Republicans lose, we all lose Frank. Do you know how many zero's it takes to write 16 trillion dollars Frank? How would you like living in Bolivia, Frank?

There's something just perfectly ludicrous about Conservatives complaining about the rising national debt. Let's all completely forget that it was Carter who brought it down to it's lowest point, Reagan and Bush Sr. who brought it surging back up to post-WWII levels, Clinton who leveled that out, even dropping it a little, and Bush who shot it up again even higher. Conservative's military spending, be it the Cold War or Iraq, is where the money went, and our inability to repay it is because, again, Conservatives leveraged their unregulated free market economy to move manufacturing overseas. If you don't make anything that the rest of the world wants to buy, its pretty tough to do much about the debt we owe to them (well, other than buying up their own debt and hoping they can repay it, or driving up inflation as the print-more-money crowd has argued for). It is spectacularly delusional for the 'personal responsibility' crowd to throw this at the feet of social services when the gigantic bulk of the debt stems directly from the foundation of the modern Conservative platform.

http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/bgr-debt-figure1.jpg

So you name call? Classy.

That is what they do when they know they are going to lose. Attack, Attack since they can't stand on the record of the past 3 yrs!

coming in late here, but as a typical liberal (actually, i'm probably a lot farther left than the typical liberal), i have to agree with at least the first two sentences in Hammurabi's response... using terms like "retard" only detracts from any good points you might argue... all this name calling just serves to make everyone more angry with everyone else... it's a no-win game... perhaps we might all try discussing things like reasonable adults?

tv radio . and people that are dum brain wash others in to believing that mitt romney is what we need butt don't be foolt buy this man this man paid no taxes for ten years and he will continue to paid no taxes and he will buy cars boats land with are money we all paid taxes butt. he don't if you think that obama did a bad job. just wait into mitt romney becom president you don't know hell yet

you do realize retard is an acceptable term and not necessarily aligned with mental retardation. Google the definition of retard, it is not about window lickers, then again you have an anonymous user name which is typical for your kind

I didn't say the "n" word. Quit crying like a girl. Most in the "red" are retards, unless you are worth millions. I'll be in the 400 block of King st. just fixing my chain-link fence. You sound like your sister-----no brains all fight. Go to sleep dum dum.

Are you aware that Democrats are not all liberals? Liberals don't need to result to inappropriate insults since they tend to have facts on their side and see insults as a distraction from the facts. John sounds like a democrat, but not a liberal.

Ryan seems like a nice charming guy who just happens to have policies that reward the rich and punish the poor/middle class. He seems like a good liar, and since this campaign is pretty much about which side can lie the best, he's probably a good choice. It's a shame the campaign isn't about facts, because Obama's economic policies would benefit 95% of the population, and socially Romney has taken positions as liberal as Obama when he was in Massachusetts.

David, how about some of those "facts"? Obama's policies, over four years, have hurt 95% of the population. Name one thing Romney has proposed that would punish the middle class? Democrats have facts alright, the ones spoon-fed to them by popular press accounts, but are not able to think for themselves.

Using a terrible word does not have anything to do with political views.

Explain that to us. How so? How will rights of women be chipped away? Tell us.

I am calling you out Jeff. Tell us. How will the rights of women be chipped away?

Are we suddenly forgetting the $500 billion that Obamacare "guts" from Medicare? Please refrain from Dem talking points.

Well, Tom Bartman, perhaps you did know that Ryan is so far right that he thinks that a human being is created at the moment of conception. Of course, through the wonder of science we know that while all humans start as fertlized eggs, not all fertized eggs become human. In fact, if a fertlized egg doesn't implant it is treated as waste by the human body. That is God's plan but Ryan says its not so.

Also, Ryan wouldn't allow an abortion, even if, for example, a mother of 3 will die without one.

That's how rights of women will be chipped away, and that's just two examples.

The abortion issue is a non issue for me since the VP does not decide on things like that. The President really does not either. He can appoint pro life judges and sign into law or veto pro life legislation, but that is really about all the influence he has on Pro-life issues.

Jeff Lugar ran for the hills, when asked a definitive question. Hummm... Who's that sound like? Oh yeah, an MSNBC junkie that constantly has "tingles up his leg..." when he hears their propaganda. Maybe you should have that checked out by a Doctor. Oh wait, Jeff doesn't need a Medical Doctor. He needs help from a qualified psychiatrist!

Tom, Jim-the rights of women get impacted when they are forced to go through procedures (exams etc.) which are mandated by the state.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/tobias-barrington-wolff/virginia-ultrasound-bill_b_1278832.html

As far as the elderly go- what possible benefit do you see about a voucher based system as proposed by Ryan. It does nothing to ease the escalating cost of care, or prevent people from being "free riders".

And you don't think having an abortion is an invasive procedure?

Also, my Dad used to say better to have half a loaf of bread then no loaf of bread. If reforms are not made these programs will be going under. Better to have some help for paying for healthcare when we are older than no help at all because it has all gone bankrupt.

Chuck - It's $716 not $500 billion and it is NOT gutted from Medicare. Instead it is savings by reducing the rate of growth of payments to doctors and medical facilities. In turn that is offset by bringing in millions of new insureds. If you want to be against it, fine, but be correct in what you are against.

GJ

Reducing payments to providers reduces services to the elderly. Have you ever tried to get quality specialist care for someone on MediCare? Now it will get worse

The president himself confirms this fact that by saying elsewhere that not reimbursing doctors fully will harm senior's care:

"...it is not acceptable to punish America’s seniors or the physicians who treat them. If Congress does not act, then doctors will start receiving lower Medicare reimbursements next week, which could lead to seniors losing their doctors."
"These are cuts that would not only jeopardize our physicians’ pay, but our seniors’ health care."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/weekly-address-president-obama-calls-senate-republicans-allow-a-vote-protect-medica

Then these "savings" are used to subsidize the PPACA (ObamaCare). If the "savings" are not kept in MediCare it's a lie to call them savings. It's a transfer into his signature program so he could say it is "revenue neutral" and doesn't raise taxes.

Try looking at the facts for once, instead of democrat talking points. Ryan's budget preserves Medicare. Obama gutted it to pay for Obamacare.

Tim is right. Jeff Lugar is a punk using buzz words. That does not work anymore, Jeff. Spreading false narratives based on your liberal feeds worked 3 years ago but but not now. Times have changed. This election is not about the use of carefully orchestrated one-liners, but about a record.

I dare you to give me an example how Paul Ryan wants to gut Medicare. DARE YA!!

Uh ... Tom, didn't you just call someone out ... like ... 5 comments ago about name calling? Now you are calling someone a punk? Why don't you follow your own guidelines? Oh ... maybe you're one of those do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do republicans?

Obviously, at least from the rapid fire posts of challenges here, Tom Bartman is spoiling for an argument, but, just for the sake of their being some counterpoint rather than a knowing silence, here's a little about Ryan's - and presumably Romney's? - plan for reshaping Medicare.

Basically, everybody under 55 now would be under this new plan when they reached 65, which replaces federal standards and funding of the program - which gives everyone equal benefits - with fixed amount vouchers ('defined contribution model') that can be redeemed through private insurers, but has no measures (because the world would implode if anything was ever regulated) to control price fixing or quality of care provided.

How does this 'gut' Medicare? Well, simplified, it takes Medicare coverage from the standard across-the-board retirement health care amount available that providers have to work withing and reduces it to the minimum bid in the health care market. It invites, naturally, Medicare voucher +$50/mo, Medicare voucher +$200/mo, etc tiered coverage, which reduces the relative value of the voucher to the cheapest possible coverage.

Thank you darling wonder Mitt! Thanks for blessing us with inspiration of inherited wealth. Thank you for teaching us nobody should pay more tax just because they hide money, tax-free, in the Caymans & Bermuda & Switzerland & Andorra. Thanks for having fools pay their taxes, while you live in luxury. Thanks for building an elevator for your cars & limos in one of your 7 palaces, which also gives us inspiration to be like you: accomplished & not being afraid to demonstrate loyalty to yr fellow accomplished friends with the promise to further lower their taxes. And also thank the Ryan budget author for promising to reduce yr tax rate to 1%. After all 13% tax rate sure beats the 37% rate those on salaries must pay. It'ss inspiring for all of us not yet rich as you; not rich like yr daddy, not rich as yr wife or boys. Thank you for choosing a running mate who is also a millionaire from the inheritance from his great-grandfather, the road builder, whose company was passed down to his son & then his son, Paul's Daddy afforded Mr. Ryan a life in Wash.DC & inspiration to lower taxes on his multimillionaire mom & dad & all those whom God has blessed. You go Mitt! Why should Americans wait for the government to give a measly retirement to those who paid for it, when you show how to take care of yourself? Why give people Obamacare just because people without $ get sick? If God wants them sick, why go against God's will? O Mitt, how inspiring you are! Pay no attention to envy!

I'll bet he shows his college transcripts when he does.

Catherine.....What is your point about Miami of Ohio? What do you know about that University that the rest of us don't? Speak up.

right, cause all the ivy-league grad presidents have done such a great job.

I'm reading these comments with glee and amusement. I see some of you still are defending the indefensible, i.e., claiming that obama is still the best choice to be in charge of our miserably failing, rapidly declining, once great U.S. of A. You continue to fail to see that this is a man who detests the United States, detests white people and wants to apply his socialist principles to all things America. You continue to chant the same mantras, and refuse to see that in 3 yrs. obama has failed to come up with a budget, but continues to spend us into the next Greece. Shame on you for continuing the fairy tale that this man is good for America, for people who need jobs, for people who are losing their homes. Shame on you all for continuing to support someone who cares nothing about you, your family or your children's future. It is despicable to think you can still consider defending this chicago thug. Consider listening and getting the facts, instead of always talking. Make a more educated decision than you did in 2008. And remember that biden is one heartbeat away from being the leader of the country. Remember as well that obama is on the path already for medicare to crash and burn, without any help from a republican.

@ Lorbee... do you really believe what you type or are you just antagonizing people. Your comments are the epitome of ignorance and a fine example of the typical right wing stereotypical prejudice of pure BS and why most people with a bit of intelligence cannot stand what the GOP has become. Keep at it and you will repulse even your own party.

This is the most polarizing election ever. The nation is divided like never before. Remember when Obama said he would bring the nation together? Now he is in attack mode over the "rich". Enough. This election is not about fancy buzz words discussed in a college atmosphere or terms of "unity" and "vision". It is not about gay rights. This is all about the economy and the policies set in place.

O cannot run on his record.

@Tom Bartman...you are right. The focus has to be on one thing and one thing only and that is the economy. And for democrats to wake up and realize that they must vote to save this country from destruction and socialism.

@ Tom and Lorbee... What do you think would have happened if we continued on policies that bush started that destroyed our economy. At least things have stopped going downhill and the nation is at a recovery period instead of a downward spiral. There are plenty of positives on Obama's record:
1. Bail out of the auto industry successful
2. Stocks are at a 3.5 year high at the moment
3. Very strong national defense record... IE Ossama Bin Laden
4. Economy not losing jobs anymore by 100,000s a month
5. More US oil production than any other time in US history (drill baby drill)
6. Allowed concealed weapons in national parks (gun control... pro NRA)
7. Affordable Care Act (bottom line more people will have healthcare than ever before. Look at most experts opinion on what will happen to costs if its repealed.) This act will eventually lower healthcare costs for the middle class.

What he hasn't done-
1. Held Wall Street accountable for the economic colapse... IE no one really in jail
2. Closed Gitmo
3. Stand up to the special interest

The only group dividing the country is the GOP and their vow to make the current president fail at any cost. In my opinion that is treasonous. This president has done a good job despite every attempt by the GOP to stop him.

Can you actually articulate what policies you do not like and how you would change them?

Hawaii is not a foreign country. His mother was a white woman from Kansas. Deal with it.

Pounding down $350 bottles of wine while one of his pals is muttering profanities (f*** her!) to a possible constituent. Real Classy.

Very Enlightening.

Could not agree more!

Or we could take a more intelligent view and judge whether the combined decisions of the president, congress, and the supreme court have helped, since Obama isn't a dictator. And instead of judging whether we are better off now than we were at some arbitrary point in history, we can attempt to judge whether we are better off than we would have been if Romneyesque choices were made over the last 4 years.

All we can do is look at the two men and compare their plans (tough to do when Romney refuses to give specifics). But since Romney's general plan is to cut taxes on the wealthy and cut services for the poor, it's pretty obvious that is not going to solve the problems the majority of us have.

David, try opening your mind a bit. Obama is more like a dictator than any other President we have had except Lincoln. The abuse of executive power is stunning. ... what, exactly, has Romney been not clear about? I see specifics everywhere I turn. .... the choice of four years is not arbitrary, but an indicator of change in policies. ... The only thing I agree with is your comment that we could also look at what might have been. The economy was already in an upward trend before Bush left, following the usual pattern after such events, and Obama killed it, extending what should have been over long ago.

@ David; yes Hope and Change was SO specific, yes?

Tim Lewis, please cite ONE SPECIFIC that you see from Romney "everywhere I turn. .... " I haven't seen a single specific thing that he has said he would do. What does he stand for? As far as I know, no one knows.

Tim...Just a question for you about abuse of executive power...have you looked up GWB..Line Item Veto Power. enough said

Tim - I think you need to refresh your memory about GWB's last year in office. The stock market lost nearly HALF its value (~13,000 - ~8,000) over that period and was still falling until a month AFTER Obama took office (~6,700 on March of 2009). Thankfully for all of our retirement savings, the stock market is back above 13,000 again.

About the only "upward trend" at the end of the Bush administration was in unemployment, which started shooting up in August of '08, around the time when John McCain suspended his campaign to deal with the financial crisis (remember that?).

All the economic data I can find confirms what I remember: the economy was in freefall when Obama took office. What economic data can you point to suggesting an "upward trend before Bush left"?

The tea party's basic ideas were very Ron Paul libertarian until they got co opted by the Fox News, GOP and the Koch Bros. Now the agenda is trickle down economics and lowering the taxes on those that can afford to pay the most, leaving the burden on the middle class, which is shrinking. Follow the money. Who do you think benefits from this? Why are the rich pouring billions of dollars into this election? Do you think it is right that the tax code now favors unearned income over earned income? Do you know that there are no Medicare and social security taxes paid on unearned income? That is why Bain capital spent millions lobbying Congress to keep deferred carried interest classified as unearned income. Most of the multimillionaires and billionaires get most of their income from unearned income. And before you say "class warfare" realize that these are facts, not rhetoric. Are you happy with this system? Do you think there will be more jobs if the tax on unearned income is reduced further to 1%? Where are the jobs that got created from the Bush tax cuts? What was that's effect on the budget? A surplus to a $10 trillion deficit. Obama and congress have continued these policies and the deficit is out of control. Thinking trickle down works is like believing in magic, because that's the only way it could work. Stop voting with your gut and start looking at what really is happening.

@ Adrian- The Koch brother are pure libertarians and not republicans. They are very self centered interest but do support a lot of science and research. So many things about them I cannot stand but there are a few very good things that they do. Guess who is one of the main funders of NOVA?

why don't you try facts instead of just name-calling? That's what grown-ups do. just curious...do you work?

I agree, white billionaire fetus are pretty safe, won't be killed, regardless of who wins the election. Not so AA fetus, especially if BHO wins, or so Kermit Goshell told me.

I used to believe that about Republicans. I then realized they care nothing for upward mobility but only value those already at the top. And I can name plenty of Dems that have supported tax cuts and tax incentives for small businesses. It's the megamillionaire Koch brother types (supposed job creators) that are now behind the majority of Republican lawmakers. I do hold out some hope that enough Republicans hold their traditional values and will one day reclaim this party. Romney and Ryan are not those people.

Truth seeker, try seeking the truth, not some popular media caricature spoon fed to you. Every single Republican I know is all about upward mobility, and opportunity for all. It is only Democrats who try to play class warfare while simultaneously creating a dependency on the state and seeing that they and their rich friends benfit (most elected democrats are much wealthier than Republicans, and "the rich" overwhelmingly vote democrat. Look it up.)

Marijuana and LSD available here.

Philly Boy...You watch too much FOX! Warren Buffett...enough said!

It's also 'label'

Up against Obama who has grown the deficit by 5 Trillion dollars? I say it is a wash there! Next argument?

If You Want Another Debt And Spending Binge, Vote GOP :http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/if-you-want-a-debt-and-spending-binge-vote-gop.html

Rosemary B, if by 'grown the deficit ' you mean 'didn't level off Bush's spending' then, sure. Of course, then, you'd be complaining we pulled out of the Middle East 'before the job was done' - because that's where all money went (24% of the budget goes to the military, 22% to health care, 22% to government pensions, 12% to welfare, 6% to debt interest, 4% to education, the rest to minor government expenses). And Romney and Ryan are campaigning to further increase military spending.

Rob, try thinking for yourself instead of aprroting popular "wisdom". The Bush tax cuts did nothing - NOTHING - to contribute to the deficit, and in fact the economy grew when they were passed. It was only the mortgage and banking crises that created the deficit.

Tim, check your facts, don't just parrot fox news misinformation....Bush spent the surplus well into deficit before the mortgage crisis.

Sorry, Rob - check yours.

How about a CBO report to refute you?

Analysis of the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) final report on what caused the January 2001 projection of a $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus to turn into an actual $6.1 trillion deficit over that 10-year period shows that:

The tax policies enacted a decade ago are responsible for just 16 percent of the swing from surplus to deficit. Furthermore, given that only about one-fourth of the tax cuts went to upper-income earners, just 1/25th of the decline from surpluses to deficits resulted from upper-income tax cuts. (NOTE: Given that CBO does not take into account any of the positive impact of tax cuts on investment, savings and economic growth, the percentage was actually even smaller than the 1/25th estimate)

The CBO report has shown that new spending and net interest were three times as responsible for the deficits as the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts – and 12 times as responsible as the upper-income portion of the tax cuts.
In a second report, the CBO said that in both 2008 and 2009, the highest-earning 20 percent of taxpayers paid 94 percent of the total income tax burden – up from 86 percent in 2007, and 81 percent before the 2001 tax cuts. In other words, higher-income Americans have been paying a bigger and bigger part of the total tax burden under the so-called “Bush tax cuts.”

More delusional paranoia from the lunatic fringe right.

And more name calling from the rude and running scared fringe left!

The CBO also reports that Paul Ryans plan will no doubt increase the deficit and raise taxes

Yeh Ryan is brilliant and so accomplished:
"He's been in Congress for nearly 13 years, but Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has only seen two of his bills pass into law during that time.

Ryan, who Mitt Romney has tapped as his running mate, passed a bill into law in July 2000 that renames a post office in his district. Thanks to Ryan, the post office on 1818 Milton Ave. in Janesville, Wis., is now known as "Les Aspin Post Office Building."

The other time Ryan saw one of his bills become law was in December 2008, with legislation to change the way arrows (as in bows and arrows) are hit with an excise tax. Specifically, his bill amended the Internal Revenue Code to impose a 39-cent tax per arrow shaft, instead of a 12.4 percent tax on the sales price. The bill also "includes points suitable for use with arrows in the 11 percent excise tax on arrow parts and accessories.""

Rob....The number of bills passed is your measure of what? The more bills that pass means more & more laws / regulations to strangle the public. If you are serious then spout the bills that Obama passed either in the state of Illinois or Washington DC before becoming POTUS. Using your method everyone should have known Obama would fail....

"The govt should protect the rich."
Really I thought the government should protect and treat all equally, but it is that thinking that sums up the modern republican party.
A rising tide obviously doesn't lift all boats economically. The incredible growth in income inequality in the past couple decades is proof positive of that.

never won an election in a state wide race... wants to abolish medicare and social security, a death knell

Good thought. By law he can run for both. GOP desperate to retain control of the house so he will stick around. He has more of a chance to win this seat back then to be V.P. or was it President like Mittins said in the announcement?

What hypocracy or short memories. Joe Biden (D) won re-election to the Senate from Delaware in 2008, while also running successfully for VP. Likewise. Joe Lieberman (D) (D) won re-electiog to the Senate from Connecticut in 2000, while running unsuccesfully for VP with Kerry.

On the other hand, Bob Dole resigned from the Senate in the Spring of 1996 when his Republican presidential nomination was assured, even though his term didn't expire until 1998.

Thinking we should judge them on the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

Analysis of the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) final report on what caused the January 2001 projection of a $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus to turn into an actual $6.1 trillion deficit over that 10-year period shows that:

The tax policies enacted a decade ago are responsible for just 16 percent of the swing from surplus to deficit. Furthermore, given that only about one-fourth of the tax cuts went to upper-income earners, just 1/25th of the decline from surpluses to deficits resulted from upper-income tax cuts. (NOTE: Given that CBO does not take into account any of the positive impact of tax cuts on investment, savings and economic growth, the percentage was actually even smaller than the 1/25th estimate)

The CBO report has shown that new spending and net interest were three times as responsible for the deficits as the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts – and 12 times as responsible as the upper-income portion of the tax cuts.
In a second report, the CBO said that in both 2008 and 2009, the highest-earning 20 percent of taxpayers paid 94 percent of the total income tax burden – up from 86 percent in 2007, and 81 percent before the 2001 tax cuts. In other words, higher-income Americans have been paying a bigger and bigger part of the total tax burden under the so-called “Bush tax cuts.”

Again, delusional paranoia. No such CBO report exists.

Hey, Mo, just because you close your eyes and cover your ears doesn't mean it will go away.

Karl, I looked at the actual report of the CBO and the analysis was not based on just the legislative impact on the deficit, so it is a bit misleading. If you just base the effect on the deficit from legislative impact and do not include the things you can't control then the effect of the tax cuts on the deficit are over 20%. (I have a degree in accounting and can understand the charts) If you include Medicare D and the TARP the effect on deficit is over 28%. Ryan voted for all of this.

Yes but it is not the gov't, it is the moneyed interests who keep us arguing while they buy congress and get more and more of the nations' wealth. Why is it a guy who makes $50,000 a year pays a higher percentage of his income in taxes? Private equity firms do not risk their capital, they risk their investors capital. They don't pay social security and medicare taxes on that income either. Is that fair? Or how about a lawyer making $250,000. With that much income his deductions fade out, but not the mega corporations, you know the ones that are people now, they get to keep all their deductions. Is that fair?

Yes but it is not the gov't, it is the moneyed interests who keep us arguing while they buy congress and get more and more of the nations' wealth. Why is it a guy who makes $50,000 a year pays a higher percentage of his income in taxes? Private equity firms do not risk their capital, they risk their investors capital. They don't pay social security and medicare taxes on that income either. Is that fair? Or how about a lawyer making $250,000. With that much income his deductions fade out, but not the mega corporations, you know the ones that are people now, they get to keep all their deductions. Is that fair?

That's because an independent can't get on the ballot in PA

This election will show whether the media has succeeded in dumbing-down the population. people like you view everything at surface level. That's how Obama gets away with blatant hypocrisy. You watched CNN or MSNBC and someone said "Paul Ryan's budget is extreme and cuts Medicaid!". Obama already cut medicaid. but you don't look far enough. I like Paul Ryan. He's a pragmatist who wants to address the issues head-on, as opposed to Obama who's just going to pass them on down the road.

Well said Mr. Hurtz and I think Andrew is a retard.
Your attempt at humor made my laugh, thanks.

Peter, you shouldn't ASSume what I have read or heard. I have actually seen the Ryan budget and it makes huge cuts in federal medicaid funding and turns medicare into a voucher program (you get about 6K a year to buy insurance that will cost triple that number) for anyone currently under 55. Ryan is not a "pragmatist". He is a career politcial hack who has NEVER had a private sector job (isn't that what is wrong with Obama according to the right?) and wants to balance the budget on the backs of the poor and middle class while giving the rich more tax breaks.

wow your wit amazes me! you capitalized three letters of a word to make a bad word! HAHA!.

tell me something...what happened to the great unifier? the guy who was going to halve the deficit by the end of his first term? As far as i can tell all he's done is created a wider divide. oh, right, the R's are obstructionists, etc. i forgot.

why can't he run a campaign showcasing his successes? it should be a snap. why is he running such a negative campaign? all he has to do is talk about the great things he's done. Or maybe there will be some blockbuster hollywood movie about the killing of bin Laden. maybe that will come out in september or something.

Obama is a joke. what has he done? hell, who is he? in three days the media has already dug further into Ryan's life than they've dug into Obama's in 4 years.

Huh? Was that an attempt at humor or are you just mentally challenged?

Wow, thanks for adding that great insight to the discussion.....sigh.

With all respect, Richard, this conversation is getting this group to no place good. It is creating anger. People are throwing insults back and forth. This is not constructive. It is destructive. It is not bringing us closer to any solutions. It is fomenting resentment. If we were all on a sports team, it would be time for a serious sit-down attitude adjustment.

Do you think your talking points have gained any converts of people who were not already on your side at the get-go?

the ryan plan actually takes 30 years, not ten, to balance. the reason is to avoid drastic changes.

secondly, Obama has supported the idea of eliminating the mortgage interest write-off.

third, as for medicare ryan's plan changes absolutely nothing for people over 55.

The TPC report was many times shown to be nothing but a guess, and worthless. And at this point I would be willing to take the 10, or even 30 year alternative, compared to the current administration's proposals, which are only going in the opposite direction.

I have a bridge in Brooklyn Richie.

Earned income tax credit does not effect the middle class, it effects the working poor, who get this and food stamps. EITC and food stamps are actually a subsidy for the businesses so they do not have to pay their employees a living wage. We get to pay it for them.

Good for you. You should write in Ron Paul or vote for the Green party just to show us "screwed up" adults how smart you are.

Iron Man totally has my vote as well!, but, seriously, the only thing for you to do is your own research and listen to all sides. I watch FOX ,CNN and occasionally MSNBC. You will see a difference in style and coverage. I also look at fact checking websites and read the actual bills, on occasion. I also read The Blaze and I balance that with the Huffington Post. Unfortunately, in this day of the media being so tainted by wanting their side to win, it is the only thing to do. Good Luck and don't give up on your quest for the truth.

I agree with you. The tone of this conversation is terrible. I agree with Rosemary. Research as many sources as possible. I would include NPR, which continually rates at the top when its listeners are polled for accuracy of knowledge.

Thank you Marshall, now we know who the real adult is on this blog!

According to guys like Ryan and Romney, we exist only to be worker bees so that they can continue to have all the finer things in life. We should happily give them our money and not ask questions while waiting for the wealth to "trickle down".

worker bees? you have it backwards. liberals are the people who see the american public as dumb, ignorant, interchangeable units who are not capable of running their own lives. Conservatism believes that there is pride in running one's own life, though recognizing that there should be an amount of help should that person fall on hard times. that, however, is in stark contrast to the nanny-state mentality of the current administration. Sadly, i feel that they've succeeded in convincing the public that they are not smart enough to make choices for themselves.

left untouched Medicare will be bankrupt in 10 years. The intent of Ryan's plan is to allow members some choice over their care. open markets and choice drives cost down.

Obama's way to cut cost is to force doctors and providers to give the same care for less money. now sure, plenty of people will say, "screw those doctors, they make too much money!", despite the fact that between school, internships, residency, fellowships they spend 23-26 years before they make a decent paycheck, just to work in a field where everyone constantly wants their help...and at the very same time constantly looking for ways to sure them.

so what happens? you end up with a doctor shortage. it's funny, Obamacare was supposed to put more emphasis on wellness and Primary Care...and the first thing he does is cut payments to primary care physicians. So what are we to do when it takes 6 months to see a doctor?

You know, i just read an article that was talking about how there's a shortage of primary care doctors. Huh. Funny.

So you don't like Republicans, Democrats, Ron Paul, or the Green Party? Who do you plan on voting for? Seriously kid....You come here insulting us because you "have a more mature outlook on life than the people on Patch". You proclaim you are wiser then the rest of us because you are an "independent" but brought NO FACTS to the table nor offered any real response to either point of view.

When do your classes start at community college? Your first course should be Civics 101.

No.

Yes!

I have never heard such a comment anywhere, and I hang out with a lot of people in many places. Not once in four years. Ever. From anyone. White, black, or otherwise. I for one want him gone simply because of his marxist policies, nothing more, nothing less.

Gramma24, I strongly suspect that it is you that are the racist here. I would gladly vote for Condoleezza Rice for President or Allen West because they believe in the same America that I believe in.

Gramma24....you outed yourself as a racist, plain & simple.

I didn't make the comments....they were made TO me. And go ahead and believe that all is wonderful and inclusive in your lovely little Lehigh Valley. And wonder why the Sikhs and Muslims here are looking over their shoulders? Look in the mirror. Oh, yeah, vote for Condi or West.......she turned them down as she 'didn't want to be a puppet'......West is so far off to the right he could 'buy a ticket' never the less 'get on it'.......but yup, I'M the racist here.....yup, yup....I hate bigots that talk out both sides of their faces......so yup, that makes ME a racist.

Gramma, why does every post you make, on every topic have to come down to race? You want to know what I think? I think you're a bigot. I think you just got home from the bars and decided to post your hatred all over Patch (it's 2:15am) because you had nothing better to do. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

By the way, I'm on here now because I've been laying in bed, wide-awake since 10pm. I'm a disabled veteran with PTSD and I have insomnia. Maybe you'd like to make fun of me for that or tell me it's punishment for not being the right color?

I left out Bush's second tax cut in 2003(JGTRRA). Sorry!

Now to provide facts.
on Ryan:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/aug/11/fact-checking-paul-ryan/

On Obama:
"...didn't build that..."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/26/mitt-romney/putting-mitt-romneys-attacks-you-didnt-build-truth/
"In speeches and videos, the Romney campaign has repeatedly distorted Obama's words. By plucking two sentences out of context, Romney twists the president's remarks and ignores their real meaning.

The preceding sentences make clear that Obama was talking about the importance of government-provided infrastructure and education to the success of private businesses.

Romney also conveniently ignores Obama's clear summary of his message, that "the point is ... that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

By leaving out the "individual initiative" reference, Romney and his supporters have misled viewers and given a false impression. For that, we rate the claim False."

Also Paul Ryan voted for TARP making him a socialists. Taking tax dollars and bailing out banks is socialism. Romney agreed with that and all of the stimuluses as well. That is fact. Also Romney agreed with ALL of Obama's main points up to about a year ago. www.whichmitt.com/videos
Therefore, replacing him with socialists Romney and Ryan will only continue to the fiasco. Now choosing somebody different like Ron Paul or Johnson..:)

Chin, something tells me that the paycheck you and your wife earn is far below 250K a year so under the Ryan budget you would see a tax INCREASE in the form of taking away deductions you currently benefits from (mortgage interest, earned income credit, etc...) while millionaires would see a tax DECREASE. Not to mention that when you retire, you would no longer get medicare instead getting a 6K voucher to buy insurance that will cost at least double, most likely triple that amount, How exactly does that help you?

Do you really hate black people so much that you would vote against your own interests in order to get Obama out of office? Nevermind, you already answered that.

and not to forget Romney's campaign stating that "etch-a-sketch" moment where they made it very clear, what ever is said now can be erased. Well if it's erased, what Romney is left? Oh yeah....that Romney that passed RomneyCare and that good old liberal Romney. So who ever is voting for him must be liberal...right?

Tony, try reading the full context of Obama's speech instead of parroting politifacts interpretation. It wasn't about infrastructure, or even doing things together. It was an elevation of The Government as the beneficent, benign granter of All Things Good - statism nearly word for word out of marxist texts.

So, Mr. Hurtz, simply voting against a hypocrite like Obama now makes us all Racist? I think you are the racist making such a remark! There are tough choices that will have to be made in the future, but I believe Romney will lead us to a better place in 4 yrs then Obama's way. He has reorganized and turned around buisinesses in the past. I don't think Obama would have a clue on how to do that. Obama has not had a Cabinet meeting all yr. He has not met with his job creating task force in 6 months. His budget did not get one vote, not even from the Democrats. These are not the signs of a successful President!

Tim, he was relating those words yes to the government infrastructure. There's a truth to that. Currently, Ryan and Romney want to take from Americans and give to other countries. Anyone believing in that is a socialist. That is fact. Their foreign policy to amp up the military overseas and provide FREE relief to non-Americans is unbelievable. In time the sheep will see this when after cutting medicare, pensions, healthcare, etc from Americans and our taxes continue to rise to provide to other countries. Oh joy

also not to forget Paul Ryan voted for TARP, the socialist act of bailing out the banks. Makes him the same old same old. I can see if conservatives were voting for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, but Romney/Ryan, especially big LIB himself Romney, are part of the problem. Go ahead vote these guys in, they will wave their magic wand and take from the middle class in the hope it will trickle down. Well how those Bush tax cuts working out....trickling down alright

Honestly, Tony, those Bush Tax Cuts worked out great for my family of 5 making well under $100,000 a yr. We saved a ton in taxes and our actual Federal tax rate was about 6%. We do our taxes with turbo tax and it used to calculate that so I know it is correct. Worked out great for my elderly mom cause most of her income came from dividends and interest which were calculated at a lower rate than previously and lower than Obama wants to make them. Can only speak for my self, but I loved the Bush Tax Cuts and will be really hurt if they are allowed to expire.

actually Rosemary, that is true and Obama kept them. So thank Obama. Also thank Obama for more money in your paycheck as well with the payroll tax cut. I am a successful small business owner and I thank Obama for the payroll tax cuts as well. Fact is...taxes are lower than they were under Reagan. Thank Obama for that. Now if Romney/Ryan wins thank them for the taxes that they will raise on families like yours. That is fact. Tax cuts for the rich and middle class tax raises. All while taking programs away from families like yours and mine, and giving our tax dollars to other foreign countries. Yippy cant wait.

I don't thank Obama for the payroll tax cut. He is taking that money away from Social Security that is in trouble already. I don't think, if you look at the big picture, that was the smartest move he could have made.

well if that is the case, then the Bush tax cuts in general are taking money from paying our deficit off. One must agree to that then. And ANY money going overseas is also a huge issue, that money can be used for...lets say in this example....social security. So once again that would be false. A tax cut is a tax cut. Stop the "i hate obama for things that he has does that positively affects me but i just hate him anyway" act.

Marshall, here is your direct quote: "You "adults" are running this country, no wonder it is so screwed up. I think I am going to change my party from Republican to Independent" - Uh, clearly you said you are "independent" and the condescending tone of your statement doesn't really "respect the opinions of people that [you] don't agree with".

You still haven't added anything of substance to the discussion. What is your view of Ryan and his budget plan? Try bringing some facts to the table. Better yet, just go ask your Mom to heat you up some hot pockets and leave this discussion to people who actually have some understanding of what is going on.

"Sword fights"? Really dude, that is the best you can come up with? Thanks for the laugh kid (note I am laughing at you, not with you).

Obama and Biden also have no foreign policy experience before this. It is scary that they got elected in the first place. And Obama had no experience with anything really.

Very true Mike. I don't understand why people rather cut American benefits first, then amp up foreign policy to other countries and give away our tax dollars to them. That is anti-American in every way. The Romney - Ryan ticket wants to amp up the military and the foreign aid it provides. That is ridiculous while cutting every American program here. Fundamental change....yes Romney and Ryan will fundamentally change everything that America was and is. Talk about radically changing things. Even though, Romney is a liberal and Ryan has passed socialized programs like TARP before.

Rosemary B - Actually Biden did and does have vast foreign policy experience and sat on several key committees during his years in the Senate but why let reality get in the way of your lies? Ryan's budget plan will only hurt YOU and nearly everyone else making under 250K a year. Take away medicare for anyone not currently 55 years or older. I'm not thrilled with Obama but at least he throws the "common" people a few bones and is trying to ensure everyone has access to decent health care. The new brand of tea party Republicans don't even pretend to care about the people, selling us out at the bidding of the masters like the Koch Brothers and Grover Norquist. Why do you support people who clearly don't care about you? Seriously.....

I don't believe the Democrats care about me either. I am voting for the pair who I feel will bring the country, as a whole, to a more prosperous place. Not for people who seek to divide this country and conquer. I think, in the end, that will be best for me and my family. As long as we have good jobs, I am responsible enough to take care of my own healthcare and retirement. As long as their is a good economy, I should not need the government to take care of me. And most other people also should not need the government either. Dependence on food stamp programs and welfare and Medicaid will also go down. For me, it is about the bigger picture.

so voting for the 2 that will no doubt increase your taxes while reducing programs and increasing the deficit is the way you want to vote? you are the problem

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisconover/2012/08/14/paul-ryan-the-5-trillion-dollar-man/

Now if you were for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson it would be more difficult to argue, but the Romney (Liberal) and Paul (socialist tendencies, passed TARP) will only cause more issues to this country.

real original, associating people with Fox News. why not throw beck and limbaugh in there too, for good measure. maybe call her a racist...Oops! you already did that.

i can do it too...

Hyper partisan? Extreme? Richard, stop watching MSNBC.

see. By the way, the ryan budget was co-authored by one of the more liberal members.

Peter, You are scolding Richard about calling her a racist, then you say you will do that as well. Knock off the name-calling. Now go to chix-phila or whatever & shove your tongue down Hannity's throat.
Never forget what Ronnie Mund said, that keeps us all happy!!!!!!

Where did I call him a name? I suggested he stop watching msnbc...is that name calling?

Peter, I am not a "liberal" nor do I watch MSNBC. I have voted for Republicans and Democrats in the past and openly stated that I haven't been thrilled with Obama. I also have not spouted "talking points" the way many of the people on the right have. I presented facts along with my opinion based on those facts that Ryan will not bring the moderate independents Romney needs into the fold.

Ryan is in fact proudly hyper partisan, just as people like Nancy Pelosi are. Try bringing some FACTS to the discussion instead nonsense and maybe you'll get some where.

the point you're trying to make to me is the point i was trying to make to you...too may people on here try to invoke Fox News and the radio people to discredit other commentators, besides your mention of race.

Peter, if the shoe fits, wear it.....

You know what really turned me against Pres Obama? It was when he was on La Raisa asking for money so that he could defeat his ENEMIES. The President of the country that I am a tax paying citizen of called me his enemy because I don't agree with his policies. That is some one who is a divider. Just because some on the right say divisive things does not excuse Obama's behavior.
I have researched my positions and thought long and hard about what is important to me in this election and have voted Democrat when I felt they were what is best for this country as a whole, so do not tell me I am brainwashed. Or I will have to resort to telling you to stay away from the Kool-Aid!

I have a ton of compassion. I just think that improving the economy as a whole is the way to help all citizens. Not increasing entitlement programs when we can't afford them. In the end all will lose that way because our country will be bankrupt and our economy in ruins. And more wealthy will do what the founder of Facebook did. Take his wealth and move to a country that treats him better.

sole reason I live in South Whitehall and not Norristown, thank you for confirming that I made the right decision for my family and I.

kind of disturbing Ryan took advantage of the social security benefit of a parental death and now wants to eliminate that same benefit for everyone else, kinda hypocritical

Your link is to a right wing blog.... Classic!

Just because it is to a right wing blog does not make it false.

Rosemary, in that case this too is all true so read it and weap:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/14/paul-ryan-capitol-hill-serious_n_1774605.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2012/08/the_new_new_deal_a_book_argues_that_president_obama_s_stimulus_has_been_an_astonishing_success.html

no need for personal attacks, any try to use english grammar correctly in the future tough guy

www.whichmitt.com/videos is a nice piece of work. also the links above where ryan is votes for TARP are dandies as well. makes him a socialist bailing out banks taking my tax dollars and giving them to companies and other countries.

If I am not mistaken, wasn't Obama also all for TARP? And that Bailout of GM really helped out the Unions but gave the American Taxpayers the shaft. And aren't quite a few GM cars made over seas?

@ Rosemary. Yes that is true. But all the socialist and major change thought by voting for Romney/Ryan is hogwash then, because they voted and passed same exact stuff. No arguments there. Same stuff. That is fact. Actually, Romney is and was a little bit more liberal than Obama up to about the time he decided to run for president. That is fact as well, proven by his tract record. And yes Bush did bail out those banks...how did that work out for us? Bush also passed stimuluses etc. So which socialistic bailout are you for the one Bush started with GM? and the banks? or the one Obama finished? but enough about Bush, we all know how he messed this country up and has taken more rights away from us than any president yet (Patriot Act, etc) When one starts to educate oneself and look at what mess both sides created, then that is what will fix the problem. However, since the sheep voted in Romney as the candidate rather than Ron Paul or Gary Johnson and the establishment hand picked and forced a Romney ticket, then Obama vote it is.

So, Tony, If they are two sides of the same coin I am choosing the side this election that has more experience turning around businesses and better leadership qualities. These are the only choices we have. I am not a huge Romney fan but I believe he is a better leader than Obama and will be better for this country, overall, in the long run.

Tony, you are one of the few here willing to tell it like it is. Good for you. Roseman and her ilk are beyond reasoning with. Facts, logic, and reason mean nothing to them. They hate Obama and would vote for Hitler over him. That is a fact.

Tony, unfortunately Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or other candidates that you or I might like better are not up for election. We must deal with the cards we are dealt. I think Obama and Biden are lousy leaders and very divisive and bad for our country and the last 3 yrs have not proved me wrong.They don't call Obama the food stamp President for nothing! I am ready to try another road with someone who has accomplished something prior to this in his life in the real world. I admit he is not perfect, neither is Obama, but I think Romney will be better.

richard, what a small, snarky, miserable person you must be.

Rosemary - Actually Gary Johnson IS on then ticket, running as a Libertarian. His name slated to be on every state ballot in the country in November.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/gary-johnson-could-catch-presidential-race-by-surprise

You really need to educate yourself.....I am still waiting for you, Peter (who resorted to name calling when he had no FACTS to offer), and teh rest of the right wingers here explain to me how Romney is going to be any better than Obama. Perhaps you could discuss some of his SPECIFIC plans to lower unemployment or improve the economy. Anyone can say "I will do better"....let's hear the plan.

Anyone who is not running as a Dem or Republican has no chance and you are throwing your vote away. Sad and I don't like it but it is true. He has gotten no media exposure and has zero name recognition. Here is Romney's plan. What is Obama's?
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/15/romney-economy-plan/?section=money_topstories

Anyone who is not running as a Dem or Republican has no chance and you are throwing your vote away. Sad and I don't like it but it is true. He has gotten no media exposure and has zero name recognition. Here is Romney's plan. What is Obama's?
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/15/romney-economy-plan/?section=money_topstories

Rosemary, you either have ideals and standards or you don't. Gary Johnson bet fits the standards that you have described but you refuse to support him because "he has no media exposure and has zero name recognition". Sounds pretty shallow to me.

As for your link here is a direct quote from the "Romney plan" you provided:

"Gov. Romney has proposed would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers." Some voters will think that's great -- just not the voters Romney still needs."

Do you even read the links you provide? This "debate" isn't even fun at this point. I feel like I'm beating up on a mentally challenged person. Rosemary, do some homework and come back in a few weeks when you at least have a basic understanding of the issues. My first suggestion is that you change your radio from Rush Limbaugh to NPR and your TV from Fox to PBS. NPR and PBS are the most "balanced" news you can get....many on the right call them "liberal" because they are so use to the baised nonsense on Fox that anything netural seems wrong.

Good luck to you.

Your right, this is far from fun. But not because I am "mentally challenged" but because I am a realist and you obviously are not. Now where is that plan of Obama's for the economy? I tried looking for one but the only places the internet took me was Obama propaganda sites. Nothing independent or recent like the WSJ. Now, what does that tell you?

Also, I think only people who feel threatened resort to insults. I try very hard not to insult people here. I think it is rude and counterproductive to learning.

And I do read the things I post here. I just know their is good and bad to every candidate and, being a realist, I can accept that if the long term outcome will be a good one.

Rosemary you claim that the Wall Street Journal is "independent"? Seriously? Did you know the WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdock (you know the guy who runs Fox and was just kicked out of England for hacking people's phones and e-mail). 2/3s of the staff at the WSJ quit (or were fired) when Murdock bought it out because they didn't want to be part of a Republican propaganda machine.

LOL! Rosemary, please take some time to educate yourself because your comments are getting more foolish by the second. You can start with this:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/economy/

It's a lot more detailed then anything Romney has put out thus far.

The only wasted vote is one not cast. A third party vote sends a valuable message to the whores and theives who have hijacked our democracy, that people are waking up. How can the average American believe that the next ten years will find them better off than ten years ago? My third party endorsement, again this year, is my only way to send a vote of dissatisfaction and frustration in the current direction of our society. The truth be told, I can not find a single thing wrong with Gary Johnson's message. From taxes to drugs to personal liberty to foreign policy, his ideas ring true for me. Do not tell me I waste a vote, to the contrary.

Again, Richard, I ask you, where is Obama's plan to improve the economy? You still can't find one, can you? Only insults.

And, unfortunately, I don't think their are many media outlets that are truly un biased and independent. NYT is too left, as is the MSNBC and most other mainstream media and all others are too right for one or another. I still think the WSJ is way more independent then the OBAMABIDEN.com or other campaign websites I have found that have Obama's "plan". And even they don't really spell anything out! Only more "we have come so far" "Don't let the evil, clean air and clean water hating, racist Republicans ruin our progress" BLAH BLAH BLAH. No real substance. And at this point, the whitehouse.gov website is really just a glorified campaign, pro Obama website. Not the picture of un biased independence!

Oh, and it is amusing how you criticize me for using the WSJ article because it has negative Romney info in it (accusing me of not even reading it) and in the next comment you tell me how Right Wing it is. Priceless!

Rosemary, In case you missed it the first time, here it is AGAIN!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/economy/

You see when you are the President, you get to post your plans on the government website. It is very detailed and provides plenty of "real substance" if you would bother to read it.

Speaking of reading, your link didn't come from the WSJ, it came from "Fortune" via a link from CNN so your last statement is once again completely WRONG and again serves to make YOU look foolish. Just admit you didn't even read the story in the link you provided. Otherwise how could you forget where it was from?

Lady, you are hopeless. Like I told another nut that makes a fool of himself here (he claimed Obama was the reason stores were closing at the Coventry Mall), go ahead and vote for Romney. Your uninformed vote will be canceled out by the many informed ones. If ignorance is bliss, you must be one of the happiest people in America.

Mr. Hurtz, it is you who is hopeless. If you had any idea of the life and death stuff I am dealing with in my personal life right now you might cut me some slack because I committed the grave sin of getting the WSJ confused with Forbes! I did read the article and know it portrays the good and bad sides of this candidate and his plan. Still can't find any remotely independent articles that do the same for Obama's plan. Let's face it, the whitehouse.gov site will be biased towards the man in the oval office. Their is good and bad sides of both candidates. I prefer the one with more business and economic experience and who has better leadership qualities and that is Romney and Ryan. I hope your insults make you feel like a big and smart person. I just think it makes you rude and immature, much like the name you have chosen to represent yourself with.

Classic attempt at fear mongering aimed at suburban whites (who are now voting Democratic in droves - just look at the last Montco Commissioners election) against inter city minorities. So this is OK but when Joe Biden turns Romney's "shackles" comment against him, it is a "low blow"? I can not wait until November when you tea bagging right wing nuts have to watch Romney/Ryan go down in flames.

You can always move to Canada if you think America under four more years of Democratic leadership is so bad. I'll even drive you to the border.

Romney/Ryan 2 flip-flopping peas in a pod. I love how Ryan is running from his budget. Even with all the P90x he supposedly does he still cannot back pedal fast enough. The interview on Fox with Hume was classic. Maybe he needs an Etch-a-Sketch like Mittens

Yeah freedom of expression is over rated....shut it down because Charlie D. says so!

I have been following this thread because I have been seeing great examples of the total breakdown in discourse that seems to increase with each passing election cycle. We have as a society become terribly polarized and angry. Maybe technology and social change have come too fast and in such a huge way that we as individuals are having an impossible time keeping up with the changes.

Of course, disagreements over politics and religion have been causing the worst of our problems since the dawn of time. The Internet just makes it easier to throw around accusations, insults and misinformation because it's harder to see that there is a real person on the other end of the screen. It is very difficult to judge whether and how we are being understood. There is a lack of context that decreases the possibility that these conversations will be civil and productive.

Richard....Are you stuck in the 3rd grade? Your comments and your "screen name" both reflect 3rd grade maturity....particularly the screen name.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com

Yes Gary Johnson would make a good president. Heck if he would have been around in colonial times our founding fathers would have probally gladly let him sign the decleration of independence and help write our constitution. They would probally not let Obama, Romney or most of our current politicians near these documents for fear they would burn them!

I'll take Gary Johnson over Romney everyday of the week and twice on Sunday....

Ok Jan I will bite. Do you believe in the US Constitution? If so do you believe that it is meant to restrict the power of government?

I am also curious to hear why you think Gary Johnson is a whack job? He did a very good job in New Mexico.

How's the kool-aid?

George, while your intentions may be good, how is posting over and over that the rest of us are wrong for expressing our opinions helping the situation? If you don't like the fact that our nation currently has two near opposite ideologies competing to lead our nation, start a third party or make some actual suggestions other than "you people are all mean". Your self righteous missives about the "breakdown in discourse" are getting stale. Bring some solutions to the table and learn to take a punch and give one back (figuratively of course) or stop reading political blogs and message boards.

Richard, by posting periodically that I find the stubborness of the people posting to be counterproductive to coming to actual solutions to the problems we face, I am "giving a punch" and bringing a solution to the table. You "punch back" that you don't like my contributions. So, we are having exactly the type of discourse that you purport to desire from me.

I am offering my solutions to this group. My solution is that people research their understandings of what's going on to verify whether the information they're relying on is correct. Once everyone agrees that they will be careful to only talk about what is true and not rehash the false assertions of political candidates and biased media sources, then we will be in a place where we can begin to discuss the reality of the problems and not just misguided understandings. We can then begin to create viable solutions.

Much of the political rhetoric is intended to divide people. So long as the nation is divided, nothing is going to get done. That is the goal of certain political action campaigns. By throwing insults at one another and stubbornly digging our heels into the ground, we are behaving exactly as was intended by the spinmasters who come up with some of the crazy malarkey that has been vomited into this thread.

I don't expect you to agree with me when I write that I don't think this conversation is bringing us any closer to solving the crises we face. I wonder if you're even listening to what I'm trying to say.

Jan,

If you read the writings of the founders, they crafted the 2nd Amendment because they feared a standing army as a tool of an oppressive government and intended that the citizenry have weapons on par with what the military possessed so that they could resist tyranny.
"Fully-automatic" weapons have been VERY tightly regulated since 1934 and are uncommon because of the tight regulation and the very high cost (try about $10k for starters, if you can find a collector who has one he's willing to sell).
"Armor-piercing" and "hollow points" are mutually exclusive. Hollow points are designed to expand on impact, which reduces the possibility of over-penetration, which could result in a "pass through" round hitting someone behind the intended target (the rapid dumping of energy as a result of that rapid expansion also increases the "knock-down power"). For both of those reasons, virtually all police agencies issue hollow points to their officers and any sensible person who carries legally for self-defense also loads hollow points into their carry weapon.

The shooter in Colorado did NOT have a fully-automatic weapon. He had a semi-automatic AR-15, which shoots the relatively anemic .223 round, which is far less powerful than many calibers used for hunting (like 30-30, 30-06, .308, 7mm, etc.) The AR-15 shoots one bullet for one pull of the trigger, just like more powerful weapons used for hunting all sorts of game.

"intended that the citizenry have weapons on par with what the military possessed"

Wait, so now our free-state-securing well-regulated militias have a Constitutional right to heavily armored urban pacification vehicles?

Morgan,

Personal arms on par.

The founders would be horrified to find that the govt has, as you say "heavily armored urban pacification vehicles."
They would never have allowed govt to arm itself against the people you that degree, because they didn't believe it was the govt's place to be in the business of pacifying it's citizens. Remember, they viewed govt as the servant, not the master, of the people, not the other way around as our ruling class aspires.

Jefferson saying or believing the constitution should be re written every 19 years. Prove it , provide a direct quote otherwise your just blowing smoke. Jefferson said no such thing. Zachary Elkins a professor at Illinois decided that was what jefferson thought after reading jeffersons rebellion every 20 years quote that he made before the constitution was even written. There are many quotes to prove that jefferson believed and agreed with the constitution when it was written, and afterword. Professors are making stuff up and passing it of as fact. and Jan a closer following of the ideals in our constitution would not rid you of streetlights, sewer, police, military protection, NASA or public schools, i think you know that. I got your point , you dont have to use scare tactics to make it.

Ron,

I did my own research and here is a link to the letter Jefferson wrote to Madison about the earth belonging to the living: http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl81.htm

Here is a quote: "It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19. years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal."

His preference is that a law have a lifespan so that the dead do not govern the living. Also in this letter he writes that debt should not be passed down from the dead to the living either.

Jefferson was pretty smart and clairvoyant. His talk of bribery corrupting is a good example of what lobbyists and politicians due today.

Paul thanks for the link, interesting letter. but not really proof that jefferson wanted this 19 year rule in our US constitution. He may have been bouncing ideas and thoughts around in his mind during this one letter. In it he said it MAY be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution and that it MAY be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years. He said it MAY be proved not that he thought it should actually be in our constitution. If he thought this i believe we would be reading a lot more about it since our founding fathers never held back at expressing what they believed in. Just my opinion.

Ron - He did not want it in the constitution it was what he thought about a law altogether. Jefferson did not write the constitution nor did he assist in writing it. I have posed the question to a professor of US History and am curious to see what he has to say.

Jefferson had been pondering the question whether we should inherit any government obligations, whether in the form of constitutions, statutes, public debt, or private debt. Having tentatively concluded that we shouldn’t, he wrote to Madison with this idea.

In response, Madison made several observations: 1) Obligations incurred by government in one generation may well yield benefits to the next. So, for example, if the government sells bonds to finance construction of a bridge, the succeeding generation may find itself facing the previous generation’s obligation, but it will also recoup most of the benefits associated with that obligation. To insist that every obligation have a 19-year sunset would make such government programs impossible. 2) Jefferson’s 19-year term was arrived at by him at the conclusion of calculations concerning the length of a generation. Madison pointed out that generations don’t work that way: there’s never a day when one 19-year generation ends and the next begin; children are born every day, and people die every day. Thus, there’s no way to say when the 19-year term ought to start or stop. 3) Writing a constitution is not a trivial matter. Where good constitutions already exist, to throw the constitutional system into turmoil every 19 years would be foolhardy.

Madison had more to say about the idea than this. The short of it, however, is that Jefferson did not mention the idea to him again. Jefferson was prone to coming up with such notions, which he usually ran past Madison. Madison typically explained to Jefferson why they were impractical.

Part of the reason that Jefferson disliked the idea of debt passing down from one generation to the next is that the land he had received from his father-in-law was encumbered with substantial debt; he wanted to concoct a way to keep the land without paying the debt.

"Pure" Capitalism is about as successful and achievable as "Pure" Communism. Anyone whose views are so extreme as to be unable to accept "nuance", "gray areas" and compromise is doomed to wail and gnash their teeth regardless of what society or economic system they were born into. Ignorance, I'm afraid, is NOT bliss in some cases.

Dear Invisible Hand of the Free Market,
How are we supposed to buy stuff since you moved all of our jobs to countries with vastly cheaper labor?
Thanks,
The USA

In regards to wanting the stimulus money that's already been voted for and approved and bound to be spent somewhere...
Wanting that to be spent in your own state...
Somehow letting it be spent elsewhere is...
Money that going to be spent no matter what...

I'm sorry, what was your point?

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html

SS and Medicare trustees have been pleading for someone to come up with a plan. The administration's plan was to steal 700 Billion from Medicare.

Read this before you repeat the Democrat talking points, it'll save time:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/314077/democrats-growing-medicare-dilemma-yuval-levin#more

Point being, Mr. Schissler, that you have people vouching for Ryan's character and integrity when a check of how he voted for the stimulus, vehemently critized it because it was the GOP thing to do, and then stood in line to take his share doesn't reflect a person who is that principled at all. My point, then, is his character. Yes, the money's going to be distributed, and I'd stand in line for my state too. But he voted for it.

Sorry Jan, your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is way off and the Colorado shooter was not "abetted" by any NRA special interests. James Holmes and others of his ilk are just evil persons that had intentions to kill; with or without guns. Period.

Jan,

You mentioned 100 round magazines, something the CO shooter reportedly had, so I thought I'd point out that his weapon was NOT "fully-automatic.". I did not intend to put words in your mouth ... I was just trying to clarify apparent misconceptions on your part.

But Moe is right.

Why do people like you want to censor others rights to express their opinions? If you don't like the "course" of the thread, LEAVE. It's really that simple.

Excuse me, "Dick". I'm not advocating censorship. This is supposed to be comments about the "news" article, not a debate about he U.S. Constitution.

And Jan, I don't need any 'credentials' to know my rights.

Moe, YOU were one of the people that took the conversation off course to gun rights but after you were made a fool of by other posters, you decided to ask for the entire thread to be closed.

Go stroke your gun tough guy....

Wrong again, Dick.

But back on the topic of VPs - Joltin' Joe Biden keeps putting his foot in his mouth and there is speculation that he will be replaced.

And now for something lighter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDrmMAH1hmg

Well said Andrew! You've hit the nail squarely on the head.

What is your solution Andrew? Sadly we only have a couple of options right now so people need to pick the lesser of two evils. Who are you voting for?

Richard Hurtz - I don't have a solution because I don't have the intellect or experience to properly come up with one. Voting out all the incumbents would be a good start however. As far as the choice in November, you're right, they're both evils. The only presidential candidate who has addressed the real problems is Ron Paul. I will write in his name in November.

Andrew - Making a change at the federal level is a monumental feat that I dare say we will not see anythime soon. If we want change we have to look at our local community and work it from there.

Getting involved by volunteering possibly, running for a local office or supporting someone who wants to do just that. Get them elected and let it build from there. Jefferson believed that men should be free to govern themselves.

The General governmnet has been allowed to grow to large and has taken the power we have decided to let them have. Remember being conservative is hard; the easy way is the liberal way - let someone else do it for me i.e the government.

I disagree Paul H; more than likely he has chosen to not engage you further. If you thInk you have beaten him in the debate you are mistaken.

Enough with the class warfare already. How do the right-wingers steal from the poor and give to the rich? Romneyhood - getting your talking points from MSNBC?

You make some pretty big accusations but offer no substantive facts. I am listening with both ears and open mind.

Paul, what would you call giving tax breaks to the richest 2% and then INCREASING taxes on the middle class to pay for it? Romney wants to lower tax rates for the rich and then pay for it by taking away middle class deductions like the mortgage interest deduction.

You claim "MSNBC talking points" but below you repeated the Fox News/Romney LIE about "Obamacare has already taken over $700 billion from medicare. Obamacare is getting rid of tricare".

Kettle meet the pot. They are both black.

Richard, Richard, Richard you are such a liberal. For me to repeat Fox news I would have to listen to Fox news.

Multiple news sources report that since Obamacare is already underfunded they had to take funds totalling over $700 billion from medicare - not a lie. Same for tricare.

I know next you are going to say prove it. No point even if I did you would not be believe it so really what is the point.

Lowering tax rates and getting rid of loopholes across the board is a good thing. Another liberal debat tactic is to ignore the big picture.

You have failed.

Paul, repeating the same lie over and over doesn't make it true. As you said yourself, PROVE IT with some valid sources.

You started off promising...someone that may actually bring some facts and reason to the debate but in the end are just another uninformed, brainwashed hater mindlessly repeating Republican talking points. Nothing I say will change your biased right wing opinion and I've dealt with enough of your kind at the patch this week not to mention this thread is getting to large to follow so I bid you and the rest of the haters farewell.

Peace out!

Paul liberals believe they are entitled to everything. So they consider it stealing for someone else to believe they can keep the things they worked hard to achive.

Richard Hurtz you have got to be the whiniest cry baby that has been proven throughout your comment trail.

You call me a liar but cannot refute any of my facts. Then you call me biased. You do not know me and have no right whatsoever to use such slanderous words.

You are a fool who can not handle someone who stands up to you and absolutely shut you down. You were and are overmatched so good ridance.

LOL Paul! I have laid out facts and provide links to information to back up my points for days. I'm simply bored dealing with uninformed fools like you.

As far as standing up to you, name a time and place and I'd happy to meet you face to face to "discuss" these issues. That goes for the rest of the internet tough guys as well. Until then....

Poor Richie - you lost. You do not have what it takes. You resort to name calling and now violence. Classic reaction when someone has no argument. You sir are a typical child who goes crying to his mother when things do not go their way. You have been weighed and measured and have been found wanting. Better luck next time if you want to try and debate with the adults.

Yeah, that is what I thought Paul.

Also note no where did I threaten "violence". I simply gave you a chance to say to my face what you type hiding behind your keyboard here. I"ll be stopping by Molly's tonight after work if you grow a pair and change your mind.

Ryan thinks he is slick by saying "anyone over 50 won't be impacted by the changes" so he can keep current senior votes but does he think that people in their 30s and 40s that have worked their whole life paying into the system are OK with having it stripped from them at their time of need down the road?

Once people learn more about Ryan and his budget, Romney's campaign will sink like a lead balloon.

"They got rich by stealing and hiding and they will never ever change."

you are the outcome that people like Obama are driving everyone else towards. What about the innovation, initiative, personal responsibility, motivation, hard work, and risk that's associated with starting a business? Big government destroys initiative and responsibility. Government was supposed to be a servant of the people, not the master.

Where will the money for all these social welfare programs come from when there are no more businesses to tax? At least Clinton realized that he needed businesses and rich people around so that he had enough money coming in to be able to spend it. Your (and Obama's) mentality will end up destroying the same programs you demand.

slyfox - You need to actually listen to and/or read the plan before you criticize. So much misinformation. If you are as close to retiring as you state then you will not be affected.

Ryan's plan will not yank away your benefits; in fact his plan is intended to save them. If we stay on the current path the benefits you are so concerned about be bankrupt.

Roman, I am 39 years old and have worked since I was 15 including a six year stint in the Army. I have had my current job for over 10 years so how exactly is it a "jack-ass" (no hyphen needed by the way) statement to say that I don't want medicare and social security taken away from me when I need it?

So Mr. Conservative tough guy, when and where did you serve?

as opposed to you being a whining conservative douche-bag that held the NFL records for most fumbles by a QB for a time?

Noticing that every comment you leave you have shown nothing but bad manners and a bad mouth. Any more far right and you're gonna fall off your highchair. You're a perfect example of what this fine country does not need. Thanks for the reminder......

People on both sides are certainly showing bad manners here! No need to pick on just one. We all need to be more civil to eachother. We need to remember that we are all Americans and entitled to our opinions and to express them.

Rosemary B - You are correct that we are all "entitled to our opinions and to express them" but people are not entitled to make stuff up nor are the rest of us prohibited from exposing your lies and hypocracy as I did yesterday. I hope you will at least do some more homework on the facts before posting more half truths and BS here in the future.

You exposed no hypocrisy or lies of mine. Only your own poor manners.

Richard H - I am 45 years old. I have never served. I respect the fact that you did and thank you for that.

As I understand the Ryan plan we will have vouchers to purchase our own insurance. We will be able to make the choices as opposed to the government making them for us.

Soicial Security is bankrupt; where do you suppose the funds will come from to pay for yours and mine? Do you think it is fair to place that burden on future generations?

I have been investing for my retirement and for my healthcare for many years now. If I get something from the government it will be a bonus. I decided long ago that I was not going to rely on someone else to take care of me.

As a veteran don't you also get TRICARE coverage?

Paul, the problem with Ryan's voucher program is only only gives a max of 6K a year to pay for coverage. If the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is revoked as Romney has promised to do, private coverage for a high risk group like seniors will cost far more than 6K (even by today's standards. Imagine what it will cost 20 years from now). Who will make up the difference? America is the only industrialized nation in the world that doesn't provide health care for all of it citizens. One only has to look north to our neighbors in Canada to see how universal care can work in an economically sound way. Their "socialist" economy is doing much better than ours. In fact, the US owes Canada money, not the other way around.

Ryan's plan is nothing more then a gift to the rich, giving the more tax breaks at the expense of the rest of us.

Obamacare has already taken over $700 billion from medicare. Obamacare is getting rid of tricare. These people now will not have a choice but to take Obamacare. Then they will have the government determining what treatment they will get. (HYPOTHETICAL) If you are too old and cannot support the state instead of a hip replacement you will get pain killers.

Canada's economy is doing better because of univeral healthcare?

Other countries have universal healthcare but the do not have better medicine, better doctors, nor better medical care.

20 years from now the costs could very well go down. With a voucher type system you create competiton for services. With the government being the only option, therefore no competition, costs for medical care are sure to rise. Costs go up because the government will pay. Same with tuition and student loans - discussion for another day.

The fact, as you say, that we owe Canada money should worry you just a little. We owe them money becuase the governmnet does such a great job at running things (sarcasm intended). Now you want them to run healthcare?

Obamacare is also going to put a large tax burden on the middle class and remove the incentive for small businesses to grow or even start.

We need less government not more.

Paul, the administration raised the fees for TRICARE, the idea being that people on TRICARE would then decide to go to the insurance exchanges, giving the exchanges validity.

Calling a female elected official a "pig" is real classy. I'll bet you are one of the guys complaining that Obama and Biden's comments about Romney are too harsh huh?

I'd say Biden has nailed GWB's 'affable dufus' persona pretty well. I still like him, but he's been extremely ineffective as a VP so far - I'm optimistic the ticket's likely next four years will be a little more interesting.

Doctors order tests because:
A. If they don't order a test and miss something, they will be sued within an inch of their lives. Witness the shortage of PCPs we have. A lot of doctors choose to leave the field due to the growing bureaucracy and cost of malpractice insurance.

B. The tests are there. We live in a technologically advanced society. if the tests and procedures are available and successful in prolonging life and raising the standard of living, why wouldn't you use them. A primary care physician doesn't get paid more for the number of tests they order and most don't really care how much business they generate for their hospital system. They're just trying to treat their patients the best way they can with the tools that are at their disposal.

"preventative" is not a word...it's "preventive".

tell me where you read me say anything about refusing care for lower income people?

In His own words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5Ha7RNpn24

Here's the real story on the "700 billion" from a nonpartisan website.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/15/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-said-barack-obama-first-history-rob-me/

Also, just in case people are really worried about it, just realize both parties want the same thing:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/15/stephanie-cutter/ryans-plan-includes-700-billion-medicare-cuts-says/

Thank you for documenting that the $500-700 billion in Medicare cuts to fund AFCA is the CBO's scoring. This is a law that was passed by a fully Democratic Congress and signed by Obama.

Ryan's proposal (which is not law at this time) wouldn't use the savings to pay for other provisions of Obamacare, but instead uses any savings to extend Medicare's solvency for many years. Unfortunately, that is all theoretical, since it hasn't been passed into law. The spending of the savings from Medicare is, however, presently part of the ACFAct.

No where in that does it say the savings (thanks for not saying "cuts") would go back into the Medicare program (Which doesn't make sense, if it costs less in the future than why would we raise more money to pay for it?). Your probable dislike for the money being put into Affordable Healthcare is your own dislike. I am completely okay with that aspect.

I apologize, Ryan does say that it would extend it's solvency, but I maintain that that still makes no sense and his plans are all smoke and mirrors (like how he will close tax loopholes, but refuses to point to any specific tax loopholes he will close).

Also, in the full transcript, his accounting seems a little iffy:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-vicki-kennedy-jack-lew-paul-ryan/story?id=16673650&page=7#.UC54O91lRcR

maybe we need to pass it to see what's in it.

Just like the Patriot Act

...actually referring to the healthcare act.

As if that wasn't obvious. I was merely pointing out that lawmakers don't actually read bills all of the time, especially in extremely important pieces of dense legislation (like the Affordable Care Act and the Patriot Act, to name one from both sides of the aisle).

i wasn't arguing against your comment, just adding my view of what's happening. i also see that the current administration "cuts cost" while "maintaining the current level of care"...that means docs get less money. that leads to a greater shortage. in my simple mind, if the feds (or the company you work for) wants to provide healthcare, it should be a catastrophic coverage. wellness programs beyond that should be in an open market. i mean, hell, you can't call the current system a capitalist or open market system...i go work for some company, they tell me who the provider is and i get to choose from 3 crappy plans. there's no competition in that scenario, so no one can say "the capitalist health care system doesn't work!"

i am not satisfied with any service that the federal government performs. it's too big. it's inefficient. you know, in hard times companies learn how to do the same (or more) work with less resources. that's called efficiency. All i see the federal government doing is getting bigger and more inefficient. At the same time i see politicians (on both sides - i see the two parties as separated by degree more than actual ideology) who believe that just because they went to an ivy-league school they know what's best for everyone and want to take choices away from the citizens of this country. We are at a time when more than ever people depend on government instead of their own responsibility, or their family structure, or local community. it's bad

"Both words date back to the 1600s, and the latter (preventive) predates the former by a mere several decades. It retains the upper hand, however, for two reasons: First, the extra syllable is superfluous, and second, it is supported both by quality as well as quantity: The most respected publications favor preventive, while preventative is more likely to appear in print and online sources with less rigorous editorial standards. That’s a good enough reason to favor preventive."

And if those executives happen to be in the financial sector, then we should vote for Romney, because those "executives" feel that Obama is more likely to be controlled by their lobbyists.

Andrew, you realize Romney made his fortune (I'm mean after what his Dad left him) in the "financial sector" right? Romney is the one wanting to end regulation and "unshackle" (his words) the financial sector.

Come on dude, at least read the info if you are going to comment on it.

I did read the comment. As you must know from my previous posts, it really doesn't matter who is elected, they are both puppets of the military industrial complex and financial institutions. Regardless of who's running, we are best to vote for the candidate that the "executives" don't like.

More comments from a guy who has a screen name of a 3rd grader....and the maturity of a 3rd grader. You're as dumb as the rest, the issues are the economy, jobs, taxes, spending, the deficit....not hate, anger, division. Do you really think Romney was elected and served as Governor without the Democratically controlled State of Massachusetts turning over every rock they could find? Get over it Dick, sorry I mean Richard.

hey Charlie D, why so anonymous with your last name tough guy?

Charlie - I even changed my screen name so you will no longer have "hurtz" feelings. Sorry Charlie, no more excuses...

How about we see Obama's school records? We might see he got accepted and got tons of scholarship money by claiming he was born in Kenya, huh? A liar right from the start....

Richard....Changing your screen name doesn't do anything, you are already known on this site as the guy with the 3rd grade screen name. I doubt your comments will change along with the screen name.

Adult Chain Ketchup....Seriously? Your screen name is clearly your real name.....and you want to call me names? Guess you don't understand what the former screen name of Richard H. implies....think back to 3rd grade....Richard Hurtz....get it now, tough guy?

Good analysis. See also my posting above from 11:41 am on Friday, August 17, 2012 called "In His own words!" where someone was asking for proof that the Medicare cuts weren't just proposed by the Democrats, but they were passed by Congress! Andnot only that- Obama even threatens future vetoes against any restoration of the cuts! The truth is out - in his own words.

Sure, but that 1/3 of ACA funding is only 1/10th of Medicare funding - how much of that is money that would have gone to pay for higher rates for preexisting conditions or lifetime care costs which are now paid for by ACA and are predominately costs incurred in the treatment of elderly people? Quite a bit, I'd guess - certainly some of the now-redundant Medicare funding went into the ACA, no? And how much of existing Medicare costs went into subsidies for insurance companies under the basically-unnecessary Medicare Advantage (which includes things like free gym memberships) plan ACA greatly diminishes? This details where the money goes better than I can:

http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/16/fact-check-obamacares-medicare-cuts/

So, after redundant coverage is handled by ACA, and money that goes straight to private insurance via Medicare Advantage, how much of that 10% actually leads to reduced medical coverage? Congress says it's basically 0%, but even if it's 5%, would you really argue with reducing Medicare funding by 5% to bring medical coverage to millions who were previously uninsured and to guarantee continuing coverage to the elderly? Seems like a good trade to me. What's the problem you guys see there?

Wo, thanks for those insightful comments. You really infomred us about your "friends" the Koch Brothers and I'm sure they would be proud.

Sigh....

Amen Earnest!

There's good reason to "go after" Medicare and Social Security. "Going after" as you disparagingly term it is demonstrating the leadership to fix a very serious problem that is driving our debt explosion. Doing nothing is much worse than "going after". Both parties have excelled at kicking it down the road.

The rational that was given by the president for the PPACA (ObamaCare) was to take on this problem, but unfortunately it will only exacerbate it. A previous post this morning states that the PPACA will achieve "savings" by cutting payments to health care providers. But since these "savings" are not kept in the Medicare budget but used to subsidize other parts of the PPACA they are not savings, they are cuts/theft. The results will be fewer doctors and hospitals taking on Medicare patients when more are needed and poorer service provided by the understaffed facilities that remain.

The president himself confirms this fact that by saying elsewhere that not reimbursing doctors fully will harm senior's care:

"...it is not acceptable to punish America’s seniors or the physicians who treat them. If Congress does not act, then doctors will start receiving lower Medicare reimbursements next week, which could lead to seniors losing their doctors."
"These are cuts that would not only jeopardize our physicians’ pay, but our seniors’ health care."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/weekly-address-president-obama-calls-senate-republicans-allow-a-vote-protect-medica

Nobody is going to actually talk about jobs, because that would mean admitting:
a) 'Free market' economics is a complete failure in a global environment.
b) We're too poor to pay the actual cost of things made in our own country.
c) Fiat currency has led to a national economy built on debt

We probably can't fix C anymore, talking about A alienates the remaining economically-inclined Conservatives from whoever brings it up, and B means individuals having to actually take responsibility for where their money goes, which seems pretty unlikely. Of course, we can't even try to actually talk about real economic issues as long as both parties insist on conflating them with social issues. Just because someone thinks abortion is murder doesn't mean they have to think reducing the tax burden for the wealthy is a good idea; just because someone supports same sex marriage doesn't have to mean that they think Welfare truly helps the poor. But as as long as we continue to draw these imaginary lines of demarcation - lines drawn to the point of hyperbole by politicians and pundits - no compromise of any substance will ever be made.

I know that it's tangential to the bulk of the discussion here, but if I should clarify, I mean 'free market' economics is a complete failure' in the sense that as long as there are hungry people on the Earth there will be something approaching slave labor, which in turn will always be more profitable. The idea sorta works in a closed environment where the money can, at least theoretically, benefit all members of the country in some way, but in a global market it just means its cheaper to create jobs outside the US. Are we really going to wait for the 'invisible hand' to balance out every economy on the planet before we regulate trade to heavily emphasize domestic manufacturing? Of course, as consumers we're also going to have to suck it up and come to terms with an $800 price tag for an iPhone. But that's how bring jobs back to the US and stabilize the economy - we have to make stuff here and actually pay the USD price it costs for the labor to make it.

I would fundamentally disagree with most of the premises of your statement. You can repeat the campaign lies about raising and lowering taxes but you cannot prove them. The president signed the bill to extend the Bush tax cuts... which even he admitted maintains tax cuts for middle class.

"Mr. Obama said the bill would create jobs and boost the still-struggling U.S. economy. He called it a "substantial victory for middle class families" who would otherwise have seen a tax increase."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026069-503544.html

They have been the Bush/Obama tax cuts for a while now. Give the man credit when credit is due...

If you would bother to examine the fictions they are spreading about Romney's tax plan you will see them as the campaign lies that they are.

..and I though the Republicans were becoming LESS subtle ....

1st check the date on when this happened (follow the link that both I and Phillyjazz have posted) and you will see this happened when both the House and Senate had a Democratic majority. So who coerced the president into extending the Bush tax cuts?
---
2nd there is the quote:

"Mr. Obama said the bill would create jobs and boost the still-struggling U.S. economy. He called it a "substantial victory for middle class families" who would otherwise have seen a tax increase."

Who coerced him to say that, the teleprompter?
---
3rd, there is this quote from the article about who would have their taxes increased:

"Had Congress not acted to address the expiring Bush-era tax cuts, all Americans would have seen a tax increase on January 1st. (The average tax increase per family, the White House said, would have been $3,000.)"

Did you know that the Bush (now Bush/Obama) tax cuts saved you that much?
---
4th From the article --- "The 2 percent Social Security tax reduction would mean a savings of about $1,000 for a worker making $50,000 per year." I submit to you that this is a crime perpetrated by both parties. While SS is paying out more than it takes in is no time to cut its revenue flow - they call it the "payroll tax" cut but it's the FICA tax that funds SS. This is one of the few articles I've seen that properly identifies it.

@ Joe: U don't like me talking about history and truth. Just because your people were slaves in Egypt 4000 years ago, does not mean that you should forget about it, in fact u r talking about it. Always expose the wrongs of Evil People. I'm very productive I expose the devils!

Leave ice hockey out of this. Public exposure of athletes is no laughing matter.

Luckily, this is 2012. A long way from 1961! I think we have enough problems here in the present, we don't need to keep dragging around the problems from the past.

You are a blathering idiot. People like you have no real substance to your argument, so you resort to ad hominem attacks on others. I don't care what color a person is, what their sexual orientation is or their religion.

Really, you're a bigot and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Who is the judge of intelligence?

DLE said:
"As I read over the comments of today, the take away for me is that many of you have tapped into reputable information sources."

I've produced links to:
The Social Security & Medicare summary report
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html
Comments made by the Democratic co-chair for the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform
http://youtu.be/dbzpuqWo6yU
Quotes from the President from the Whitehouse website
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/weekly-address-president-obama-calls-senate-republicans-allow-a-vote-protect-medica
Mainstream news account with quotes from the President and facts about the tax cuts
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026069-503544.html

But I'm not sure you're speaking about these, judging by the opinions you have been expressing I suspect not...

It's really not that hard to be informed, but it's very easy to be led astray. If you want to know about the PPACA (ObamaCare) you don't have to read the +2,000 pages. But you can search out people who have:
http://www.meetup.com/Lehigh-Valley-Coalition-for-Health-Care-Reform/

But I guess it's more enlightening to get into a black vs white bickerfest. Or share the "news" of conspracy theories that are decades old (and older) - always fun to blame evil forces you cannot control. And then there's the favorite... that both parties are just different sides of the coin already in the "real power brokers" pocket.

So let's say there's a germ of truth in all of it (because good lies start with a truth)... what does it have to do with fixing it?
You must recognize the issues, learn the issues, apply disernment, and then vote for the lesser of two or more evils. That is ALWAYS the choice. If the ballot has Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Ralph Nader, whoever... there is no Mr. Perfect, you can only pick the person who will do the least damage. And then once they're in you have to continue to look over their shoulder and stay on them.
The frustrating stupidity of our system is this: You cannot vote a person in and then relax. It might have worked like that at one time but it certainly doesn't work anymore. Integrity is doing the right thing, even when no one is watching. We have a 24/7 news cycle that's always watching and there is still no integrity. They need to know there are consequences for their actions. We have to make everyday as important as election day.

Ya... the Democrats have done soooo much good for blacks. 80% of your kids are born out of wedlock. 80% of kids have a horrible education. 95% of blacks are murdered by other blacks.

Since Johnsons "Great Society", and all the "Help" you've gotten from Democrats, your illegitimate birth rate is up sky high, the number of households with NO male parent is up sky high, graduation rates are low low low, unemployment is up sky high for blacks, the murder rate for blacks is up sky high, almost all killed by other blacks, the number in poverty is at an all time high, the number of women with children from 2 or men is up astronomically...... ALL THIS GOOD DONE FOR YOU BY DEMOCRATS.

The real issue here is that the Democrats have turned blacks into a permanent sub class who lives on Democratic handouts.... they can't actually help blacks... they might become middle class and then start to vote Republican...

Ya... the Democrats have done soooo much good for blacks. 80% of your kids are born out of wedlock. 80% of kids have a horrible education. 95% of blacks are murdered by other blacks.

Since Johnsons "Great Society", and all the "Help" you've gotten from Democrats, your illegitimate birth rate is up sky high, the number of households with NO male parent is up sky high, graduation rates are low low low, unemployment is up sky high for blacks, the murder rate for blacks is up sky high, almost all killed by other blacks, the number in poverty is at an all time high, the number of women with children from 2 or men is up astronomically...... ALL THIS GOOD DONE FOR YOU BY DEMOCRATS.

The real issue here is that the Democrats have turned blacks into a permanent sub class who lives on Democratic handouts.... they can't actually help blacks... they might become middle class and then start to vote Republican...

Crestor, where did you get your percentages from? My guess is you pulled them straight out of your butt!

Travon Black, while I agree with many of your points, you are clearly resorting to blantant race baiting. Even your screen name is intended for that purpose. Calling out racism when you see it is fine. Purposely race baiting people looking for fight is over the top and only causes people to not take you seriously.

It really is a shame.

72 Percent of African-American Children Born to Unwed Mothers

http://www.bvblackspin.com/2010/11/08/72-percent-of-african-american-children-born-to-unwed-mothers/

http://www.clutchmagonline.com/2010/11/why-are-so-many-black-babies-born-to-unwed-mothers/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39993685/ns/health-womens_health/t/blacks-struggle-percent-unwed-mothers-rate/

Some one was questioning the validity of someones stats about afican American out of wed lock births. Then person quoted 80% it is %70 according to NPR, September 27, 2005
"Forty years ago, a government report on the state of the black family in America warned that almost one out of four black children were born to unmarried mothers. Recent figures suggest that now, almost 70 percent of black children are born out of wedlock."
The poster was also correct here as well.
"Data indicate that murder is most often intra-racial among victims and offenders. In 1997, data based on incidents involving one victim and one offender show that 94 percent of the black murder victims were slain by black offenders, and 85 percent of white murder victims were killed by white offenders. "
Real stats on Black poverty levels as well.
"The poverty rate for all persons masks considerable variation between racial/ethnic subgroups. Poverty rates for blacks and Hispanics greatly exceed the national average. In 2010, 27.4 percent of blacks and 26.6 percent of Hispanics were poor, compared to 9.9 percent of non-Hispanic whites and 12.1 percent of Asians."

So, these stats were not "pulled out of anyone's butt" as one poster suggested. Historically, the Dems have not done African Americans any favors, even when appearing to do so.

It really is a shame what Democrats, and black leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have done to blacks in this country. It's so bad now, there likely is no fix at this point. All thanks to 40 years of feel good, do-gooder policies which took away all personal responsibility from the people they tried to help.

How can you 'take away' personal responsibility? That seem like an oxymoron to me - wouldn't having personal responsibility preclude you from having it diminished? Honestly, the whole connection to this being a race-based issue is inaccurate, though perhaps living in Philly makes it seem that way to an extent. It's about poverty - in SW Virginia welfare programs support, and most crimes are committed by, poor white people. In the SW of the US, it's largely Hispanic. Equating a lack of personal responsibility to a group of people based on race is basically the very definition of racism - that's obvious, right?

Regardless, what are the poorly educated and unemployed supposed to do without social services? For all the arguments for personal responsibility, what options does that demographic have? The job market is dreadful, the low-level jobs that are available pay a pittance compared to rising food, fuel, and housing costs. Adding to the issue is a general lack of education and the predominance of fundamentalist religious beliefs that lead to a heightened lack of birth control and a moral resistance to abortion, perpetuating the cycle of a populace that's poor and uneducated. What does a 15 year old mother with a 7th grade education understand about personal responsibility when their own mothers were in the same situation? What exactly is the plan to teach 'personal responsibility' to those that depend on social services that you find so problematic?

Without as much of a social net, they won't breed so quickly. We make it too easy to be a bum.

Crestor, I see absolutely nothing to support that assertion - if anything, greater poverty and lack of access to health education seems to increase the birth rate. And what solution do you propose to eliminate dependence on the 'safety net'? Letting babies born into poor American homes go hungry rather than chip in with your taxes? You'd cut 40 million people off from food stamps so they can go earn more money...where? Are you going to cut Social Services and Medicare? We can support all our country's elderly, but not all it's newborns? What is the end result of your plan for the poor and their children - I'd love to hear it.

The vast majority of the kids, and all the mothers, are fat. Too much in food stamps. Life is too easy... they can just lay around, eating and reproducing. Yes, make it tough. Maybe if the kids don't have it so easy, the sows will slow down the breeding. Tough love? Ya. I'm tired of having to pay more for their irresponsible behavior. Or, take it to the logical conclusion... if you want the government to support you and your suckers, then you have to take birth control. After two illegitimate kids, tubes tied. There is no reason for society to support this type of absurdly irresponsible behavior. Elective birth control and education? HA! Doesn't matter... more suckers means more money. They have the suckers to get MORE CASH from the government. Wake up, will ya?

Well, if your argument is that for the poor "Life is too easy..." then perhaps that level of disconnect from reality makes this subject harder to understand. They are already the poorest people in the country - how much harder do you want their lives to be? Why? And if you truly want the government forcing medical procedures on poor women to prevent pregnancy, then I think you might be confusing 'tough love' with old-fashioned 'fascist hatred.' And how does that even solve anything? What jobs are the unexperienced and uneducated going to work, regardless of their number of children? How will cutting off food and social services not just leave the poor more hungry and desperate, placing a greater emphasis on the viability of crime? If you're looking to root out absurdly socially irresponsible behavior, perhaps you should start with the 'starve all the poor people' plan.

The poorest people in the country are all fat, live in nice apartments (compared to the poor in the rest of the world), have air conditioning, heat, cable TV, a govt. issued cell phone and TIVO. They live like kings compared to the poor in the rest of the world. As a result, they have no reason to get off their butts and work. The brats are all paid for with more money, more food stamps, WIC program, etc. Their kids are raised by a single mother too busy laying on her back to get pregnant again to take any notice of the brats. The brats learn that the way you live is to get pregnant at 14, then keep popping out suckers till you have 7 or so. Then you can live comfortably like mamma does. The plan where we fix this problem by giving them more and more and more free stuff IS NOT WORKING. JUST LOOK. As to what job can one of these folks get? A minimum wage job. McDonalds. But why should they? They get so much more just given ot them. They would have to find a $40,000 year job to live as well. So why work? Just sit around the apartment all day and service the men who pass through, then throw some Captain Crunch at the kids before they head out to spend all night on the streets making drug deals with their government supplied cell phones.
Ya... it's time that if you don't want to work, your life sucks. Right now, it doesn't suck for these people, and the rest of us are just supposed to throw more cash at them while they reproduce like rabbits.

When you say "The poorest people in the country are all fat, live in nice apartments..., have air conditioning, heat, cable TV, a govt. issued cell phone and TIVO." You know that's completely and obviously false, right? A cursory drive through huge swaths of Philadelphia would make that plainly evident. Even in situations where some of that might be applicable, you complain that America's poor live better than the poor of the rest of the world - how is that not a good thing? Regardless, your plan is that they work at McDonalds to barely make enough money so that they can afford to eat at McDonalds? And then what - they are still unemployable anywhere else, still uneducated, still unhealthy, and, most importantly, still poor.

Does your vision of America have a perpetual underclass that exists only to barely feed and house itself just so that you have an extra thousand dollars at the end of the year? What kind of arrogant, entitled human being even contains the levels of hateful bile to conjure up something like "sit around the apartment all day and service the men who pass through, then throw some Captain Crunch at the kids before they head out to spend all night on the streets making drug deals"? The future of humanity has no place for that sort of ignorant, divisive enmity.

Tell me your future? More of the same, and hope it works out differently? Insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. They could still be given some aid if they work at McDonalds. BUT THEY MUST WORK !!! WORKERS SHOULD NOT PAY FOR THEIR IRRESPONSIbILITY !!! Why in Gods name do we have this class of people who get to just sit on their ass? WHY? Give them better schools? THEY make the schools suck. No amount of money will fix that. LAZY STUPID DRUG ADDICTED UNEMPLOYED SINGLE PARENTS is what causes this system to continue to perpetuate and grow. MORE CASH GIVE AWAYS DON'T FIX IT. NEVER DO.

Drive through Philly? Do it often. I see where they live. I see air conditioners. I see sat. dishes. I see them all running around with cell phones. What do you see?

Oh ya... again... by your last comment, you want more of my money. Trust me, enough of it is taken already. And how is money the answer? We spend trillions already, how will more money fix this? Tell me specifically what you want to spend my extra $1000 on.
What I say is the truth, and not being able to look at the truth means you can't fix the problem. You keep looking at the problem and say "what haven't we done for these people yet, that they continue to struggle". I look at is and say "What have we done to these people that has made their blight worse NOW than when we started 40 years ago to address this problem.".
Your path means we ignore the real issues, and throw more money at it, making it an even bigger issue.

And where do you get "entitled". I put myself through school, and work every day for what I have. No entitlement here. Just hard work. YOUR poor people are the entitled ones... entitled to my money and everyone elses.

Where do I get 'entitled'? Because everything in your life is made possible by generations of Americans working together to make the freedom of life in this country accessible to as many people as possible. The college you put yourself through depends on no-interest government loans to students to keep its doors open, along with teachers willing to work for less than they could be making to teach you the skills to make more. The money you make at work comes, in some fashion, from a huge network of people, both rich and poor, exchanging currency regardless of whether they earned it at work or received it from the government. Unless you are panhandling in the river for gold ore, your money comes from everybody else. It is entitled to act as though your labor makes it exclusively 'yours' instead of partially 'ours.' Food stamps go back to growers, minimum wage workers contribute to the roads you drive on, unemployed people with satellite dishes keep television funded through advertising, government subsidies to service providers for cell phones defray the cost of your phone plan. It would be great if there was meaningful, readily available work for everybody, but creating a social services vacuum in the blind hope that it will blossom into a self-sufficient unskilled labor environment instead of deeper levels of poverty, hunger and crime is delusional. The fact is, in the US in 2011, McDonald's only hired 62,000 of the over 1 million applicants they had.

Oh ya... I didn't build it..... ok..... Well, I could have dropped out of college at 15, gotten 7 girls pregnant, sat on my ass all day, collected my food stamps, and I'd be in the same boat as the folks we are talking about.

I did not go to a pubic school. I did not take government loans. Sorry. Wrong on those counts.

Look... your just a Marxist of the highest order... my money is not mine, it's partially yours. OK. Whatever.

Still waiting for you plan to correct the poverty and lazy breeder situation. What is it. Take more of my money... oppsss, I mean your money..... no wait... I don't mean your money, I mean my money that is partially your money..... oh damn... this Marxism is so hard to figure out. How about if I just work hard and do everything that I am able to do, but I only ask back what I really need... does that sound good, Karl ?

My future? Unsurprisingly, I would raise taxes until we had enough funding to create the greatest free educational system known to man - it requires a well educated populace to collaborate on building the America of the future - one that isn't dependent on foreign resources and manufacturing. An emphasis on renewable energy and domestic manufacturing, on locally owned business ecosystems, and heavy trade penalties for foreign goods made by workers paid less than their American equivalents.

America won't solve poverty until we have an abundance of living wage jobs available for everybody, and we won't have those jobs until we reduce dependency on foreign labor. The middle and upper classes can do that by paying way more for domestically produced goods and through increased taxes to support the inception of local business (which includes giving the unemployed enough money to support those businesses). So, yeah, more money will fix this, but not without some personal responsibility on the part of wage-earning Americans to keep their money in the US (or, at least, markets that US living wages are competitive in). What haven't we done for poor people? Kept jobs in America and their money in their own communities.

And more correctly... I did not drive on the road of the McDonalds worker. I paid FAR MORE in taxes than the McDonalds worker. I got far less use of the road, for my money, than the bums who are out of work who drive on it, and the McDonalds workers who drive on it. MY MONEY pays part of their share for the roads. I paid far more than the use I got. NICE TRY.... How about we all pay the exact same in taxes to build the roads... huh?

Reduce the handouts to the poor and I'll accept the slight increase in prices because they are not around to spend my money on their stuff. I'll be way better off. What FREAKIN' warped logic. Maybe I should give all my money away in taxes, give it to the poor, then everything will be free, because the poor are spending so much of my money on stuff.
Where do people like you come from?

Oh Crestor, you might not have taken government loans, but others did - private schools depend on federal loans, too, you know. If you can't see the connectivity of fiscal networks that make Capitalism work, that's your own failing to understand the nature of money and fiat currency - writing that off as Marxism is simply ignorant. It's Keynesian, if anything. And it's just 'our money' - not that hard of a concept - where does the money you earn come from if not from other people spending it?

What do you mean by "I did not drive on the road of the McDonalds worker" - of course you did; you drive on the road of the American citizen. Even if you paid more into taxes, that doesn't make it any less our - the entire premise of this country is based on taxes being spent for the public good by representatives. We all pay in, we all get equal services available whether we personally require them or not, and whether we even individually support them or not. Very low income families pay in by redistributing welfare to their community, low income families have taxes withheld before repayment for a year to keep government resources liquid - both of which are vital to the functioning of our economy. I'm all for everyone paying the exact same in taxes if everybody makes the exact same in wages, but that's probably not what you're proposing, right?

Well, of course - as the rate of available jobs per capita increases, those social welfare costs diminish. And it's not about YOU being better off, it's about America, the country you and I are both a part of, being better off. How is that not our mutual goal? Where do people like me come from? I'm your neighbor - there are hundreds of millions of us.

You just don't want to accept that the country is collapsing. A country can support, maybe, 10% of it's citizens being non-productive. We probably are at about 30% now. And when the non-productive reproduce at a higher rate than the productive, you gradually get a higher and higher percentage of non-productive people. Right now, we are making it far too easy to be non-productive. It is a lifestyle that is passed on from generation to generation. If you can't see this is an unsupportable model, then you are just naive to a fault.
What's your solution... more tax dollars, right? More spending? Show me any evidence the money that has been spent so far has provided even an INCREMENTAL improvement in the dismal statistics of the poor. If it is working, the poor should be FAR better off then they were in the 60's.... they are WORSE off. The only model that works is one where you HAVE TO TAKE personal responsibility for yourself and your family. Once government steps in and takes, or tries to take, that responsibility, you get just what we have.... massive numbers of irresponsible people, living off the government.
You just don't have the ability to look at things with an analytical mind. To you, it's always about taking more of somebodies money who produces, and GIVING it to somebody who does not, to MAKE THINGS FAIR, and improve their lives. You've actually accomplished the exact opposite over the last 40 years. Congrats.

Crestor, I already gave you my solution, and I think we can probably do it with the same taxation rate, but at the expense of other government services. We could, for example, only spend 9 times as much on Defense as for Education, instead of 10 times as much? Increase tariffs on goods sold in the US but manufactured elsewhere - maybe a 5% increase annually for the next 10 years? Creating jobs and educating the populace to perform those jobs well is how you end poverty. You can have all the 'personal responsibility' in the world but if there's no job for you, you are still going to be unemployed - it doesn't take an analytical genius to see that. If anything, the illegal drug trade that is so prevalent in poor communities is the result of applying personal responsibility in an employment vacuum.

Also, its not 'giving' or 'taking' money at all - it's all our money already, and it runs through the economy like blood in your circular system. We don't have a problem until it all clots somewhere or is thinned out as it is pumped into other systems - as long it's flowing freely within the body, the economy will be healthy. The government guarantees your money, your employer gives it to you, and you redistribute it into the economy - each dollar you spend into the system is no more or less valuable to the economy than each dollar spent into the system by the poorest person, regardless of its origin.

I agree with you, Morgan. The money should flow like blood in order to maintain a healthy economy. It sure doesn't do any good sitting around. We can't eat it.

We must make education and support (as in freely available health care and good food) for children a priority if we are going to break the cycle of poverty. If we can rearrange social services to focus on children of lower means and integrate their mothers better into the social fabric of society so these kids grow up healthy, wanted and cared for, we would be in a much better place within a generation or two. It is not right that for many in our society, it is easier to go to prison than to attend college.

The last figure I saw was that just over 50% of people pay nothing in Federal income taxes, especially after deductions are figured in for housing and children. It is ridiculous that anyone in that 50% would complain about high taxation rates of income. They are already paying nothing in Federal income taxes.

In my opinion the police force should match the demograpics of the area it serves so in truth, I don't see a big issue if the small Radnor force has no blacks as that group makes up a very small percentage of the population there. The problem is in places like Coatesville where you have a large black population but only a handful of black cops, all of whom never get promoted past a specific level. That should be his beef, not Randor.

Feeding them does not appear to be the answer either. What's your solution? And the schools suck because the students and parents make them suck, not because we don't spend billions on them.

Feeding them does not appear to be the answer either. What's your solution? And the schools suck because the students and parents make them suck, not because we don't spend billions on them.

I'm not whining. I'm telling the truth. What are you doing to fix things? Playing your sax?