Pantagraph.com | Letters | Obama's plan is simple: Take from you, give to me

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

let's be reasonable wrote on Nov 23, 2008 2:33 PM:

" "Not surprising the IL delegation is in favor of it since it is other states money going to their voters."

Which by the way includes republican and right wing politician Tim Johnson of IL (not the SD senator of the same name). "

let's be reasonable wrote on Nov 21, 2008 1:20 AM:

" This original article still is comical considering the fact that Bush and his rich republican friends robbed Peter (the middle class) to pay Paul (the top 2 percent of wage earners). "

let's be reasonable wrote on Nov 14, 2008 11:41 PM:

" It is curious how republicans say things like "the problem is government" and "government does not work." Actually republicans prove the point in the most wonderful way. With the Bush administrations (two terms) we now know that republicans can't govern and in fact everything they try to do does not work because of basic incompetence at all levels.

Republicans governing = a totally dysfunctional government.
Republicans governing = one bad ill advised decision after another.
Republican trickle down economic theory = a bankrupt economy with a few rich folks LOL. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Nov 4, 2008 7:39 PM:

" It is rather amazing to see how out of sync the republican message is with where America is. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Oct 23, 2008 10:13 PM:

" Barry Goldwater's grandchildren are voting for Obama. Another group of republicans who saw the light. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Sep 19, 2008 10:15 PM:

" Whoever wrote this article needs to really rethink their position. Georgie leads the way on the government taking on trillions in debt to buy out republican mistakes on wall street. McCain has repeated argued to raise social security taxes and to tax health benefits. Obama pretty much is the only sane figure in the picture with a notion of how to balance the budget without raising taxes. In fact, Obama promises to LOWER taxes. GBAFB. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Sep 5, 2008 11:17 PM:

" "The Clinton, Obama and Democrat party do not have the stomach, the experience or the courage for the fight, so we need John McCain and we need Joe Lieberman to join the McCain administration."

I love stupid statements like this. Who were presidents when we won WWI? WWII? Democratic presidents. If a democrat had been in office instead of Georgie we would have avoided 9/11. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 10, 2008 4:47 PM:

" Bye for now. Have fun (Cat, Tom, and others) trying to defend the indefensible, republican massive debt buildup and "disasternomics". I will LOL in the most joyous way in November when the liberal spending republicans who only know how to borrow and spend and pass debt on to future generations have pretty much destroyed the U.S. economy through intentional fiscal irresponsibility and bad management either leave office because the term is up, are voted out of office, or put in jail for bankrupting the country (note the humor). Bye. Aa always, the reformed republican who finally saw the light. PS Don't bother to respond, as I won't be reading. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 9, 2008 11:29 PM:

" "Once again your Donkeys ran up the deficits since they controlled the fiscal legislation."

It is simply a mistake to constantly blame democrats for programs that have built in inflation factors. Those details are decided by both parties over the years. You obviously are not willing to give Clinton any credit for balancing the budget which included the same entitlement programs you constantly complain about when Bush could not. And we know the reason. The government has had to borrow tons and tons or money to pay for the tax decrease for the wealthy. It is more money than any of us can even imagine. I can't see borrowing money to temporarily live a higher life style which exactly what Bush and the republican majority did. Now we are stuck with the results. "

The Cat wrote on Aug 9, 2008 9:43 PM:

" (un)reasonable: As I suspected you are quite willing to spend government money on projects YOU approve of like FutureGen even if the cost projections are totally inaccurate and have all the earmarks (a word getting a lot of play of late) of a boondoggle. This appears to be another clone of the Boston “Big Dig” with wildly optimistic claims and low startup costs that seem never to materialize. Not surprising the IL delegation is in favor of it since it is other states money going to their voters. Once again your Donkeys ran up the deficits since they controlled the fiscal legislation. Actually if you look at the actual spending you will find that much of the entitlement spending was generated in prior years and the automatic growth with scheduled increases, inflation adjustments, and population growth really put many of these programs on autopilot. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 9, 2008 4:16 PM:

" Attending the Olympic Games in Beijing, President Bush directly called on Russia on Saturday to stop bombing Georgian territory, expressing strong support for Georgia in a direct challenge to Russia’s leaders. “Georgia is a sovereign nation, and its territorial integrity must be respected,” Mr. Bush said in a hastily arranged appearance at his hotel in Beijing.

Gee, I wonder what President Bush's take on Iraq was? I guess Iraq was not a sovereign nation. LOL. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 9, 2008 2:20 PM:

" " Obama is a Marxist....PLAIN & SIMPLE "

I am curious if you ever have read any of Karl Marx's writings. I suspect if you had a one-one-on with Senator Obama that you would have real difficulty defending your statement. "

ONLY IN AMERICA wrote on Aug 9, 2008 11:07 AM:

" Obama is a Marxist....PLAIN & SIMPLE "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 9, 2008 1:12 AM:

" As usual Cat, your information is not up to date:

Protecting the funding for FutureGen at Mattoon will help keep the project moving
forward into next year so that the next presidential administration can decide how to put the project back on the fast track. This action keeps the momentum going in the effort to build the world’s first near-zero emission coal-fueled power plant,” said Michael J. Mudd, chief executive officer of the nonprofit FutureGen Alliance....

Mudd said that the last week’s funding actions in Illinois and on Capitol Hill, coupled with
this week’s statement by the G-8 leaders in support of increased investments in large-scale carbon capture and sequestration projects, demonstrates the widespread international support for rapid deployment of this critical technology. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 9, 2008 1:10 AM:

" "The reason the DOE pulled its support from that project was the spiraling costs. When they agreed to fund the bulk of the cost it was pegged at $750M but the latest projection was $1.8B and climbing."

Cat, you neglected to mention that Tim Johnson supports this venture as does the entire IL delegation to Congress. Congress recently approved temporary funding until the next president comes on board. Bush was an obstructionist for jobs in central IL. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 9, 2008 12:12 AM:

" "When they agreed to fund the bulk of the cost it was pegged at $750M but the latest projection was $1.8B and climbing"

For the long term, the technology would have been great and the plant would have paid for itself. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 9, 2008 12:11 AM:

" "On Reagan and the fiscal “bully pulpit”, he had to fight tooth and nail to get through what he did"

You don't give the great communicator much credit. He was very successful at getting what he wanted which BTW resulted in tripling the national deficit. What he did, regardless of the membership of congress, had NEVER been done before. He was a great success at screwing the economy, leaving massive debt for future generations to pay long after he is dead, and really accomplishing very little for the long-term. Fortunately his face will never sully our money. I can't believe I voted for the guy. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 8, 2008 11:24 PM:

" "You still ignore the fiscal and economic mess from the 1970s that was handed to Regan."

Your right and Reagan made it about 10 x worse with running up the deficit. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 8, 2008 11:24 PM:

" "Hypothetically,speaking 9-11 should have never happened."

If Georgie had listened more carefully to Clinton's advisors and warnings 9/11 could have been stopped. I have always found it interesting that it happened on Bush's watch and not Clinton's. . "

The Cat wrote on Aug 8, 2008 9:43 PM:

" (un)reasonable: Some more of you shading of the “facts” is your statement on the FutureGen clean coal plant. The reason the DOE pulled its support from that project was the spiraling costs. When they agreed to fund the bulk of the cost it was pegged at $750M but the latest projection was $1.8B and climbing. Looks like fiscal prudence on the part of the Bush Administration to reduce the deficit. Oops this was one of those “investments” you “progressives” like so budget busting is OK, right? On Regan and the fiscal “bully pulpit”, he had to fight tooth and nail to get through what he did and your Donkey friends in congress agreed to spending cuts and then reneged after he agreed to some of their tax changes. You still ignore the fiscal and economic mess from the 1970s that was handed to Regan. On your last two posts see my response to the same drivel on the “McCain Flip Flop” thread. Rush: Unfortunately Canada is worse but Obummer, czarina Nancy and the Donkey crew will try hard to outperform them on stupidity. "

Rush O'Riley wrote on Aug 8, 2008 8:04 PM:

" Impeach Dubba, Exactly what law has he broken? Unlike Slick Willie Who lied to a Grand Jury and Obstructed justice, Dubba already inhereted a mess from Slick Willie, and it was beyond repair, but it is ok that bill lied because the economy was good when Bill was in office so that makes it ok for him to break the law. Sure lets try to impeach Dubba he is just trying to do what Slick Willie should have done after our Embacys and the Uss Cole got bombed, but oops I forgot, Slick Willie arrested all THOSE people, if he did then, Hypothetically,speaking 9-11 should have never happened. Stop trying to blame Regan for your problems He is dead. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 8, 2008 5:52 PM:

" "but who ever gets eleted This country is screwed. I'm moving tom Canada."

I totally agree, but probably for different reasons. The country was screwed once Ronnie tripled the national deficit w/a complicit congress. The country is so much in debt and beholden to countries like China that the future looks very bleak. Georgie totally blew his chance to do something meaningful. His legacy will be even worse than Ronnie's. Russia was bankrupt and would have folded regardless. With Ronnie's illegal activities and doing nothing about the AIDS situation, his presidency was pretty much a lost cause. What will Bush's contribution be? It is hard to point to anything positive, a stupid war, taking his eye off of Afghanistan, pushing the economy down the toilet with republican disasternomics, no forward looking energy policy, unfair taxation, illegal activities in the justice department, sanctioning torture, it goes on and on. If the republicans had not stubbed their toe on trying to impeach Clinton, congress would impeached Bush. "

Rush O'Riley wrote on Aug 8, 2008 5:05 PM:

" To Ron Burgundy. I am glad to see That I am not the only one who sees through both Canidates being phony flip flopers, and that you are able to to think for yourself, not like the vast majority of the people who post stuff on here . They seem to think that The Lord Robin Hood Obama has already been elected, but who ever gets eleted This country is screwed. I'm moving tom Canada. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 8, 2008 4:56 PM:

" " More on costs of an electric car:

"At $.06 US per KWh, a battery-powered car costs $.02 per mile on grid electricity."

Thus, if a driver drives 100 miles a day it would mean $2 to charge up, assuming the driving is all electric. A gasoline hybrid getting an optimistic 40 miles/gallon in town would cost, at $4/gallon, $10. "

If Americans had this option with a medium priced car, the car would sell like hotcakes w/today's price of gas. Unfortunately, w/republicans in charge and in cahoots w/big oil it won't happen until the very last drop of oil on earth is poured into the last remaining gas tank. Can you imagine what the price of the drop will be! "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 8, 2008 12:49 PM:

" "Bush fiscally is a liberal at heart, big spender, do anything he wants with your money, spend it, borrow more, and all the while not even KNOW that the Iraq government is hoarding cash while we continue to dump U.S. dollars into building the Iraq infrastructure instead of repairing our own highways and interstates. Seriously, if an Iraq duly elected official came to your house and asked for a $1,000 donation to help build a bridge in Iraq, would you donate the money? By voting republican that is EXACTLY what you are encouraging the government to do w/your money under republican policies." "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 8, 2008 12:46 PM:

" "and debt limits so the Donkeys own the Regan and Bush1 deficits because they passed the bills"

I don't buy this. Presidents have a big bully pulpit and it is naive to suggest that both Reagan and the Bushes did not influence the direction the country took during their presidencies which included massive deficit spending. I doubt if either McNut or Senator Obama can damage the deficit more than Bush has already. The economy and the country can's withstand even more deficit spending. New spending will have to be countered with additional revenue. I suggest that there at least 54 billion we could have saved by letting Iraq invest in their own infrastructure. The waste in Bush's liberal spending give all the tax breaks to the wealthy administration is beyond belief. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 8, 2008 12:41 PM:

" "I do know blocking access to our oil is not going to make alternatives appear any faster."

Actually one has NOTHING to do with the other. Investing in alternative energy sources has everything to do with priorities you set. "

Tom Terrific wrote on Aug 8, 2008 12:06 PM:

" "And what about 150 years from now when we really do start to run out of oil(if not before)."

I won't be here 150 years from now to know about the alternatives that will have been invented to reduce or replace oil. I do know blocking access to our oil is not going to make alternatives appear any faster. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 8, 2008 11:34 AM:

" "Alaska has enough oil and natural gas to supply North America for the next 118 years, "

And what about 150 years from now when we really do start to run out of oil (if not before). At what point are we going to try and begin alternative methods of energy consumption, electric cars, wind and solar, even nuclear (which has its problems as well)? If we start now, we will lower the cost of energy and stretch petroleum based products further. The problem is that the Georgie/McNut types don't want to lift a finger to go in another direction while we still use oil as the main product. Bush even shut down the new clean coal plant scheduled for Mattoon, IL. The republicans typically defer fiscal and energy issues to the next generations. For them, it is all about a quick fix and immediate gratification no matter the future cost. "

The Cat wrote on Aug 8, 2008 11:06 AM:

" (un)reasonable: When you keep repeating the same unsupported fictions over and over that is either delusional or stuck on stupid. Whatever your Ph.D, government must not have been included if you continue to refuse the concept that the House generates all the legislation in regards to budgets, taxes, spending, and debt limits so the Donkeys own the Regan and Bush1 deficits because they passed the bills. If they had problems then they could have shut down the government as the Republicans were raked over the coals for by Bubba when they wanted more cuts. BTW, if you think you’ll get fiscal responsibility from the Obummer administration just look at the long list of goodies he wants to “give” everyone: free day care, free preschool, free college (but with two years of slave labor attached), free healthcare (rationing), etc. Hello new taxes and limits on personal freedom. "

ron_burgundy wrote on Aug 8, 2008 10:47 AM:

" Rush: "McCain is just an under cover Democrat. " Well said, too bad the dems don't see it. McCain is an undercover Democrat and Obama is an undercover terrorist... We're screwed! "

Rush O'Riley wrote on Aug 8, 2008 10:05 AM:

" Lets talk about ignorant, you seem to think that I should watch CNN (Clinton News Netowrk) or MSNBC otherwise known as DNC Tv. According to those sources, Lord Robin Hood Obama is already been elected. As far as the Lords energy policy he telling us something that people already know. But he thinks that Most Americans are idiots. But opps I forgot he is the canidate for Change. To What? the The only way the america is going to get out of this phoney crisis, created by the DEMs, becuase they are catering to those Al Gore Save the Earth Enviornments wacos. Alaska has enough oil and natural gas to supply North America for the next 118 years, but oops we can't drill there because the DEMS won't let us , it would be bad for the enviornment. Obviuosly the DEMs want you paying 4 dollars at the pump or they would not have left DC for the summer. Another thing as far as ignorance is concerned, I am not really a big fan of McCain either, He is just an under cover Democrat. "

ron_burgundy wrote on Aug 8, 2008 9:35 AM:

" In case you haven't noticed, Fox News is the only fair news station. For some reason (unbeknownst to me so I'm hoping someone can fill me in), many democrats seem to think that Fox News presents some sort of biased or loaded news. I don't understand where that comes from. I see Barack on the news just as much as McCain, and both are given fair assessments/coverage. Wish I could say the same for CNN. I can't tell you on instance that I have ever seen McCain on any CNN program, but Barack sure gets his press! Therefore, if an ignorant man is one who is not informed on particualr subject matter, then I would say its a fair assessment that all of you CNN loyalists who are getting one side are just that. "

DT wrote on Aug 8, 2008 7:25 AM:

" If I get my milk for free and the local grocery lowers the price for paying customers by $0.30, it's unfair because I receive no benefit from that price cut. That is the basic analysis presented in the EPI quote. "

ktlin wrote on Aug 8, 2008 6:54 AM:

" To Rush: As Obama said you would rather remain ignorant than consult an economists Even the McCain campaign have changed their position on the gas gauge. They could save more on that than on the few cents a gal false tax holiday they were saying (never intending to do) would help. And the tire gauge isn't psychological. Most people knew the tax holiday was just a gimmick. The tire gauge is no gimmick. Check it out. Or choose to remain ignorant. Whichever. As far as that goes check Obama out. Or choose to remain ignorant and listen to Fox News. They want to keep you ignorant while at the same time saying they are honest and balanced. What happens when it doesn't quite match the real story? Whatever. "

ktlin wrote on Aug 8, 2008 6:50 AM:

" I think if you turn off Fox News you will start to feel a lot better about your money and Obama. Their goal is to scare you so you will vote for the other candidate because he can't run on his issues and get anywhere. They should be ashamed of themselves because they are upsetting a lot of people unnecessarily. Watch their screen as they are playing info. Down at the bottom there are scare tactics running constantly. Even when they are not saying anything verbally they are putting it where you can see it. Turn off the tv or at least Fox News and reduce your stress considerably. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 7, 2008 10:28 PM:

" "I think they call that mental illness or, at best, delusional."

Cat, this is a first for me--suggesting mental illness. I suppose if I have some form of mental dementia it might be because of all the intellectual energy I put forth to obtain a Ph.D. from one of the truly premier research universities in the U.S. which by the way has the reputation of being conservative. Meanwhile Reagan and Bush, each as government's CEO, both oversaw the highest deficits in our country's history. Even Reagan, in his comments later in life, regretted this he did not control the debt build up. I doubt if Georgie has the capability ever to admitting a mistake. He is a perfect child [pun intended]. This reformed republican can't wait for a new president who will arrest the current fiscal idiocy, the result of republican "disasternomics". "

The Cat wrote on Aug 7, 2008 9:29 PM:

" (un)reasonable: You can continue to be obtuse but you’ve been given the details of who controlled congress (including the names of big Donkey spenders who were in control), the actual dollar figures of the major spending items prior to, during, and after Regan’s terms, the fact that inflation was double digits under Carter, and his fiscal mess handed to Regan but you insist in you fantasies. I think they call that mental illness or, at best, delusional. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 7, 2008 6:36 PM:

" "I’m sure you can provide a number of you usual impeachable “sources” that will claim Regan..."

Cat, there is a major problem with your blog and that is the history of budgets and deficits. Until Reagan, NO president ever, TRIPLED the national deficit in a term or two terms. Reagan is the FIRST and ONLY president to his terms that did so. And you would have all of us believe that it was all the fault of the democrats. Sorry, no deal. Reagan bullied Congress into passing big spending cuts combined with huge military increases, which some were probably needed. Reagan won by a landslide over Carter and he had the political muscle to pull off his bankrupt fiscal strategy. So, your argument simply does not wash. LBJ had a democratic Congress and the deficit did not balloon at all by comparison. It was Ronnie's fault. He was the CEO and he had no desire to balance the budget. He blew it. End of discussion. "

Rush O'Riley wrote on Aug 7, 2008 6:09 PM:

" Lets talk about Robin Hood Obamas energy poilcy, Anyone got a tire pressure gauge But we can't drill here in america it might upset the dirt. and has anyone seen the most recent poll data, almost a statical dead, what happened to Lord Robin Hoods double digit lead, Americans are not as dumb as you think they are Lord Robin Hood, they are finally starting how much of a PHONEY you are. "

The Cat wrote on Aug 7, 2008 5:01 PM:

" (un)resonable: I’m sure you can provide a number of you usual impeachable “sources” that will claim Regan caused all the spending issues during his term but two facts kill that argument. First, the Donkeys controlled the House by a 50+-seat margin the whole time he (and Bush1) were in office and, hence, controlled fiscal policy. Second, if you look at the details of the budget during those years from the government’s own data (as provided to you previously) the big-ticket items continue to be the social spending budget items. Besides not being Republican programs, that spending is most closely tied with rises in inflation, aging population, and economic downturns like the early 1983 recession not to mention legislation passed under Carter that included automatic increases in funding and/or phased in benefit or coverage enhancements. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 7, 2008 3:50 PM:

" From the Economic Policy Institute:

"When the Bush Administration claims that it has improved the progressivity of taxes, it points to the percentage changes in shares of income taxes paid as evidence. But as the chart shows, reaping large percentage cuts in taxes for those who pay little to begin with does little to boost the after-tax income of those at the bottom of the scale. In other words, what matters most is not the change in what you pay in taxes, but the change in what you have left afterward. In reality, the distribution of the after-tax gains was stacked heavily in favor of the highest-income taxpayers." "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 7, 2008 3:39 PM:

" Bacon: "The McCain tax plan would make the tax system more regressive.... It would do so by providing relatively little tax relief to those at the bottom of the income scale while providing huge tax cuts to households at the very top of the income distribution." "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 7, 2008 3:16 PM:

" The Tax Foundation unfortunately is heavily criticized for how it assembles data. Other figures clearly show that the upper two percent of wage earners received more tax relief proportionately than taxes they paid. It truly was a handout and gift. The middle class did not fare nearly as well under Bush's tax plan. "

Tom Terrific wrote on Aug 7, 2008 2:36 PM:

" LBR, according to the Tax Foundation, top 1% of wage earners in this country pays nearly 40%. That's an increase og 11% over '99 when Clinton was President. Top 1% of the wage earners account for only 21% of the total adjusted gross income. They pay double what they really should. Top 10% pay 70% of the load and the top 50% account for 96.4% of the entire tax burden Next 10% pays 3.6% and the bottom 40% pay nothing. The bottom 40% usually get a handout at years end. "

Travellin Blues wrote on Aug 7, 2008 1:50 PM:

" A tax payer voting for Obama is like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 7, 2008 1:26 PM:

" "The rich are paying a larger proportion of the tax receipts the U.S. gets but that's not enough for..."

This issue is not how much tax is paid but whether tax relief is fair. Bottom line: If the top 2 percent of wage earners pay 20 percent of all federal taxes collected are they then entitled to 40 percent of all tax relief? Hmmmm. Note that Bush's treasury secretary resigned because he felt Bush's second tax cut was unfair to the middle class, those making in the range of $75,000-150,000. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 7, 2008 1:20 PM:

" I love this quote from a NY republican stock broker. It is a classic:

"It's about time someone told the truth (I am also a stockbroker). The Reagan and Bush Presidencies (both Bushes) are why we are in the mess we find ourselves in today.While destroying the middle class and allowing American companies to ship production overseas, our infrastructure has been so damaged it will take 30 years to get us back to where we were in 1980 (if no more Republicans are elected and I am a Republican). My party hasn't made fiscal sense in almost 30 years." "

DT wrote on Aug 7, 2008 1:12 PM:

" LBR, the problem is that you're looking at someone's ceteris paribus analysis and that isn't what happens in real life. The rich are paying a larger proportion of the tax receipts the U.S. gets but that's not enough for you. A large percentage of the people pay no taxes and thus need no relief, but you count them as getting $0 from the tax cut and being disadvantaged. Go back to the dinner example in the flip-flop thread and try to understand reality versus (mis)perception. "

ron_burgundy wrote on Aug 7, 2008 11:21 AM:

" So the on-going job loss and number of people out of work is being "attributed to Bush and his economy," but let's not let your boy Clinton off the hook. Did he not sign and enact NAFTA? Does NAFTA not take jobs out of the hands of Americans, let alone raise numerous human rights questions with sweat shops and working conditions, etc.? Although there was no apparent economic repercussion while he was in office, it can be inferred that he left it for the next president to deal with. "

110100100 wrote on Aug 7, 2008 6:40 AM:

" This letter is useless. Who is 'you' and who is 'me' ? "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 7, 2008 12:00 AM:

" "dear let's be reasonable: your ignorance is astounding. If the top 20% are paying half, or more, of this country's taxes, explain why this is unfair?"

I think you misunderstand my position. I suggest in any given tax bracket that the taxpayers receive essentially the same tax relief in proportion to taxes paid. Thus, if the top 2 percent of wage earners pay 20 percent of all federal income taxes collected then the tax relief should be 20% of the tax relief provided, NOT 40%. It is well documented that the Bush tax cuts were not proportional among the various tax brackets. There are numerous statements to this effect by experts on tax policy. I am NOT arguing that any tax bracket receive a handout, but actually, the very top wage earners did! It is a fact. In terms of fair taxation, is amazing how badly citizens screwed themselves by voting for Bush and LOL that they did not even know they were doing so. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 6, 2008 11:15 PM:

" Cat: Here is another left wing source, Bush's secretary of the treasury [LOL at you source criticism]:

Bush's treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, was totally against the range of tax cuts for the wealthy and resigned out of protest. Cheney said, "You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Later, with 11 trillion dollars of republican debt, O'Neill says he was right and Bush/Cheney wrong.

O'Neill said. "I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction." Did he think it was irresponsible? "Well, it's for sure not what I would have done," says ONeill. "

observation8 wrote on Aug 6, 2008 11:04 PM:

" dear let's be reasonable: your ignorance is astounding. If the top 20% are paying half, or more, of this country's taxes, explain why this is unfair? They are keeping this bloated government afloat, and you whine for more? Why shouldn't people be able to keep some of what they make? Hard work and success are not bad things, despite what the Democratic party says. If you truly want fair, a flat tax or a value added tax. Do everyone a favor and go take an economics course. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 6, 2008 10:46 PM:

" "That’s in keeping with the general tone of your posts that everything is a Republican problem due to unfair tax cuts and unnecessary defense spending."

I am all for the tax cuts, but not irresponsible tax cuts that have a negative effect on the overall health of the economy. Insofar as Bush II, it is a republican problem because he and the republican majority took a very cavalier approach to the economic health of the nation by increasing borrowing, cutting revenue streams, and putting the national deeply in debt by not factoring in the expenses government must meet and making sure the revenue streams where there. Basically, he chose, as Reagan did, to deliberately NOT balance the budget but to embark on deficit spending as a way to lowering taxes. It has not worked. It is unforgivable that Bush, as CEO so to speak, did not demand more fiscal integrity. A large business would never operate in this manner. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 6, 2008 10:39 PM:

" "Your “analysis” also totally ignores the inflation factor (particularly in Regan’s first term thanks to Peanutheads fiscal mismanagement)"

Reagan's tripling of the deficit had a lot more to do with his own disregard for the importance of fiscal integrity than it did with inflation, which quickly was arrested. I think this is common knowledge. I can send you a bunch of readings if you want on the evils of Reagan's budgetary policies. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 6, 2008 10:36 PM:

" "Back on July 26th on a thread that is no longer active you admitted that you had no problem with big entitlement spending."

Social security and medicare are here to stay whether we like it or not. It is pointless to debate whether such programs should exist or not, or fault some Congress or President 75 years ago for some bill that was passed. Bush tried to change SS and looked what happened. Also, everybody knows the programs are growing. The bottom line is why deliberately cut revenue streams when you then can't pay the bills? Do we need another reminder: Clinton and Congress balanced the budget but Bush can't? Or, if you are a true conservative, and you want to halt spending then stick to your guns, shut down the government if you have to. If Georgie was an CEO he would have been fired years ago. "

The Cat wrote on Aug 6, 2008 9:58 PM:

" (un)reasonable: Back on July 26th on a thread that is no longer active you admitted that you had no problem with big entitlement spending . That’s in keeping with the general tone of your posts that everything is a Republican problem due to unfair tax cuts and unnecessary defense spending. Even when presented with the actual spending by category in the Federal budget that shows huge increase in all areas of entitlement spending you cling to your fantasies. Your “analysis” also totally ignores the inflation factor (particularly in Regan’s first term thanks to Peanutheads fiscal mismanagement) as well as the expansion of these programs by Donkeys THAT WERE IN CONTROL OF CONGRESS FROM 1954 to 1994. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 6, 2008 6:56 PM:

" "How can the economy recover with a democrat holding office to raise taxes, specifically the middle and upper-class?'

The economy will have trouble recovering because of the deficit Bush has built up in record time. Regardless of who is president, the deficit is a shadow that is always there. Whether Bush or Obama, he will have to figure out a way to bring in enough revenue to cover expenses. McNut has said that everything is on the table insofar as tax increases. So, you might want to hedge your bet on only a democrat raising taxes. McNut also advocates raising the social security tax on those making less than around $105,000. Most folks better start calculating that into their future pay checks. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 6, 2008 6:19 PM:

" "the only difference we will see with whoever gets elected is new jokes from Leno and Letterman. it's all the same. four, or even eight, years is not enough to fix what is wrong with our economy."

Unfortunately, you are probably right. Georgie has busted the economy big-time and with the charge of the baby boomers and entitlement programs it is going to be really painful to fix. 25% of the federal budget now goest just to pay debt on interest. It really is perilous and neither Obama or McNut are addressing the issue. Actually, both are not leveling w/the American public about the deficit. With future unfunded obligations the deficit is not 11 trillion, but 55 trillion! "

ron_burgundy wrote on Aug 6, 2008 5:01 PM:

" We really need to stop with all this garbage "republicans ruined the economy." What would a democrat do? How can the economy recover with a democrat holding office to raise taxes, specifically the middle and upper-class? How do they expect any spending to take place? Makes no sense to me! "

Jwill1583 wrote on Aug 6, 2008 4:40 PM:

" the only difference we will see with whoever gets elected is new jokes from Leno and Letterman. it's all the same. four, or even eight, years is not enough to fix what is wrong with our economy. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 5, 2008 11:27 PM:

" "Taxes are NOT spending but revenue and every time there have been tax increases, spending has increased at a greater rate. Most cuts, particularly capital gains, stimulate activity and more revenue."

I agree. The problem is that Bush and his republican majority eliminated the pay as you go rule. They KNEW the budget would not balance but went ahead with an unbalanced tax plan anyway. I don't care who is in charge but the end result has to avoid deficit financing. The fact that Clinton and his Congresses managed to leave surpluses is evidence enough that Bush and the republican majority simply messed up big time. We are paying the price now with a huge deficit and economy in the toilet which really is NOT the fault of the democrats. This is compounded by the debt Reagan left which we still have not eliminated. Sorry, but the 16 years of Reaganomics and Bushonomics have destroyed the economy because of the lack of fiscal restraint by both individuals. It is common knowledge that both pushed for much increased spending (Reagan the military) while allowing revenue streams to drop dramatically. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 5, 2008 11:14 PM:

" "You insist it is ONLY the Republicans that are causing the deficit and that is totally false."

Actually, from an historical point of view, of course not. I do put the current doubling of the deficit squarely on Bush and the republican majority and this is why. Bush knew perfectly well the entitlement programs that had to be accounted for during his presidency. Nevertheless, he took a very risky course with budgetary estimates that were totally lame. The fact that one president and congress managed to get the deficit under control and leave record surpluses is enough evidence that Bush and his advisors just blew it. Clinton had worse budgetary issues when entering office and managed to accomplishment a great deal while getting the economy to boom. Bush took a page from Ronnie and deliberately let the deficit explore and it has backfired. Welcome to the toilet economy thanks to Bushonomics. "

neves wrote on Aug 5, 2008 10:49 PM:

" Public assistance,Welfare, Wic, split-mergers, wealth redistribution : Anyone else pay attention in social studies, and to what political structure this embraces?
In truth...
I pledge alliegence to the flag...and the capitalistic socialism for which it has become.
*
Vote Ron Paul "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 5, 2008 10:41 PM:

" "You do have a huge class envy problem that comes through on all your posts."

Actually I don't. I just recognize unfairness in the tax code, not really for myself with my income bracket, but for others. "

The Cat wrote on Aug 5, 2008 9:46 PM:

" (un)reasonable: Bush did veto the farm bill and the SCHIP bill but was overridden on the farm bill (twice). He should have vetoed the housing bill but it probably wouldn’t have made any difference since there were enough votes to override. Keep in mind who is running the congress now (and who was running the congress when all these entitlement programs that grow automatically every year were passed) and that was the Donkeys. You insist it is ONLY the Republicans that are causing the deficit and that is totally false. Have they contributed to it at times, yes, but many of these on going big-ticket programs were passed in totally Donkey controlled times in the 1930s, 1960s, and late 1970s. If the Clintons hadn’t flubbed HillaryCare then his deficits and taxes would also have been huge. Taxes are NOT spending but revenue and every time there have been tax increases, spending has increased at a greater rate. Most cuts, particularly capital gains, stimulate activity and more revenue. You do have a huge class envy problem that comes through on all your posts. "

The Cat wrote on Aug 5, 2008 9:20 PM:

" Scapegoat: You miss the point; when government spends money wastefully it is OUR money not theirs. Also, they not only waste money but control YOU by passing laws or allowing regulations that affect how you live and what you do (mandates on toilet tank capacity or light bulbs for example). In case you may have missed it, Obummer said we should change our lifestyles and can’t drive our SUVs, keep our thermostats at 72 degrees or eat what we want. That is unwarranted government control over our lives and frequently really counterproductive. An individual or a family is responsible for their own spending based on their income, needs, and wants. Nobody else is really affected unless they over spend and then it is between them and their creditors. Choose whatever lifestyle you wish but don’t lecture others to conform to your choices. Some conservation measures make sense but other suggestion, like vehicle size, may not if you do a lot of long distance travel. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 5, 2008 7:14 PM:

" "If you look at IRS statistics, you'll see that the top 1%, 5%, and 10% of income earners paid a higher percentage of tax receipts..."

Your numbers are misleading. The numbers that are revealing include the fact that the top 1 percent of wage earners paid approximately 20% of all income taxes, however, the tax relief the group received was 40% of all relief provided. The bottom 80 percent of all wage earners only received 28% of all tax relief provided. And these numbers do not include the capital gains and inheritance tax breaks which pretty much affect only the top wage earners, certainly the inheritance tax break. Any sane reading of Bush's tax code reveal incredible inconsistencies and proportional inequalities. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 5, 2008 3:17 PM:

" "If you look at IRS statistics, you'll see that the top 1%, 5%, and 10% of income earners paid a higher percentage of tax receipts..."

Your numbers are way off. The top 1 percent of wage earners paid approximately 20% of all income taxes, however, the tax relief was 40% of all relief provided. The bottom 80 percent of all wage earners only received 28% of all tax relief provided. And this does not include the capital gains and inheritance tax breaks which pretty much affect only the top wage earners, certainly the inheritance tax break. Any sane reading of Bush's tax code will reveal incredible inconsistencies and proportional inequalities. "

lizzie wrote on Aug 5, 2008 2:25 PM:

" Wat - No educator should push their views on students. And for an educator to belittle someone for having different views is harrassment and shame on that person. One of the joys of a college environment is hearing and respecting different viewpoints. "

Scapegoat wrote on Aug 5, 2008 1:52 PM:

" The Cat - Did you even read my post? Here, I'll quote it for you: "It has absolutely nothing to do with party affiliation. Democrats and Republicans alike enact poor legislation using borrowed money." Similarly, both Democrats AND Republicans often ignore the lifestyle suggestions they make.

Potential changes: 1) Live in an affordable home, i.e. no more than 30-33% of your monthly gross income; 2) Unless you need a truck/minivan for a business or a large family, drive a small, fuel-efficient vehicle; 3) Take ten minutes extra a day and recycle; 4) Install an energy-efficient furnace and windows. There are numerous other examples that I encourage you to consider.

My wife and I do these things not because we're "lemmings," as you assert. We do these things because they're simple and effective ways to reduce our strain on this nation's resources. And they save us money, to boot, which will allow us to pay our home off sooner and save for our future family needs. If you choose not to do them, that's certainly your choice, but then you have no right to piss and moan about waste in our government. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 5, 2008 1:25 PM:

" "and more guarantees for government “corporations: like FannieMae and FreedieMac are not fiscally prudent"

You tend to point to items like this and blame the democrats. I don't. First of all I would not give this handout and secondly it was passed by Congress and not vetoed by Georgie. so my complaint is not with democrats, but with Washington. However, certain things I can complain about with the republicans and Georgie starting with the budget deficit which is clearly caused by Bushonomics and the Iraq war which will have a terrible economic toll on the U.S. over time. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 5, 2008 1:22 PM:

" "Third, other than class envy, why do you think that the tax cuts should have been skewed toward more relief for lower bracket taxpayers?"

It is just the opposite. The tax code WAS skewed toward the top 2 percent of wage earners in America. Any sane interpretation of the tax code reveals that fact. So, I don't want a skewed tax code, I want a fair tax code that treats proportionately all tax brackets. I would suggest for starters that if the upper 1 percent of income earners pay 20 percent of federal income taxes that the tax relief be 20 percent, NOT 40 percent. i wish I had more than 200 words to defend my point. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 5, 2008 1:18 PM:

" "Billions to bail out people who should never have been given mortgages, lenders who were either forced into granting these mortgage"

Cat, you assume I support some of these programs you cite. I don't support the mortgage bail out and a lot of other programs. I also really don't support the wasting of billions in Iraq. I seem to see the problems of both parties, but, you don't, as witnessed that you never ever have acknowledged that Bush is in any way responsible for the current deficit and the flushing of the economy down the toilet along with the value of the dollar not to mention his nutty tax cuts which favored the most wealthy. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 5, 2008 12:51 PM:

" but how fair is it if one is paying both a higher dollar amount and higher percentage?

Hmmm. Maybe check the data. Come now, is it proper that the top one percent who pay only 20 percent of all federal taxes receive 40 percent of the Bush's tax cut while the bottom 40 percent get only four percent of Bush’s tax cut? That by the way 1/9 of one percent of what the top 1 percent receives! Note that 80 percent of the population received only ca 28 percent of all of Bush's tax cuts. I assume that you are very, very wealthy to defend Bush's "Let's make the richer even more rich and as fast as possible" plan. It is the typical republican double talk. I repeat, Bush and his rich friends threw the middle class a dog bone disguised as a tax cut. "

The Cat wrote on Aug 5, 2008 12:47 PM:

" (un)reasonable: Some points: First, if you continue to insist on wanting to “balance the budget” then you must recognize the reason the budget deficit continues to grow are all these transfer payment spending programs being pushed through congress (primarily Donkey party programs). Billions to bail out people who should never have been given mortgages, lenders who were either forced into granting these mortgages or took advantage of the boom, real estate speculators that got caught on the wrong side of the bubble, and more guarantees for government “corporations: like FannieMae and FreedieMac are not fiscally prudent nor is transferring .07% MORE of US GDP to “poor” countries. Taxing your way to prosperity and fiscal soundness has never worked. Second, apparently you didn’t read the reference to the Donkey hypocrites that related to Scapegoats post on changing your lifestyle and the legislation applies to the likes of “cap and trade”, forced conservation measure, and the like. Third, other than class envy, why do you think that the tax cuts should have been skewed toward more relief for lower bracket taxpayers? "

The Cat wrote on Aug 5, 2008 12:39 PM:

" Scapegoat: Exactly what should the average citizen be doing to “change their lifestyle” for the good of the Nation? You managed to avoid addressing the fact that the “progressives” that are pushing this mantra fail to live up to their rhetoric. If you want to be a lemming following what you are told, fine, go ahead, but don’t lecture everybody else to follow suit. Not everyone is living beyond their means but may still be living in decent size houses, driving vehicles suitable for the US and not Europe, keeping their environment at a reasonable level, and eating a diet that is not vegetarian based. BTW, our income is OURS not the GOVERNMENT’S to do what with we want. "

WestSideGirl wrote on Aug 5, 2008 10:29 AM:

" What we need is a viable third party that Americans can get behind. A party that cares for the people of this country as a whole –regardless of economic class, race, creed, or any demographic.

A party that won’t dance a jib for the corporate lobbyists and other high roller organizations. Because right now, the Dems and the Reps are two sides of the same coin -worth the same no matter which way you look at them.

We have a great country here – but it could be better. However, the consolidation of power by lifetime politicians and pursuit of personal gain that has become more and more common then serving the needs of the people, and nation has buckled its collective knees. We are on the way down, but not out.

Trying times spawn new forces. This might be the time that a new viable third party comes in to play and changes things for the better. Much like the Republican Party was about 150 years ago. Business as usual cannot go on as it has or we will become the third world country asking for handouts from everyone else. "

observation8 wrote on Aug 5, 2008 9:43 AM:

" Well said and 100% accurate. Taking from the producers and redistributing to the non-producers is the Democratic party game plan. They don't admit it--they call it fancy names and through the word fair around, but how fair is it if one is paying both a higher dollar amount and higher percentage? How about the government does with less, as they often expect the American public to do? By the way, call Nancy Pelosi and ask why she adjourned rather than allow an up or down vote on the Republicans plans to drill for more oil. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 4, 2008 5:30 PM:

" "Why should I pay a Amnerican worker 20 to 30 dollars a day and benifits."

A spell check should be your closest friend (or enroll in English 101). "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 4, 2008 5:28 PM:

" "It should be Robin Hood, because he wants to take money for those bad people with jobs,"

How would you feel if you had a tax credit coming from the government based on your hard work and then you got a notice from the IRS that said that 80% of the funds had to be returned to give to a multi-millionaire. That is basically what Bush and his rich republican friends did to the middle class WHO HAVE JOBS. They stole their rightful tax cut to give to millionaires. You need to read up on the subject. BTW, true welfare programs take up less than 1 percent of the federal budget. You should instead worry about how the republicans have raped the American economy, poured billions into Iraq, and trashed the dollar's value in 7 short years. "

Rush O'Riley wrote on Aug 4, 2008 5:12 PM:

" Once again you and your accountant are worng, if you want o blame anyone and or thing on the loss of american jobs, NAFTA (North American Free trade aggreement) Who signed that into law I just can't think, was Bill Clintion, you guessed right so you and your accountant can go work in Mexico for 2 dollars a day. I wonder why this would happen? Liberal economics, Why should I pay a Amnerican worker 20 to 30 dollars a day and benifits. when I can take my factory and jobs to Mexico, so that is more money in The CEOs pocket. Thanks Slick Willie. "

Rush O'Riley wrote on Aug 4, 2008 4:55 PM:

" I have a new name for Obumer. It should be Robin Hood, because he wants to take money for those bad people with jobs, and give those poor deserving people who are to lazy to get them becuase they think they are "Entitled" to it. and DESERVE it. GET A JOB WELFARE MOTHER "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 4, 2008 4:53 PM:

" "This includes the likes of Gore, the Kennedys, Edwards, czarina Nancy, Kerry, Obummer, etc."

How convenient that you list no republicans who are responsible for doubling the national deficit and lowering the value of the dollar resulting in national economic pain. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 4, 2008 4:49 PM:

" "BTW, the likes of (un)reasonable have no trouble bailing out those that get in over their head as long as someone else pays for it."

And how does this statement jive w/the fact that I continuously and consistently argue for a balanced budget and government not to spend more than it takes in?! I will have a problem w/any administration that drives up the deficit fast and furiously. Obviously, Georgie has won the prize on this and it will take a real presidential magician to try and fix the current deficit. What I object to in your failed logic is that you continually blame the democrats for spending lavishly when in fact Georgie's fiscal policies have been a down right failure for 7 long years. You could at least focus on one administration at a time before bashing Obama before he might be in office. "

Scapegoat wrote on Aug 4, 2008 4:13 PM:

" The Cat - It has absolutely nothing to do with party affiliation. Democrats and Republicans alike enact poor legislation using borrowed money. I don't buy into the rhetoric from either party in that regard, and neither should anyone else. I was merely making the point that, as long as citizens continue to live in a similar, wasteful manner, they are being hypocritical about asking their representatives to do otherwise. People can change their lifestyles (and demand politicians do so) for the good of the NATION. "

The Cat wrote on Aug 4, 2008 3:59 PM:

" (un)reasonable: I directed this to ktlin in another thread but the comment applies here on your 8/4/08 10:52 AM post. Which Obummer tax plan (out of which side of his mouth) do you like so much? Although I don’t care for McManic all he actually said about SS taxes was he wouldn’t take the issue off the table in the SS discussion. That and raising the base and raising the retirement age and means testing are all “solutions” the Donkeys have been floating for years. "

The Cat wrote on Aug 4, 2008 3:55 PM:

" lindini: Unfortunately many of us increasingly have no respect for most of the political nitwits that are supposed to be leading the country forward as our representatives to solve problems but are really feathering their own nests or trying to keep a cushy career in many cases. Many, not all, are not worthy of anything but scorn when referring to them hence the names with the purpose that reflects that worth. "

The Cat wrote on Aug 4, 2008 3:47 PM:

" Scapegoat: YOU can change YOUR lifestyle for the good of what? The Donkey Party; the “progressives” in politics, environmental organization, think tanks, academia, media, and the arts: or the UN who live in their own big houses, drive whatever they want, fly private jets, and use energy without regard to others? The same people, who are telling you this excrement and forcing through legislation and programs to compel use peons to live like third world serfs, live the high life. This includes the likes of Gore, the Kennedys, Edwards, czarina Nancy, Kerry, Obummer, etc. When they all live together in two room apartments, walk or bike wherever they go, give up central air and heat, and eat a third world subsistence diet then maybe some of us will take then somewhat seriously. Since most of them are living large off the rest of us then let them go first. BTW, the likes of (un)reasonable have no trouble bailing out those that get in over their head as long as someone else pays for it. "

Scapegoat wrote on Aug 4, 2008 12:34 PM:

" "Face it, Obummer’s solution to all problems is YOU change YOUR lifestyle."

Why not? Countless Americans have been living wastefully and beyond their means for decades. We feign bitterness at our politicians continually spending so far over budget while we simultaneously take out a second mortgage, charge new clothes at the mall, buy that unnecessary SUV and huge home, and eat out four nights a week because it's temporarily convenient.

At some point, such short-term "convenience" brings you to a dead end. Oops, I can't afford to fill up my gas guzzler or pay my heating and cooling bill on this huge house that I could barely afford before. Oops, my credit cards are maxed, and I can't afford to eat out any more. Problem is, I've forgotten how to cook for myself and my family.

This country needs long-term solutions founded on both personal and government responsibility and accountability. "

Townie here... wrote on Aug 4, 2008 12:30 PM:

" That was really a letter to the editor? Wow...she certainly put a lot of time and effort into that!

Maybe I should simply write in "I like Obama, go vote for him."

I'm just saying... "

Townie here... wrote on Aug 4, 2008 11:59 AM:

" That was really a letter to the editor? Wow...she certainly put a lot of time and effort into that!

Maybe I should simply write in "I like Obama, go vote for him."

I'm just saying... "

lindini wrote on Aug 4, 2008 11:43 AM:

" Evertime I read Obummer and McSame it makes my heart weep. Are we really all this childish? At least debate like grown men and women... "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 4, 2008 10:52 AM:

" "If you think Obummer is going to “give” you a tax cut you’ve ODed on the kool-aid."

At least he Obama not proposed a social security increase like McCain for those making less than $100,00 and said "everything is on the table" insofar as possible tax increases to balance the budget. Obama has repeatedly said he will lower taxes for those making under $250,000. McCain has not. In fact, McCain has changed his position on so many things that I don't have a clue as to where he stands. For ex., he was against the Bush tax cut, now he is for it, yet he might raise taxes??? "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 4, 2008 10:33 AM:

" "No comment on the obscene tax revenues the government is getting from the oil price increase only condemnation of the oil companies as is the party line."

I LOL a bit at this statement because the government is in the debt house big time through republican debt that the U.S. treasury needs every cent it can get to try and balance the budget because of Georgie's fiscal irresponsibility. "

The Cat wrote on Aug 4, 2008 10:01 AM:

" (un)reasonable: You really cling to the Donkey and “progressive” talking points. No comment on the obscene tax revenues the government is getting from the oil price increase only condemnation of the oil companies as is the party line. The reasons more drilling isn’t taking place on some lease lands are there is no economic oil recovery on the site or there are legal proceedings by environmental wackos preventing drilling. You still have no justification for you keeping your money (although you support all these “wonderful” government programs) but you want others to pay for them. That’s called hypocrisy but is a hallmark of the “progressives”. No condemnation of Gore, Edwards, Bonnie and Clyde Clinton, Obummer, Dodd, Conrad, and all the Donkeys that are making big money and perks off their political “service”. If you think Obummer is going to “give” you a tax cut you’ve ODed on the kool-aid. He has proposed big spending initiatives in his campaign and in the Senate, so perhaps you can cite any tax reduction legislation he has introduced in either the IL or US Senate? "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 3, 2008 11:20 PM:

" President Bush: NO friend of the soldier when it comes to health care (but quick to ask him to fight):

Veterans’ Health. As in previous years, the President proposes new fees on veterans’ health care....Specifically, the President proposes to charge medical care enrollment fees for non-disabled, higher-income veterans, and increase pharmacy co-payments. The budget also calls for third-party insurance co-payment offsets (which would require co-payments to be charged to all eligible veterans equally and not reduced if a veteran has health insurance).... "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 3, 2008 10:56 PM:

" Stephanie Seguino states:

As an economist who has long researched issues of economic inequality and economic growth, I was dismayed to read the misinformation in the op-ed piece by Dan Tulley in which he criticized Barack Obama for promising to redistribute some of America's wealth ("Vote for Obama is vote for wealth redistribution," July 11). Is Tulley truly blind to the fact that a dramatic wealth redistribution has taken place during the Bush administration, a redistribution that has succeeded only in making the rich richer and the poor considerably poorer? "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 3, 2008 2:08 PM:

" "Apparently you missed the fact that for all the profit the oil companies make the sainted government gets three dollars of rake off for every dollar of profit the oil company sees on the same sales volume."

Apparently you missed the fact that he oil companies continue to make obscene profits by any reasonable capitalistic standard and can't seem to find the time to drill on the land for which they already have many leases. Are you the mouthpiece for Exxon? "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 3, 2008 2:06 PM:

" "Wonder where that money goes since you “progressives” are all hot and bothered about anyone in the private sector getting to keep their money."

Hey Cat, I would LOVE to keep my money. The problem is that Bush and his rich friends figured out away to keep more than their fair share of tax money and toss me a dog bone instead. You might read the post below that in vivid terms shows the real result of where our tax breaks go. LOL big time in November when Obama gives an even bigger tax break to those making less than $250,000. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 3, 2008 1:02 PM:

" "Good job, Barbara....The issue is Obama and how he never saw a tax he didn't raise. Barbara is right. Obama is what he is, take it or leave it."

Senator Obama's economic advisor was on the Sun. morning talk shows this a.m. and pointedly commented that Senator Obama intends to balance the budget, NOT raise taxes, and actually lower taxes again for the middle class. In contrast, Senator McCain has articulate certain tax increases which will HURT, such as raising the Social Security tax on the middle class. Much of what we hear about Obama raising taxes is continuous republican spin, which unfortunately is not true. They are the world's experts on saying the opposite of the truth including President Bush's famous, "I am against nation building" and "I will balance the budget before the end of my first term." The latter is curious since he inherited a balanced budget from Clinton from day one! He took a balanced budget, "unbalanced" it, and then rather than correcting the situation simply chose to double the deficit and tank the economy. "

The Cat wrote on Aug 3, 2008 1:00 PM:

" ktlin: Apparently you missed the fact that for all the profit the oil companies make the sainted government gets three dollars of rake off for every dollar of profit the oil company sees on the same sales volume. Wonder where that money goes since you “progressives” are all hot and bothered about anyone in the private sector getting to keep their money. While you’re concerned about balance of payments and similar issues I hope you are for more drilling of our own oil so that money doesn’t go to overseas sources and actually produces revenue for the sainted government at the same time. "

djfpiice wrote on Aug 3, 2008 12:54 PM:

" And to Jude I can say the same thing for Mccain. What has he done for his state????? I dont see AZ booming with jobs, as a matter of fact Arizona is one of worst places buy a house right now. He's got about the same intelligence as president Bush when it comes to our economy. Thank you.......Happy Voting............ "

djfpiice wrote on Aug 3, 2008 12:52 PM:

" Hey Barbara! didn't you do the same thing when you donated $200.00 to the republican party back in 05/29/07? Thats a great topic you picked to talk about....
Now lets talk about your "philosophy",.... Isn't your philosophy about the same as Barack Obamas by contributing to the republican party? The only thing different is he's smarter what he does with his money than the republican party is..... Because guess what Barbara if your a republican "YOUR LOSING" right now!!!!!!!
WHO ARE YOU GOING TO VOTE FOR??????? Some people in rural areas just have to much time on thier hand to think about stuff.... I got to admit I live in a rural area to. I am not naive nor am I stupid. I think its a wash!!!!!!!! Good luck republicans!!! Its funny when republicans say "Democrats won't come out and vote like they always do". But republicans fail to realize this time around is were going to have a president thats actually going to represent EVERYBODY not just the rich! And he's not just appealing to the older generation. He appealing to all ages, all races, and all of AMERICA!!!! "

let's be reasonable wrote on Aug 3, 2008 12:10 PM:

" ktlin: I am with you! You are one reasonable person.

It does not matter if you are republican or democrat, deficit spending does not work. Both parties have been guilty of it and Georgie ranks with the best of them. It is also a matter of record that some corporations are making record profits without paying a fair share of taxes. Don't kid yourself, the citizenry pays taxes and yet there is still a huge deficit?! One has to ask why especially when the economy tanks, the dollar is cheapened, and we continue to borrow from communist China. And you can't point to basic safety net programs and naively suggest we do away with entitlement programs such as social security or medicare to cut costs as if you like in a fantasyland. One solution is to invest money into the U.S.A., not Iraq. "

Kathy wrote on Aug 3, 2008 10:51 AM:

" Good job, Barbara. That exactly sums it up. I notice the lack of focus in this blog and it's a shame. The issue is Obama and how he never saw a tax he didn't raise. Barbara is right. Obama is what he is, take it or leave it. "

ktlin wrote on Aug 3, 2008 6:50 AM:

" And, Can anyone tell me exactly where and when the billions of dollars of profit that the oil companies and other large businesses are making while getting huge tax cuts are going back to balance our national checkbook. If it isn't aren't we just helping to make some people rich or richer? We all chipped in and gave them some money with the tax cuts in the first place. When they are profitable shouldn't they give at least some of that money back sort of like a loan? People like to holler about us limiting profits but what if we helped them make some of those profits which we did with a tax cut? Shouldn't we share in the profits to at least a small degree? Otherwise we are funding a tax free loan and making sure they keep their profits because it is the American way. We can't limit profits. What about the original loan? "

ktlin wrote on Aug 3, 2008 6:47 AM:

" I wondered what all the fuss abou

Ads by Yahoo!

Build a Sunroom

Find Big Savings on 2008's

Illinois Board Up Service