted - the Politifact article which examines those claims of Big Gummint taking your money and exposes those claims as lies.

Debora, there is a lot of misinformation out there that was, and is, specifically designed to confuse and anger citizens of this country. You deserve better than that - don't fall for it.

It isn't to access individual bank accounts it is for payment processing.

Deborah,

Alex Jones and his Infowars site are not much more than sensationalism. It would be wise to take his posted information with a grain of salt.

Taking the term electronic funds transfer, I did find it in the law:

(ii) ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFERS AND HEALTH
CARE PAYMENT AND REMITTANCE ADVICE.—The set of
operating rules for electronic funds transfers and
health care payment and remittance advice transactions
shall—
‘‘(I) allow for automated reconciliation of the
electronic payment with the remittance advice;
and
‘‘(II) be adopted not later than July 1, 2012, in
a manner ensuring that such operating rules are
effective not later than January 1, 2014.

And you don't think that they will take your money automatically whether you want them to or not? Duh! This phrasing means they have the right to take your money directly out of your checking acct without your consent. I work with electronic transfers every day and that is exactly what this means. I also don't care who put it in there, I don't want the government to be able to debit ANYTHING from MY checking acct. Once they have their grubby meathooks into your money you really think it will stop there? What a bunch of fools!

Deb it is for payments between insurance companies and the billing agencies. It isn't going to be your personal bank accounts.

Well said Dr. Phil, Very well said.

I would add just one deduction from your reasoning.

Koch GOTP=just plain Anti-American, Anti-family, Anti-Christianity.

FR sent, you do have a thinking mind and are choosing to use it wisely.

thanks emmadadog. FR gladly accepted.

The Mutual Admiration Society here. Oh puke.

Nice to see you have friends that can admire your incredibly deft lies.

Put some proof on the table Deb. Your self-righteous BS pretty much says it all.

Hey Bushman,Deb has brought far more to the table than your insulting little quip.Come back when your armed boy.

Your right, Instead of BS, perhaps I should have said facts.

They never do zap1, all they ever do is call us names and demand more facts after you just gave them some. They have nothing. Sucks to be them. :)

LOL apparently both Deb and zap can't tell the difference between fact and BS.

Classic fodder for the TPRepubs.

FDR Also Said Public Employees should not be allowed to Unionize

FDR was not perfect. He might have been wrong on that.

FDR PROLONGED THE DEPRESSION WITH HIS NEW DEAL. He should have been hanged for crimes against America. He confiscated everyone's gold so no one could have any wealth. He confiscated their money, he was worse than the Nazi's, he was such a big Facist.

I smell the odor of true believers.

I smell a fact-free troll.

I agree jwc2blue. Did you see where OGIA was banned?

@ David-1830107

FDR Also Said Public Employees should not be allowed to Unionize

Really? I request that you sight that FDR quote ... cuz it doesn't exist! This quote has been debunked many times here on the vine, IMO those that are incompetent enough to continue to bring this up should be banned.

dailykos.com/story/2011/02/21/948033/-Wisconsin:GOP-Lying-About-FDR-Again

Here are a couple of quotes from a letter FDR wrote in 1937:

"A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government."

He was not against the formation of public worker organizations. He was against the ability for them to strike out of fear they would obstruct the operations of government. Actually FDR could not have imagined the "strike" of Congressional Republicans which has indeed prevented or obstructed the operations of government. Wonder what he would have said about that?

So in the last years of Bush's Administration, when the Dems were obstructing everything and doing whatever they could to tank the economy, was that ALSO considered a "strike" of sorts? 2006-2008 was Dem rule in congress and they hold at least 80% of the blame for the recession and the housing crash. Bush holds the other 20%, he was no prince either and should have veto'd a spending bill or two.

Please name the scripture that says we are to be "our brother's keeper". It's not there. We are to love our brother as ourselves, but we are NOT his keeper, all are expected to care for themselves. Do YOU love conservatives/Republicans? Do you follow those values? If not, please spare us your fake indignation. Judging someone on values you don't even hold for yourself is a bit hypocritical.

Also, Jesus didn't just say we should all share and help each other, he also said those that refuse to work, do not eat. Jesus never expected anyone to pay for everything for someone who would not work unless they were sick or handicapped.

And the whole quote is "GIVE a man a fish and feed him for a day, TEACH a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime". You have missed the meaning entirely. It means if you want people to be self-sufficient, don't just hand them money, teach them how to earn their own. The so-called jobs bill will not create a single job because Obama hasn't a clue what creates jobs.

The government giveth and the government taketh away.

"Democrats... consider the people as the safest depository of power in the last resort; they cherish them, therefore, and wish to leave in them all the powers to the exercise of which they are competent.... Aristocrats fear the people, and wish to transfer all power to the higher classes of society." --Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1825. ME 16:96

The government didn't giveth - they just took away.

We are the Government. There is no King here.

"The idea of establishing a government by reasoning and agreement, [the monarchists] publicly ridiculed as an Utopian project, visionary and unexampled." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1797.

"The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government." --Thomas Jefferson to Maryland Republicans, 1809.