We the people INCLUDES people who have left posts. You don't and those of your ilk do not understand that. So don't give up fighting. But remember there WILL be a fight. And there are more of us than you. Calling people you don't know clueless is a somewhat dangerous game. Especially when they have something more than a clue. They have knowledge. There IS a difference.

well, nobody on this post has shown me that they do have a clue as to what's going on in this country. Everyone here just rambles about how wonderful this government is being run today. It's time to wake up people!!!!!!!!! Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin DO have a clue! How many of you can say that you voted for McCain in the last presidential election? If you voted for McCain, you were also voting for Sarah Palin. So think about that one!

phillies4evr wrote:

We the people INCLUDES people who have left posts. You don't and those of your ilk do not understand that. So don't give up fighting. But remember there WILL be a fight. And there are more of us than you. Calling people you don't know clueless is a somewhat dangerous game. Especially when they have something more than a clue. They have knowledge. There IS a difference.

well, nobody on this post has shown me that they do have a clue as to what's going on in this country. Everyone here just rambles about how wonderful this government is being run today. It's time to wake up people!!!!!!!!! Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin DO have a clue! How many of you can say that you voted for McCain in the last presidential election? If you voted for McCain, you were also voting for Sarah Palin. So think about that one!

Honestly, I can't take anyone who thinks Beck and Palin have a clue seriously. Sorry. I have to end this conversation with you. Good luck though. I'm sure you have wonderful qualities beyond your political affiliations.

stahrwe wrote:

lindad_amato wrote:VIDEO: Tea Party Thugs Attack Progressive Activist. Tell @DrRandPaul to denounce Tea Party violence: http://bit.ly/bTuvPh @courierjournal


NUFF SAID

Violence in politics is deplorable but to claim that it is only Tea Party or Republican supporters who are guilty is disingenuous. Check out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe5J22JPNnU

I don't see anyone saying it IS only Tea Party or Republicans. In this PARTICULAR case, it is. Not only was the assault perpetrated by Rand Paul supporters, they were actually working FOR him at the time. One of them the coordinator of the event. I'd say there is some responsiblility on the candidate there. Not a generalization. A specific act of violence against an innocent person by an agent of Rand Paul.

Everyone here just rambles about how wonderful this government is being run today.

Can you quote someone saying that? Or quote someone who implies that, from this site? I've never said such a thing. The problem is you are focusing all your criticism on the lesser of two evils. You are ignoring the elephant in the room. The majority of the problems we have in this country are from right wing nutjobs and the hordes of sheeples that follow their propaganda.

In the end, what it all boils down to, is where in the private sector the wealth is going. That's the only question you need to figure out the majority of the problems we face. Bank of America milks me for every penny I have, then turns around and contributes the maximum amount of money to a right wing candidate, who just happens to be someone against bank reform, which would be exactly what I want so the banks stop nickel and diming me.

We drop the tax rate for the rich due to "supply side economics" coming into favor during Reagan's time, and suddenly the nation goes into debt. Supply side economics, just a sham from a rich person's calculator to try and keep more of his money.

When we threaten to raise taxes, they call it class warfare or the redistribution of wealth. In 2007 Warren Buffet paid 17% tax on his $46 million, while his employees paid around 30%. I would GLADLY pay 91% tax if I was making 46 million a year!

This zealotous focus people have on increasing the profit margin affects everything. Of course, the pressure comes from the top, where most money is pooled. Controlling investors and CEO's. Insurance companies would rewrite the dictionary if they could to get out of paying for your claims. Meanwhile the doctors that give treatment are in many cases businessmen themselves, ordering more medical tests than necessary per patient for the extra profit.

When people seek as much profit as possible in every facet of our economy, some sectors pricing will skyrocket. It's a simple equation. Unless we pass regulation to stifle this greed. It may cost some money in the short term, but at least action has been taken.

The problems you think you see in our government are the problems that rich people propaganda cram into your head. The real problem has to do with wealth, and where it's flowing. Lobbyists need to get the hell out of DC, the rich need to be reverted to the taxes they paid prior to 1970, and they(and their corporations) need to be regulated better so consumers aren't being nickel and dimed.

so I knew it was time to take matters into my own hands and really review each candidates platforms and who would be the best person for the job.

That is awesome, Phillies. Democracy does not work if we are not all involved.

Why do the tea partiers hold rallies to shout down free health care, but we never saw a peep out of them when it came to the expensive killing of brown people?

I have wondered this myself. Where was the tea party when Bush was wasting so much money on killing other people? Why is it a waste of money to make sure that Americans can go to the dr but not a waste of money when it is a war that kills people?

the only and biggest gripe I have about the health care bill is that too much time like I said before, and too much money has been spent on something that will never come to pass unless everyone agrees upon it.

So why do you think it is too much time? And you mean too much money has been spent on trying to sell the bill? The bill has already passed. What is a better solution?

I am also against aborting a fetus unless the girl in question was raped or becomes deathly ill or her own life is compromised. I feel this way for many reasons but mostly because my sister-in-law could not have children the conventional way and so my sister-in-law and brother decided to adopt. If it were not for the baby's birth mother carrying my nephew to term, my brother would not have the son that he always wanted. So now you see my stance on abortion.

That is awesome that your nephew and your brother and his wife found each other. In this case, it was a happy ending. What about the instances that are not? Your nephew is wanted, and that is awesome. What about the children who aren’t and who never feel wanted? My stance on abortion is that life is really complex and abortion is never an easy choice. But I do not feel like it is fair for me to decide how other people should make the tough decisions in their lives. There is no black and white and families should be allowed to make those decisions for themselves.

Yes I will agree that Bush left office with some financial problems but nothing to the magnitude of what Obama has done. The health care reform could have been put on the back burner and should have been, especially with so many people unemployed. What the hell has he done in creating new jobs in this country?

Bush left office with major financial problems not some financial problems. It is not true that Obama has done worse than Bush. I also wonder why the jobs that the new health care reform will create are never brought up. Republicans always justify tax breaks to the wealthy by making it sound like that is the only way to create jobs. That is not true. If we put money towards education, social services, or government programs you create jobs too.

A big one to me is term limits.

I don’t agree on this one. The people elect their representatives. If the people are happy with an incumbent I do not see why that is a problem. Plus if you have someone who has been in congress for a while it means they know how to do their jobs well. If the people do not agree with them, they can vote them out.

i have no beliefs, as i think you intend that word

I am a liberal, Christian, Democrat. But I really do try to listen to other people – even conservatives. If we work together instead of tearing each other apart we can come up with solutions.

If a particular state needs federal funding for something bring it to the floor for a debate and let everyone vote openly on it, don't hide it in some unrelated bill.

I agree with that. I think it is really important to have transparency when it comes to these issues. It feels like there is very little transparency. I suppose this is the nature of politics but it is really hard to run on country on lies or half truths. But I guess that is why we have to work hard as citizens to find out what is really going on and make good choices when we can.

The idea that the stated goal of the Tea Party and the republicans who don't have the balls to stand up to them is to "make President Obama fail." No compromise with the democrats on any issue. Think about that. Two more years of obstruction by the republican party. Is THAT what you voted for if you voted for them? This country is built on compromise and cooperation.

I agree toodeemo.

Personally, I'd LOVE to see all of you get your wish. A big portion of the country that becomes YOUR country.

Didn’t we already fight a civil war over that?

in fact in many cases the inexperience of them is exactly what is attractive about them and what the Forefathers invisioned as representatives for our country.

I do not agree that our forefathers envisioned the “common man” as representatives for our country. Washington and Jefferson were born into wealth and all of the founding fathers were very educated. Very few people had an actual right to vote in early America.
http://www.history.org/foundation/journ ... ctions.cfm

The way it is now, we have a professional legislature whose job is to constantly run for office instead of dealing with the issues facing us.

Your right. It is frustrating that politicians spend much more of their time campaigning rather than making good decisions on important issues. I don’t necessarily think that term limits is the answer. I am not entirely sure what the answer is though.

@Silver...nice post overall.

Yes, we DID have a civil war over that. I suspect if Rand Paul has his way and the 14th Amendment is repealed, we will have another one. So what the heck? Let them leave the Union. Imagine having checkpoints at the Connecticut/Rhode Island borders and passports to go from State to State. Right to travel? Who needs it? Heck, we can have States making deals with Cuba and stuff like that. Because people who advocate the decentralization of government in its entirety do not realize what they are asking for. And what is more problematic is that they think they can pick and choose what part of the Constitution they want...i.e. right to bear arms...and which part they can get rid of. Like the 14th Amendment. You can't have it both ways. So in my opinion, let them go. No Federal Taxes. No Federal services. No Federal protection against enemy forces. Not FAA. No interstate electricity, phones, commerce of any kind. Let them live on their own.

Oh, but then of course their states will have to take care of all of that for free. Right?

Interbane wrote:

Everyone here just rambles about how wonderful this government is being run today.

Can you quote someone saying that? Or quote someone who implies that, from this site? I've never said such a thing. The problem is you are focusing all your criticism on the lesser of two evils. You are ignoring the elephant in the room. The majority of the problems we have in this country are from right wing nutjobs and the hordes of sheeples that follow their propaganda.

In the end, what it all boils down to, is where in the private sector the wealth is going. That's the only question you need to figure out the majority of the problems we face. Bank of America milks me for every penny I have, then turns around and contributes the maximum amount of money to a right wing candidate, who just happens to be someone against bank reform, which would be exactly what I want so the banks stop nickel and diming me.

We drop the tax rate for the rich due to "supply side economics" coming into favor during Reagan's time, and suddenly the nation goes into debt. Supply side economics, just a sham from a rich person's calculator to try and keep more of his money.

When we threaten to raise taxes, they call it class warfare or the redistribution of wealth. In 2007 Warren Buffet paid 17% tax on his $46 million, while his employees paid around 30%. I would GLADLY pay 91% tax if I was making 46 million a year!

This zealotous focus people have on increasing the profit margin affects everything. Of course, the pressure comes from the top, where most money is pooled. Controlling investors and CEO's. Insurance companies would rewrite the dictionary if they could to get out of paying for your claims. Meanwhile the doctors that give treatment are in many cases businessmen themselves, ordering more medical tests than necessary per patient for the extra profit.

When people seek as much profit as possible in every facet of our economy, some sectors pricing will skyrocket. It's a simple equation. Unless we pass regulation to stifle this greed. It may cost some money in the short term, but at least action has been taken.

The problems you think you see in our government are the problems that rich people propaganda cram into your head. The real problem has to do with wealth, and where it's flowing. Lobbyists need to get the hell out of DC, the rich need to be reverted to the taxes they paid prior to 1970, and they(and their corporations) need to be regulated better so consumers aren't being nickel and dimed.

The debt Reagan ran up was due in large measure to the catch up the US had to do because Carter cut the military budget so drastically. We were also in an arms race with the Soviets. Reagan believed that the Soviest (there's that word again) would be bankrupted if they tried to keep up with us. He was right and the arms buildup was a major factor in the fall of the Soviet Union.

The problem with regulating businesses is that Congress is incompetent and corrupt. Lobbyists wrote the health care bill. We need to get term limits established ASAP.

The problem with regulating businesses is that Congress is incompetent and corrupt. Lobbyists wrote the health care bill. We need to get term limits established ASAP.

Businesses are oftentimes incompetent and corrupt too. The point of regulating businesses is to keep them in check to the people. The American people elect Congresspeople, they do not elect businesspeople. Yet, I understand the argument that too much regulation hinders free enterprise. NPR was saying that a lot of French are coming here to start businesses because it is too hard to do it in France. There has to be a balance. Ultimately, business should be beholden to the citizenry of the US, not the other way around.

seespotrun2008 wrote:

The problem with regulating businesses is that Congress is incompetent and corrupt. Lobbyists wrote the health care bill. We need to get term limits established ASAP.

Businesses are oftentimes incompetent and corrupt too. The point of regulating businesses is to keep them in check to the people. The American people elect Congresspeople, they do not elect businesspeople. Yet, I understand the argument that too much regulation hinders free enterprise. NPR was saying that a lot of French are coming here to start businesses because it is too hard to do it in France. There has to be a balance. Ultimately, business should be beholden to the citizenry of the US, not the other way around.

I agree that there should be a balance. No one benefits in the long run when businesses are abusive or when businesses are abused.

Nor do I see why any CEO should make $100 million or Goldman Sachs employees get $millions in bonuses. (Gasp, yes I stahrwe said that) But these are issues that stockholders should address and not the government.

But these are issues that stockholders should address and not the government.

Shoulda coulda woulda.

Since we know that doesn't happen, you then suggest nothing be done about it?

There is nothing to stop the wealth from flowing upward. If the CEO makes the stockholders a ton of money, they'll scratch his back in return with far more money than he deserves. It's ridiculous and unethical and something should be done about it.

I certainly agree that hard work should be rewarded. I also agree that luck should play a part, winning the lottery and genetic endowment. I can't quite find the words to express the problem. But the proof is in the pudding. The wealth inequality is staggering. There are problems with the system when an elite group can live like kings with no work at all, but their personal strengths and weaknesses aren't any greater or less than hundreds of thousands of other poor people. I am certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that with just a few months traning I could replace nearly any given wealthy person and do what they do on a daily basis. I realize there are some who it would take years of studying to replace, but that is no different than an ER doctor who is only middle class. The knowledge doesn't make the difference. Nor does pure ambition. Nor does intuition.

A mixture of these things is needed of course, but there is also blind luck. Then, once on top, you're in a defensible location. As long as you don't tumble off the cliff like a fool, which happens to many unintentional millionaire's who blow their money without thought. The defensible location has turned into a bastion, where you can get away with paying less taxes than a middle class american, can invest in or purchase corporations that are more powerful than the government, and live a lifestyle any ancient king would envy.

It's absurd to expect the bastion of the wealthy to police themselves. It's reasonable to expect them to protect themselves. Whether it be by influencing the message of their businesses(FOX, Rupert), or getting in bed with the politicians who are powerful enough to stop any regulation that would harm your income(Boehner et al), and even using the same politicians and news channels to propogate the idiocy of supply side economics.

Regardless of whatever the reason Reagan spent tax dollars, there was no good reason to cut taxes for the wealthy. He at least could have offset most, if not all, of the spending, and kept our debt problem in check. If you look at the track record of tax cuts for the wealthy, and unemployment+GDP, there is actually a negative correlation! It's a freaking myth, but all the Fox News Sheeple buy it because it sounds reasonable.

People who live like kings should pay more to the system that made it possible.