Like Tim Pawlenty was well known, that's why his bid failed.

Just saw the video of Paul Ryan having people arrested for asking questions at a function they paid to attend. A 71 year old man taken to the floor like a common criminal and handcuffed. I believe Ryan will be very well known very soon in a way that is not favorable. Watching this video outraged me, No more support for Mitt Romney. What a poor choice to present to the American people as a running mate.

Reagan, learn the entire story before flying off the handle.

It's pathetic that Romney has to spend his VP pick to try and finally prove his loyalty to the Tea Party. You're supposed to have your base locked up well before August and be on your way to persuading moderates and independents, two other groups that also detest Mitt Romney (and are not much more impressed with Paul Ryan either despite the media's promotion of him for several years now.) This was almost as desperate a move as selecting Sarah Palin was four years ago. And in the absence of either plans or principles put forth by Mr. Romney himself, his silly attempts to embrace parts of the Ryan Budget while distancing himself from others (all changing depending on his audience) will fail miserably. It's now Rep. Ryan's campaign and Mr. Romney is nothing but a spectator.

To be clear - the point is transparency. Those things that candidates fight to keep sealed are presumed to have something "bad" in them. In Romney's case it's his tax returns. In Obama's case it's a range of things, like his Columbia records, his papers from the Illinois legislature, his passport records, and his adoption records.

Romney has put some effort in keeping his tax returns secret. One must wonder - why?

Obama has put a lot of effort into keeping his records secret, and one must wonder - why?

Transparency is important. It should be expected from all our high officials.

please donkey boy.....

Of course everyone would like things to remain the same, the better question to answer is this; Given that we cannot continue to spend more than we take in, who should be responsible for making up the difference? If you confiscate everything that the "wealthy" have you still won't pay for these programs. You can cut the programs, raise taxes on the middle class, start to tax the poor, or some combination of the three. What're you going to do?

Rob, you are so full of it. To even pretend that "I could be swayed either way according to what they said." was remotely true is simply a lie. Obama and Romney are fundamentally different if every way with or without Ryan. You never were ever going to vote republican. stop pretending.

The poor and middle class are ALREADY being eliminated by the Obama policies.

Racist beliefs? A vote against socialism is now considered racist? Wow. The truly sad thing is that your uniformed vote counts just as much as an educated vote.

But not as meanspirited as the guy claiming Romney gave some woman cancer.

Funny!! not as mean as being over 1.2 trillion in debt every year :) oh or as mean as bunny ears spending all your kids money.

Deeply flawed? Boring, weak, too nice... but deeply flawed? Dude, you need to get your self a better dictionary. If Romney is deeply flawed, Obama is satan himself.

boy you better do some better research!!

Orono are you kidding me? "Too nice"? Yeah, Romney's just a sweetheart. That's why he's getting so much publicity for putting his dog on his car for a road trip and his Bain Capital experience. Get real.

OP - thank you for making my point. If Romney putting his dog on his roof is truly the best you have to complain about, you are firmly planted in my camp.
We on the right refer to his Bain experience as "job experience". A job is something that the working class does to pay for the entitlements your party promises.

I dont want to assume here but someone choosing a childrens toy as their user name likely isnt going to be able to fully understand private equity. If you would like me to help you, please let me know.

I definitely don't need any private equity experience from you. Bain experience is to "job experience" as Akin is to "OB/GYN experience". Now you go ahead and keep watching your party shoot itself in the foot with it's assinine beliefs. Oh and by the way, I'm not a member of the DFL, and I'm sure as hell not a member of "your" GOP party (certain to die off just like it's old,white members)....so let's not assume.

Is that the best you have? What next OP "I know you are but what am I?"
I get youre young. But please, leave the debate to us adults and you go clean your bedroom or something.

Go get your shinebox.

How long was Joe Biden in Congress before becoming the VP?

Recovery? Really? OMG......Pebo has got to go.

Where are those "Signs" you speak of? Seriously, any sign at all. Just one. Please.

Hey ornery,
You want one, OK.

Unemployment went from 10% in 2009 to 8.3% now.
Home sales up 4.5% in the last year
Home inventory down 24% from a year ago (lowest since 2002)
House prices up 7.9% since June 2011
The DOW was 8077.56 when Obama took office(WOTO) and is now 13,169.43,
The GDP: 13.T WOTO now 15.1T
US retail/Food sales: 338246 (in millions $) WOTO and 403929 now
Wholesale Sales: 303793 (in millions $) WOTO and 402875 now.
Shipment of durable Goods: 366663 (in millions $) WOTO and 469870 now
Exported Goods: 124956 (in millions $) WOTO and 184972 now

Whoops, sorry, more than one. But as you can see the sky hasn't been falling since 2009 as shown by key economic indicators.

Bobby to put what you said into a sport analogy, where at one time Obama was down by 50 points, his recent field goal has cut the deficit to 47 points. Go Obama!

OK, Lets stick with your sports analogy. If we would have continued with the Republican strategy it would have been game over years ago. I'd rather be down a few points.

"any sign at all. Just one. Please" Why don't you admit, your either disingenuous or need to change you news sources

Bobby,

First off, are you liberals allowed to state anything without referencing Bush first? Just and FYI, unlike you, I dont drink the party kool-aid. I hated Bush as much as anyone else. Rip the previous Republican strategy all you want. I wont defend it.

Second, you cant say that unemployment is down from where Obama had it yesterday and pretend that is a good thing. It is raining today. Obama and his policies have clearly fixed the drought because Rain is up 1/2 inch since August 13, 2012. Your selective snap shots are very helpful for you. Your fellow libs would be proud. You rip the previous republican policies but defend Obama's? Try thinking for yourself.

You did do what I asked though. I asked for 1 and you gave me 1 thing:
"The DOW was 8077.56 when Obama took office and is now 13,169.43" I dont know how much of a sign it is but it definitely is an example of something he didnt totally screw up. So, close enough.

Didn't mention Bush at all, and just because I'm left of you doesn't make me a liberal.

Second, now your using rain for an analogy. OK,
A 1/2 inch of rain is better than none in a drought,

One apple is better than none when your hungry

1 extra gallon of gas will get you closer to a gas station.

Hope these analogies help you. One more...

Obama kept the plane from crashing now the "righties" are upset that the plane isn't gaining altitude fast enough.

Funny, but the real story is that the plane was heading right into the mountain. Obama pushed aside Bush, hit the throttle and went full speed ahead into it. But, what ever you need to tell yourself.

As cute as your little snapshots of success are, aim higher, expect more and maybe someday you too will succeed.

Why such a hard time admitting you're liberal?

So, if you think we went "full speed ahead" into a mountain you must think we're all living in third world like conditions. pssst, maybe just you are.

I see from your posts your the typical GOP Bully, Everybody left of you is a liberal and couldn't possible be successful.

Little tip for you, make sure your urine trough runs away from your hut and the rock that covers your food.

Bobby - Help me understand...you are allowed to use a metaphor but I am only allowed to be literal?
There are 3 types of people posting on this site. Those that are only worried about getting theirs, the Edwards who want theirs but also don’t want their neighbors to have more, and those that actually are worried about the country as a whole. I look at our country and see a future Greece, Spain, and France. With guys like you right in the front screaming and yelling at the government because you want your free stuff.

The fact that you are satisfied with Obama tells me everything I will ever need to know about you. Believe it or not, it is perfectly acceptable to be successful in this country. Aim higher, Bobby.

If you bothered to actually read my posts, you would understand that I am not a Republican or have anything to do with the GOP. I am a conservative. Like you pointed out, Republicans are not necessarily conservatives.

Let's not also forget that much of the Ryan Family Fortune was made from Government Contracts - yes, Paul Ryan is wealthy in large part because of Government Spending and Government Contracts...

And Conservatives say that the Government doesn't create wealth or jobs...

How much is Obama worth?

President Obama's net worth has been reported to be 5 million. Mitt Romney has a reported net worth of between 190 and 250 million. It would take the combined wealth of the last eight presidents, and then double that, to equal Romney!
Now I certainly can't relate to President Obama's 5 million net worth, but I and 99.9% of Americans really can't relate to Romney's net worth. Romney has absolutely no clue how the average American functions.

They're all rich and none of them live the life of the middle class.

What rock do you live under? That statement is so 1980s. A million dollars will get you by for a while but to believe you never have to work again is foolish. If you are silly enough to believe your own words, you were never going to vote for Romney in the first place.

Jim, you are a hypocrite. John Kerry's net worth is MORE than Romney's. Romney's is actually self made. John Kerry wasnt the evil 1% but Romney is? Try stating something that doesnt prove your a fool.

Orono- Where in my comment was I comparing Romney to Kerry. What does Kerry even have to do with this? We are talking about 2012, Romney vs Obama, not 2004 Bush vs. Kerry. Since you brought it up though, Romney is actually wealthier than Kerry. Take a look:
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2012/01/03/romney-is-richest-candidate-in-a-decade/

Romney is absolutely not self made. He inherited millions from his father and has lived an extremely privileged life. My point is he has never in his life experienced the economic stresses and hardships that you and I and 99% of Americans have. I want a President that has at least experienced some of what the majority of Americans face or have faced in their lives.

My bad Jim. In 2012, Romney is considered rich. If he happened to be running back in 2004, he would not have been rich because the definition of rich was only invented in 2012.

Also, please check your facts. How can you claim he is NOT self made. Romney donated all of his father's money. Every dime he has is his. Yes, he definitely grew up with lots of benefits but he still was able to earn his own way.

Smokin' Joe

Not only do you hit the nail on the head "They're all rich and none of them live the life of the middle class." but I would also add that not only are they all rich.

They all are getting government paychecks, with government subsidized health care, government subsidized retirement and government subsidized perks.

So not only are they wealthy - they are able to exempt themselves from the many of the ramifications that they place on everyone else.

AND - plenty of these folks - even if they do lose office - they go to work for lobbyists and pull down large six figure to seven figure paychecks.

These elected politicians - both Parties - are sitting up in Congress in the back rooms - smoking cigars, drinking fine cognac with the big money power players and are laughing at how well they play the little people as the little people fight for the scraps...

The IRS first off would have put Romney in jail for not paying taxes (look at the example of Wesley Snipes). Obama doesn't have a clue as to relating to the middle class either..he's rich, he goes to NBA games, his kids attend private school, etc, etc, etc. Obama has done his best to decimate the middle class and put the middle class into the poor. Obama career politician or Romney successful businessman (that's why he's rich)? The choice then is simple. Do not get sucked into this class warfare -- look at the facts, do research, make an informed choice.

My point is that all these men are rich. Ryan, like Obama, is a self-made man and grew up in a middle-class family. Both of them made something of themselves. These myths about Republicans not being able to "relate" to the middle class are just that: myths.

Obama grew up in a lower middle class family ( at times poor), and is self-made. He has millions (mostly from his book sales), but not nearly the wealth of the high born Romney. Big difference. Obama knows what it is to be part of the underclass and to face discrimination. His own mother struggled with paying for treatment for cancer as she was dying. Romney's family never wanted for anything. He comes from a world of privilege and entitlement and doesn't understand the struggles of the middle class.

Obama is a self-made what? He has NEVER held a real job in his life. He is a professional government worker that has no idea how to run a business. Not even his father/mother/grandfather can give him any insight on what a real working class family is about

If you aren't pulling your own weight you are , by definition, a freeloader.

JFW - if the shoe fits....

Perhaps one way to use government money for programs is to use a bit of a Free Market approach and spend that money where we will receive the best potential payback...

Example: Spending public money on old people is not a wise use of public money since 70 and 80 year old people are not going to provide anything in the future for that money spent....

So perhaps we should shift public money to the primary objective of children and young adults - after all these are the people who will be working and paying back into the system ("Return on Investment") - such as making sure they get good health care, nutrition and education so that we can maximize their working lifetime and level of work performance.

"far left liberal"

That's the rub. They aren't far left at all, in fact they are right because the extreme right in this country has pulled the entire political spectrum far right of center. The real "far left liberals" are very unhappy with Obama because he's too far to the right. Basically they got a recycled Republican plan as the Affordable Healthcare Act. No public option. No single payor. Private control of healthcare continues.

"they aren't far left at all"

How do you feel about Karl Marx?

Amen, brother!

You believe that Obama is "Far Left"?

Far Lefties are really mad at Obama.

If Obama was truly Far Left, a "Socialist", etc... he would have pushed for a Single Payer Health Care system (not one that rewards Private Companies with new customers) - etc....

Obama actually hasn't been "Left" at all except on some social issues.

Obama campaigned in 08 as a middle of the road choice. Why idiots chose to believe that is a different story but since the day he was elected he has moved further and further left. I can list dozens and dozens of examples. Romney actually has proven experience being middle of the road. As governor or the very liberal state of MA, he was able to actually pass legistlation with a dem state house and senate. Obama has proven he can give really good speeches.

Obama isnt far left because he didnt push for a single payer system? Wow. Come on Rob. In order to actually pass the bill within his own democrats, he needed to kill the single payer system. But, of course you already know this.

Orono - Obama isn't far left for many reasons - single payer is just one - his liberal base was very unhappy that he endorsed the Conservative Model of the Individual Mandate - you are aware that the concept of the Individual Mandate was created by Conservatives as an answer to the Clinton Health Care Proposal and that for almost 20 years the Conservative Heritage Foundation and Conservative Republicans pushed the Individual Mandate as the answer to not only starting to bring health care costs under control - but also - that it would take the Emergency Room Health Care Freeloaders out of their Free Rides at the ER and force them to assume Individual Responsibility.

Obama Care and the Individual Mandate is a gift to Private Insurance Companies they will see new customers coming into their plans many of whom are among the healthiest and least likely to need chronic health care services...

Rob, I dont care about the ACA. Nor do I want to drag up the tired argument. You like it, I dont. Oh well. None of this though shows me how he has NOT moved left.

actually, under Ryan's budget Romney would pay 0.82% in taxes.

The guy paid almost three million dollars in federal income tax, which is probably more than everyone writing here put together.

""The guy paid almost three million dollars in federal income tax, which is probably more than everyone writing here put together."

Correct, but everyone writing here put together is not worth the $250 million Romney has in wealth.

I, personally, paid a much higher percentage of my income in taxes than Romney, and I don't have nearly his wealth. How unfair is that? He paid 14% (from the one return he has disclosed) and I paid 24%.

Why do the rich pay less than me (lowly middle class person) as a percentage of their income?

Warren Buffet pointed this out a while back, and people should be calling for the rich to pay their fair share. They don't. Not even close.

You really wonder why the rich pay less percent-wise than you as a "lowly middle class person"?
Because they plan their taxes. They hire people to figure out every nook and cranny of the tax laws and how to use them for their maximum benefit. You're pissed because they play the game better than you do? That is seriously sad. Those loopholes are available to everyone. If you want to be upset about anything it should be about the convoluted tax system.

"Those loopholes are available to everyone."

No, they are not. Many investments (and hiring the best tax avoidance advisors) require a minimum of wealth, and if you aren't wealthy enough you don't get them.

It helps to have enough money to buy an expensive horse and then write off the care and feeding of the horse ($77,000 a year on the Romney tax return) for medical reasons (because your wife has MS and needs the horse as therapy) for example. Those are the kind of advantages that the rich receive but the rest of us don't qualify for (no horse here, and I don't meet the minimum threshhold to write off medical so my exercise ball, weights I purchased, and membership fee at the YMCA don't count. If I could afford a million dollar horse I guess it would count).

I do have an advisor for investing and tax preparation, and he tells me what I qualify for (and not, because you can only pursue certain strategies if you are wealthy enough (see example above) to qualify).

The game is skewed in favor of the wealthy, but you should know that as I assume you also have professional advisors.

So is your complaint that your not rich enough to take advantage of the deductions you know of or that the tax laws favor those who are? Considering that they're written by rich people who are mostly lawyers is it any surprise where the tax advantages go?
I'm amazed that you're not jumping up and down celebrating the Ryan budget plan. Eliminating "loopholes" is one of the ways he pays for his cuts. Of course the biggest loopholes are the mortgage interest deduction and employer paid health care, both which impact the middle class much more percentage-wise than they affect the "rich".
I'm neither rich nor poor and I don't have a staff minimizing my tax consequences. But, I make use of what's there, and when the government tells me that I'd be a moron to work for somebody else I pay attention. The opportunity is there for anyone.

Edward, your true colors are showing. You dont give a crap about anything other than your neighbor having more than you. Boo hoo. The reality is that IF Romney would have taken an actual payroll salary, he would have paid a higher rate than you Edward. But, since he is now living off his investments, he gets the benefit of taking his already taxed employment income, investing it in the stock market, and paying an additional capital gains tax on top of that on investments that work out. In truth, the 3 million he paid in taxes was profits made from money he earned and paid taxes on already. But, because he makes more money than you, it is simply not fair. Regardless if Romney is smarter than you, worked 10x as hard as you and planned better than you. It just isnt fair. Boo Hoo Edward. You reap what you sew.

What's interesting about this (my first comment above) is not whether Romney pays a higher or lower percentage than us (definitely lower), or if we are jealous (probably), but that he chose someone who, if his budget plan were implemented, would reduce Romney's tax rate to almost nothing, saving him millions.

Everyone pays additional taxes on money they have already paid income tax on...sales tax is just one example, so saying that he already paid taxes on his investment money is not a valid argument. The point is that he is making money (income) off those investments and he should be paying a percentage that is at least what the 'average Joe' is paying on his income. It's shameful that a man wanting to run this country wants to reduce his own income tax (it is income because it is money he is making, even if it is on investments), while the middle class is paying such a higher percent of their income.

And yes, I realize that everything Romney has done is legal and in our tax code. The point here is that by choosing Ryan, Romney is giving a big nod, wink, wink to Ryan's budget plan which would reduce his own taxes by millions.

For me his tax avoidance strategy and outright refusal to disclose his tax returns means he is not to be trusted. This is his tragic character flaw. He wants to lead our nation but his actions show he does not want to support our nation by paying his fair share of taxes. His priorities are himself first, and then somewhere below that is the rest of us. The leader of the US should be pro-America and pro-Americans, and his actions show that he is pro-Mitt Romney first and foremost.

Trust is the foundation for winning a presidential race. If we cannot trust this man then he is a nonstarter in the race. Nothing else matters, and (unfortunately) we can't get to discussion of the real issues if there is no foundation built on trust with him.

I do not understand why it is anyone's business what Romney's, Pauls or Obama's tax returns look like. As long as they are done legally, I don't care and the IRS will track them down if there not. I could care less how much money any of them have or made - makes zero difference to anyone. Some of you should really worry less about the other guy and worry about yourselves! Maybe some of the envious people would stop asking for hand outs if they actually earned it themsevles instead crying wolf at someone else all the time! No one is cheating the system and eveyrone is paying what they should ("their fair share") under the current tax code.

I think that our nation's leader should be transparent about whether he is avoiding taxes by holding Swiss bank accounts, bank accounts in Caymans, investing in Iranian oil ventures, etc.

It goes to the issue of his character and loyalty to (support of) country.

Shouldn't the leader of our nation support his nation fully by not playing questionable and unethical games when it comes to paying his taxes?

Susan - do you think if these "rich people" were to pay what you keep complaining about as "their fair share" it is somehow going fix this countries issues or will it just make you feel better ?

ABSG, I am not sure how you can justify a statement that implies it is none of the voter's business how the possible leader of our nation made his money, or how he pays his taxes. His Ryan pick shows that he wants a MUCH LOWER tax rate for the millionaires of our nation...which are people like him. This country is in a dire financial state and lowering taxes on millionaires will not help. Spending should be cut, the Bush tax cuts should expire...trickle down economics is not working, we should do what we can on both ends to get this country back on track. I never used the phase "their fair share" because personally, I don't think it's a "fair" assessment to the situation.

And if you are not worried about "the other guy" meaning a potential leader of this country, and his background with taxes or what he supports in our tax system, then you are being a bit naive.

"Shouldn't the leader of our nation support his nation fully by not playing questionable and unethical games when it comes to paying his taxes?"

What is questionable about doing something that is perfectly legal?

And what game? Making smart investment choices where he can maximize his return for his family, his kids and their kids? Sounds pretty intelligent if you ask me.

Anyone would make the same decisions with whatever amount of money they have. You have the same options that anyone else has. There are options to maximize $1,000 as well as options to maximize $1million dollars.

Romney and Obama are trying to maximize their return ... make as much money as possible ... there is nothing unethical or questionable about that as long as it is done legally.

You are just down right envious - that is all I can sum this up to Edward.

For the record, although I would love to make the money that Romney makes, jealousy IS NOT what motivates my comments here. Good for him! My comments are about how Romney's pick of Ryan is a direct nod to Ryan's tax plan which would benefit Romney directly, saving him millions...each year. Yes, everyone who makes this amount of money would benefit the same way. This is not out of jealousy that I point this out, it is because it will hurt our economy further. How about if we actually read each other's comments before assuming we know what a person's motives are?

Susan - you are the one being naive, thinking that if we just tax the 1% that somehow are problems will be solved. You are being naive if you for one second think that any of this tax money is going to benefit your middle class tax liability!
Obama wants this extra money so he can continue his little spending escapde he's been on for the last 3 years. His smoke and mirrors rhetroic has you believeing that you will see it in your paycheck the next week!

And why on earth would you want the Bush tax cut to expire ? FYI - Letting the Bush/Obama tax cuts (including the payroll tax cut) expire would increase taxes on an average American household by $3,000 in 2013 alone, likely wrecking the economy.

83% - Eighty-three percent would see their taxes rise, and among those making about $60,000 or more, just about everyone would face a tax hike. Those making between $50,000 and $75,000 would pay about $2,200 more.

Can we afford that ?

"Susan - you are the one being naive, thinking that if we just tax the 1% that somehow are problems will be solved. You are being naive if you for one second think that any of this tax money is going to benefit your middle class tax liability!".

Where did I say any of this? Please read my last comment again, also my reasoning for saying you are being a bit naive. How can we have a rational discussion about the issue (Romney picking Ryan), if you are dismissing my comments and putting words in my mouth? Once again, this is a huge problem on both sides - if we would just shut up and listen to the other side for a few seconds, without assuming someone is wrong or what position they hold, without actually hearing what they are saying, this country would not be so divided. Until that can happen, this type of discussion with preconceived notions, is a waste of time.

"What is questionable about doing something that is perfectly legal?

And what game?"

If what he is doing is "perfectly legal" why doesn't he release his tax returns?

Some of it may have been legal at the time but is now illegal. Thousands of Americans fled Swiss bank accounts under the amnesty program (was he one of them?).
What about his other offshore accounts?

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/08/investigating-mitt-romney-offshore-accounts

In the face of such arguments, Romney’s defense is that he never broke the rules: if there is a problem, it is in the laws, not in his behavior. “I pay all the taxes that are legally required, not a dollar more,” he said. Even so. “When you are running for president, you might want to err on the side of overpaying your taxes, and not chase every tax gimmick that comes down the pike,” says Sheppard. “It kind of looks tacky.”

I have a question for you leftists .....did you vote for Dayton for Governor? If you think Romney is "avoiding" paying taxes on equities....how about a guy who wants to raise taxes on high income earners yet has most of his wealh stashed away in muni bonds. He almost pays NO federal or state taxes because he takes this approach.

Funny, I have never heard a leftist complain about that height of hypocrisy

For some reason Dayton gets a pass on anything related to his wealth. Maybe the name? Almost anyone else with his track record would have been laughed out of the state. Somehow these limousine liberals get to be the darlings of the left without ever having walked the walk. Kennedy, Kerry, the list goes on.

Dayton releases his tax returns. Romney refuses to show his tax returns.

And, to use your argument, everything Dayton does is legal.

Al Anderson

I don't think that Muni Bond are "Stashing Money Away" - he is giving up a higher rate of return in exchange for specific tax treatments - and that money is going towards whatever public use the money is being spent on.

I suppose that's better than hiding money offshore in other countries so that they can benefit from the investments while the American who sends money offshore enjoys the security that our military and agencies provides,

Given what you apparently think of wealthy people stashing money away in Muni Bonds - are you proposing that we put some type of cap on how much money a person can invest in Muni's and still enjoy the special tax treatment?

The point is ....that Dayton is oh so willing to raise taxes on higher income earners (and I'm not talking just those above 100K here)...but he is UNWILLING to contribute himself. That is called a rank hypcrite. Yes, what he is doing is legal...but what he is also doing is ethically immoral

Preferential tax treatment for municipal bonds is among the loopholes that skew the markets. If everyone had to pay the true cost of things perhaps different decisions would be made.
Munis or not, the fact that Dayton's never worked, bailed on the Senate, and is mentally ill, should have eliminated him from any serious discussion as a candidate for governor. That he won the post speaks to the power of overwhelming campaign finances. Of course Emmers' penchant for calling a spade a spade probably helped.

@Smokin' Joe

I am in agreement with you about muni bonds being one of the numerous types of financial instruments (etc...) that skew markets and skew the real costs of having a society.

I would like to see every time a project, war, benefit, etc... is enacted or started that there must be a method for real time funding and it can't be based one some "Future Projections this..." or "Assumed Cost Shifting... that" but real time funding - or at least funding that kicks in within say 6 months to pay for it in as close to real time as possible.

Then let the chips fall where they may.

If we want to help kids eat more food - make the argument and tell Americans how much it will cost and here is how it will be paid for.

If we want to go to war in Iraq \ Iran, etc... make the case, tell the American people that a war tax will be enacted to pay for it (and possibly a draft if needed)...

Same with funding Medicare Part D for Seniors and bailing our farmers...

"Trust is the foundation for winning a presidential race. If we cannot trust this man then he is a nonstarter in the race. Nothing else matters, and (unfortunately) we can't get to discussion of the real issues if there is no foundation built on trust with him."
First off, Edward please stop playing these little games. Romney could show you taxes for every year of his life and you would never vote for him. You are a liberal government worker. Hell freezes over before you vote republican. Your argument is akin to birthers claiming Obama was born elsewhere. You dont trust Romney because he wont show you, his taxes. Youre the dishonest person here Edward.

Second, arguing that someone pays a smaller percentage than you shows your real character. If you cant be satisfied with the life you've made for yourself, blame a rich guy? Take some personal responsibility. You reap what you sew.

"Shouldn't the leader of our nation support his nation fully by not playing questionable and unethical games when it comes to paying his taxes?"
You support Obama and you are actually going to play the ethical card on Romney? Stop trying to justify your jealousy over some rich guy. Your attempt to justify your petty envy is laughable.

"You are a liberal government worker."

Nope. I own a business. I'm a capitalist, and I've always worked in the private sector.

Oh, I'm completely satisfied with my life. Liberal? I think I'm moderate/swing. I've voted for Republicans and Dems.

But go ahead, try to define me to marginalize me and my ideas . . .

Susan, I agree you are being naive. Raise taxes all you want, there are not enough tax dollars to support the current spending being done by Obama. The economy will only get better if we cut spending. Im not going to argue Ryan's tax plan but any Republican Romney chose would want lower taxes. Any Republican tax plan would benefit Romney. It would also benefit everyone else. But the spin doctors dont tell you that.

Using Envious Edwards logic, Dayton is even more immoral than Romney. The money manager that manages the trust fund that Dayton has is officed in South Dakota. Why? Minnesota taxes are too high. Morally he should care about this state and want to support it. Face it Edward - you are the true immoral one. Your attempts to hide your envy and jealousy are sad.

"Liberal? I think I'm moderate/swing. I've voted for Republicans and Dems."
Again, who are you pretending for? I am a conservative. Susan is a moderarte. You are a liberal. If you cant be honest about who you even are, why bother making an argument? The only thing you swing is between liberal and really liberal.

Unbelievable! I guess it shouldn't surprise me that this little section of the thread turned from discussing how Ryan's budget plan with benefit Romney tremendously and hurt the economy, to an attack on the "liberal, dishonest, hypocrite leftists who are envious, cry boo hoo, and will never vote Republican"! I can't believe that you people can not have a grown up discussion, without insulting those who disagree with you. KEEP IT ABOUT THE TOPIC, NOT THE PERSON YOU ARE DEBATING. If you can not make a point on merit, maybe you have no point to make.

Orono, you directed one thing at me, which I will answer: "Susan, I agree you are being naive. Raise taxes all you want, there are not enough tax dollars to support the current spending being done by Obama."

Why did you only choose this tiny fraction of what I said? What I said was "This country is in a dire financial state and lowering taxes on millionaires will not help. Spending should be cut, the Bush tax cuts should expire...trickle down economics is not working, we should do what we can on both ends to get this country back on track."

Stepping off my soap box now...

@ Susan - expiring the tax cuts and raising taxes on the millionaires is NOT going to solve the issues we face today. You need to get off THAT SOAPBOX. This free wheeling Govt needs to STOP SPENDING!! Cut the fat the pork and the beef ... both Dem / Repub need to stop the spending! If we give the Govt more money they will spend more money! Money is a drug - it's addictive. Mark my words and they will come looking for more after they spend all the millionaires cash. You can't keep spending and raising taxes. You will eventually tap out everyone/everything! We need to start telling our own citizens as well as other Countries "NO". We need to "cut spending" - start by cutting off or downsizing programs, we need to stop ALL forgein aid immediately except for a possible donation in the event of a natural disaster. We need live with what we bring in as of right now! maybe once we start paying down some of this debt we can reactivate programs etc...but until then sorry Jack the First Federal Bank of Obama & Crooks needs to close it's doors for a few years!

ABSG, I actually agree with a lot of what you said in this last comment. I disagree with some of i after the ..., but that's okay, we can agree to disagree, I know who you will vote for, and you know who I will vote for.

I also disagree about continuing the Bush tax cuts, but I am losing faith that this is a constructive format for cordial disagreement and debate, so I will leave it at that.

And for the record, my soapbox position is...once again..."This country is in a dire financial state and lowering taxes on millionaires will not help. Spending should be cut, the Bush tax cuts should expire...TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS IS NOT WORKING, we should do what we can on both ends to get this country back on track."

I have never, never said that "expiring the tax cuts and raising taxes on the millionaires is going to solve the issues we face today"...this may be part of the solution, but not the entire solution...no where near it!

@Maddy Porter - I think your employer's HR department might have an issue with your comments. Wouldn't want to get the tap on the shoulder from the HR Generalist about the discrimintory comments, speaking on behalf of the company...
"When I read most of these posts it becomes very clear why we have an unwritten policy not to hire liberals."

Just wanted to chime in a little bit, but I believe the EEOC has the following hiring guidelines, and says nothing about political views:

•Age
•Disability
•Equal Pay/Compensation
•Genetic Information

•National Origin
•Pregnancy
•Race/Color
•Religion
•Retaliation
•Sex
•Sexual Harassment

So Dennis and Maddy are you saying that you openly ask incoming candidates what their political affiliation is? How else would you know which side they are on, unless you had some type of preconceived notion or stereotype about them...Simply curious.

Mspgirl - you dont stereo type? Ha ha ha.

wait...you mean to tell me that it isnt Bush's fault? Well, Andrea Mitchel just told me that Paul Ryan is not a choice for women. Obviously Ryan must hate women.

Maddy, if my information was wrong, you might be able to make your claims sound legitimate, but since it is not, your comment is only meant to be rude, insulting, and mean.

I have deleted my other comments here, as I wasnt proud that I allowed myself to get pulled into the mud.

Maddy, Susan is NOT the bad guy on here. You can go after the low hanging fruit like Edward or take a swing at the Jim's or Rob's.

Orono, while I truly appreciate you defending me, I wish you could make a point without insulting those who disagree with your positions. There is no way that one side or person (even conservatives) can be right all the time. Please, I beg you, even though you are frustrated, try to keep the discussion about the topic, and not about the people who hold political positions different than yours?

Susan, Dont you watch the news? Yesterday, on Anderson 360, some "journalist" asked a question to a Romney spokeswoman about the Ryan plan. Instead of simply waiting for a reply to the question, Soledad OBrien argued with her after the Romney person gave her opinion on the question. It was pathetic.

Given your advice, this post should simply be filled with yes or no responses. What fun would that be? I would actually love for someone from the left to post something informed. The closest anyone has come is BobbyO. Picking on the low hanging fruit like Edward is actually fun, not frustrating. I am facinated by the lack of logic used by him.

Calling you naive is not an insult. Actually, youre one of the very few on here that I respect.

Orono, I appreciate that (although I got a little harder on you as the thread went on, I hope you still think that), and I would like to read your constructive and informative ideas, not attacks on others. We all do it, I am just tired of reading it....which means, I guess that I should not read the comments, but I like some of what I read on Patch, it is just sad that some have to make it a sport to attack others.

No, I don't watch Anderson 360. I watch a little MSNBC (mostly Morning Joe) and some CNN. I have truly tried Fox and found it to be an angry place (same as Ed and Chris on MSNBC), no thank you. I read A LOT. I try to get my information in a way that I can find a balanced position.

I like Rubio (although a lot of his policies are trickle down too) and hoped he would be the pick, but Romney disappointed, and went with the obvious need-the-base choice.

"Take a nap sweetie."

Rude and denigrating, much?

Stick to the issues. Thanks.

Oh Edward, you make me laugh out loud.

??

You are the moderator and can delete my posts?

and you think the Republican's are the answer? Ryan's budget increases the deficit while giving more tax cuts to the rich and corporations on the backs of the middle class, the elderly, the disabled, and the poor. Republican's are yammering about the $500 million decrease in costs over 10 years in the Medicare Advantage plan while ignoring that the Ryan budget also includes that cost savings. And let's not forget that it was Republican's who gave us two unfunded wars and the unfunded Medicare prescription drug coverage which make up a large share of the deficit.

And yet you apparently want to continue down the Obama road, high unemployment to the levels of Carter. High food, fuel and healthcare costs. And how high is the deficit? Record setting.

I call BS!

I would say, after reading your comments, the only type of man that would like your type of greatness and strength is the type of man who likes his testicles squeezed in a vice!

I would dispute that Ryan is bold.

When he had a chance to actually vote on issues he voted time after time to expand government reach into Medicare - and he voted to spend hundreds of billions dollars without a single way to raise the money to pay for it.

Its easy as a Republican from a Conservative district to put forth a "bold" proposal that he knows will never come up for a vote.

Its much harder even for a Republican from a Conservative district to, for example, vote against Medicare Part D and then explain to the old folks in your district - many of whom are Republicans that you voted against helping them with the Drug Costs because you don't believe in expanding government run health care and besides that it wasn't paid for.

Bold is what you do when there are real repercussions, it isn't what you do when you write a paper that isn't going to be voted on.

Now if Ryan goes out and fully embraces his Ryan Plan and he and Romney run on the plan then that would be Bold.

But Romney is already retreating from it (after he previously endorsed it) and they both will soon be in pretty full retreat from it once the specifics start getting more headlines...

This is bold.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

Ryan's plan merely tinkers around the edges and has no substantial deficit and debt cutting measures.

ha ha ha ha ha

Absolutely love that ad. The republicans should put out their own version, instead of granny being pushed along the rocky parth in a wheelchair she could take government sponsored mass transit to the edge of the cliff.

^^This. Ryan is the calculator to help Romney outsource Social Security and offshore Medicare. Watch for the Bain Capital business model, applied to an entire nation, designed to help the richest avoid taxes and grow their wealth even faster.

It's all the about lining the pockets of the 1% at the expense of the rest.

Otis Blockhead - You should try telling the truth with your next post. Admit you could give a crap how much the country spends because you have no skin in the game. Admit that you clearly havent made much of yourself and so now you need to take that anger out on some rich guy because it will make you feel better about yourself. Try it. You will feel better about yourself.

Being a Ph.D doesn't necessarily make you a good economist. It means you spent a lot of time in school.

Paul Krugman has a Ph.D. Nuff said.

Ryan would be wise to take some advice from these guys.

http://mises.org/

"I've never let my school interfere with my education"
-- Mark Twain

I never mentioned whether Ryan was a good or bad economist, which is all relative.
Between the many government and NGO economists in DC there are certainly many with a better understanding than Ryan of economics.
There is a saying in Washington that all decisions are political decisions not necessarily based on reality or what is best for the country.

Paul Krugman has a Phd Economics - I will take Ryan any day of the week.

You're correct in that the recent group of Republicans has been no better than the Democrats. Bush II could have run as a Democrat and nobody would have known the difference. I do remember the good old days when Conservative and Republican could be used interchangeably. Sadly, there really is not a place for those who are economically conservative and socially progressive.

I would propose that they are worse than Democrats.

Democrats want to spend but at least they are willing to say "Here are the taxes that we want to increase to pay for it".

Republicans want to spend but say "Don't worry - you don't have to pay for it - we'll just put in on the "credit card"".

You're right in certain circumstances. My point is that the old labels really don't mean all that much anymore. A power hungry "Replublican" can be just as dangerous as a power hungry "Democrat". The only true solution I see is term limits. For now I'll lean toward anybody who proposes to spend less.

@ rob_h78 - How about we All Live Within Our Means and start telling people NO for once ???

And if someone has earned something and makes more than you - maybe you should congragulate them instead of whinning about them cheating the system etc, all the while holding your hand out!

This fantasy world thinking that the rich are some how going to pay for everyone and everything and the 99% deserve anything and everything ... is just that ... Fantasy!

I have said this a 1,000 times - You can not rob Peter to pay Paul. Because Paul always comes asking for more. What happens when you rob (I mean tax) Peter to death? What are you going to do then?

It's time this country spend what it takes in and stop's spending!

Reading some of these posts, I really question if you are under hypnosis or what - if you think that Obama is some godsend, he must of personally sent you those Kool-Aid packets.

RE: ABSG

Living within our means - exactly - if politicians want to spend more money then tell us that they want to increase taxes or fees and let the chips fall where they may at the ballot box - instead - of doing the head fake like Republicans do and spend all of the money but then borrow to pay for it.

You know - just like a household -if you want to spend money you don't have you have to bring in more money - or you go into debt.

Why in the world do you think that the wealthy are only entitled to keep their money?

What about Middle and Upper Middle Income Americans - our money is our money also!

Where do I go to get a refund on what the Iraq War is going to cost?

What about the last 8 years of the Afghanistan War?

What about the money spent to prop up the Big Banks to keep them from going under and sinking everyone with them?

Have you been paying attention to what has been happening and how easily our money is spent outside of our country for other people's benefits - and how we have spent to prop up some of the wealthiest companies in our country when they gambled and lost?

Or, is it only the poor that deserve to be cut off?

Is it the wealthy who only get to keep their money?

Rob, the reason they don't tell the truth is that we keep electing the ones who lie best. Obama promised everything to everybody, and even with a democrat run government, followed through on pretty much nothing, and most likely will still win re-election. You did notice that Ron Paul didn't stand a chance?
BTW, we actually made money on the banks as long as you don't throw Freddy and Fannie in that group.

Of course they lie to us since that is what most people want - everyone says that the American people want "the truth" but they don't want the truth.

The truth to solve our debt problem is that everyone will have to pony up more money while at the same time everyone will have to take a cut in spending.

But - folks don't want to hear that - they want to hear that there will be need for taxes to go up - and that any cuts will only affect spending that they don't care about.

You noted Ron Paul - and he tells some truth - and as you noted even with just that amount of truth - he has no chance.

Its not just voters - its the Super PAC's, Special Interests, etc... on BOTH sides - they love the system the way it is because they are all about short term gains - they don't care what happens 10 or 20 years down the road simply because they will have cashed in and lets be frank in 20 years plenty of the folks behind these big money interests are simply going to be dead.

Yes, the bank issue was something that we did make some money on - my mistake.

Nice one Rob,

"The truth to solve our debt problem is that everyone will have to pony up more money while at the same time everyone will have to take a cut in spending."

Seems obvious doesn't it?

And who are your saviors Dennis? Lot's of folks that distort, lie, tell half truths at best on their 24 hour news channel.Then if they can't best them then they try character assassination and public humiliation for people exercising their First Amendment rights?

Maybe you'll get what you want - after all Bush #43 did his best to bring down the economic house and did spend, spend, spend (spending also is giving tax relief away without no income to pay for the cuts). All either side (Republicans or Democrats) ultimately wants is more power and control of the U.S. treasury - if you think they are in it for you or me you need to vary the news you receive. Still I'd rather opt for the Dems who help the little guy more than the others. If you think the rich need more $$$ to create jobs what did they do with the windfall that they received since the late 1970's?

Agreed that they're clowns but it's tough to pick sides when you've got clowns on both sides. Rush? Unfortunately people are mistaking entertainment for reporting.

Ray - I grew up poor. I am more familiar with the welfare system than most on here. I will argue all day that Republicans do more to help the poor than democrats. The numbers prove it. We have spent trillions of dollars on welfare programs. The poverty numbers only go up. As Obama's failed programs continue to force more and more into welfare that number will continue to grow. This is by design. Who is a free loader going to vote for? A republican who wants them off the dole or a democrat who is promising them more and more free stuff?

My sister has been on welfare all her life. She has no incentive to ever get off of it. She will die on welfare. She has NEVER worked a day in her life. Why should she? I fully support the tough love principle. I offered to support her and her girls. But, they had to work hard to earn it. They chose to not work at all.

You dont need to agree with me but you should seriously think twice about what you are supporting. Bush and his idiots were bad but sadly, Obama has been worse. You voted for change in 2008 and got more of the same irresponsible crap. Now our country is facing a real mess. Maybe Romney will be just as bad as Bush or Obama but given I know what I will get from Obama, I am willing to give Romney a chance.

Jason, Patch editors actually are full-time journalists. It is indeed a profession. I agree that all media companies (including us here at Patch) have our faults, but I think we also do a lot of good, meaningful work. Regarding Patch, if you have specific complaints about our work, I (and my colleagues) would surely love to hear them. Because you might raise a good point, and we might learn from it and get better at our craft. But simply saying "journalism is dead" doesn't solve anything.

Jason - the large media organizations you mentioned have nothing to do with Journalism - they are geared towards simply maximizing advertising revenue and to be honest most Americans want a 3 Ring Circus with pretty people, people yelling at each other and Drama at all times...

They don't want real Journalism because that takes time to listen to or read - they have to pay attention to understand and then finally they have to think.

Depending on how one defines true journalism there is plenty of it out there in various publications...

But the people who watch MSNBC, CNN, Foxnews pretty much have their opinions formed - they will never really change - and they are just looking for outsets that tell them how correct they are...

I used to write for the Patch before they stopped paying their freelancers. For me it was not a hobby, it was my job, at least my second job. I have an MA in journalism and 28 years experience. The editors are professionals as well. But, you get the Patch for free, don't you. Who pays the professionals who you want to see writing? Not you, that's for sure.

Michael, I think too many editors and or journalists have an agenda. That agenda prevents them from truly doing their job professionally. The "editor" for the SW Mpls Patch (James) happens to be gay. He also happens to have a very Pro-gay agenda. He posted some photos from the gay pride parade along with captions for the photos. I took exception to one of his captions. I stated my objection. Instead of actually looking at the objection objectively, he immediately attacked me for being anti-gay. He was unable to do his job effectively because his personal agenda prevented him from doing so. His biasness someday could hurt you financially. One of my businesses is located in SW Minneapolis and my manager had mentioned that we should advertise in the Patch. I happened to check it out the day the gay pride pictures were posted. Honestly, the Patch isnt right vehicle regardless of the bias editor but had it been a viable option, I would have never considered it because of him. I believe that you take your job very seriously but the reality is that some of you have no idea what constitutes professional behavior. The idiot from the SW Mpls Patch gives you and your professional and serious colleagues a bad name. That is unfortunate.

One of the many ironic things about Paul Ryan is that his family has made a nice tidy fortune on Government Contracts...

Kind of funny that Mr. "Cut Government Spending" is a millionaire because of Government Spending and instead of going out and participating in the Private Sector Real America - he jumps right into "Public Service" to a pull his paycheck and benefits from hardworking Americans - all while working to enrich the wealthiest such as himself - all while proclaiming himself to be a "Free Marketing Loving Fiscal Conservative" - which by his own voting record isn't true but we all know that...

David F: While I agree that we have seen waves of anti-female laws and that the make-up of the Congress is tilted heavily towards men...

One thing to remember is that women make up more than 50% of the people who vote and those men wouldn't be in office passing anti-female legislation if a lot of women didn't vote to put them there...

Rob - Waves of anti-female laws? Name one.

Oh LOL - you called "Todd and Rob" two ladies - oh you really are a hoot - you sure got us on that one!!! And to think that people say you don't have a wicked sense of humor...

As for the war on women - I'm not here to do your research for you - you apparently have access to a computer and I presume you have heard of "Google" - plenty of the cool kids use it these days to find all sorts of stuff on the tubes that make up the internet.

Come on Rob - you cant spew lies and then run from reality. Name one anti-female law that has been passed recently. Unless you consider title IX anti-female. Is that it Rob? Are you a traditionalist who believes women should be barefoot and pregnant?

Orono - you really aren't aware of the discussion around the country relating to what is called the "war on women" and you have no idea what specific legislation that is being passed and putting forward in hopes of being passed that is part of the overall topic of the "War on Women"?

Seriously?

I really don't think that you are that lost in the realm of national topics (?).

If you don't know then do some research - don't come to me asking for me to spoon feed you the information that you can dig out for yourself, if you need help on how to use Google let me know and perhaps I can help out.

Better to Teach a Man to Fish than to just provide internet welfare and give away the fish.

Read his history of posts. He is as much a business owner as Obama is middle of the road.

That's all you have? I was expecting another wicked and witty retort.... Not even a veiled insult?

Like I stated previously - I am not here to do your research for you - I presume you know how to research the questions you want answers to?

But I'll start you out - you could for instance you could run a Google search on "war on women" and several of the top links will take you to websites that discuss the "war on women", specific pieces of legislation along with why some people view them as being a piece of the overall concept of a "war on women".

Enjoy :)

Admit your mistake Rob. Or, back it up with proof.

Orono - Admit what mistake?

Being Good Hard Working Folks am certain that both yourself and Dennis believe in in the concept of "Teaching a Man to Fish" rather than "Giving them a Fish".

I am certain you are not expecting a handout of information and then have to come back to anonymous sites to ask for more details - better to let folks learn how to do their own research.

If you have questions on how to run internet searches feel free to ask and if I feel inclined to help I will :)

Show me where there has been even 1 anti-women law passed in the last 20 years. You claimed it true. Back it up or admit you are a liar.

Orono, he's got you, and you know it...and he has made some funny (harmless) cracks to boot. Keep it up rob, as a woman I know exactly what you are talking about with 1) the legislation proposed, and being referenced as a "war on women" 2) how to run a Google search and why you put it out this way, and 3) the irony of the conservatives wanting a 'hand out' of information....priceless!

What are you talking about Susan? Please pay attention. Rob stated the following:

"David F: While I agree that we have seen waves of anti-female laws and that the make-up of the Congress is tilted heavily towards men...

One thing to remember is that women make up more than 50% of the people who vote and those men wouldn't be in office passing anti-female legislation if a lot of women didn't vote to put them there..."

Rob states that he has seen WAVES of anti-female laws. I want Rob to list, name, state just ONE law that is anti-woman that has recently passed. You are welcome to try as well.

If you truly believe there is a "war on women" then I may be giving you more credit than you deserve. War on women is the dumbest made up propoganda Obama has ever fabricated.

And, if you throw Rick Santorim out as some proof that all conservatives are against women, then I can use Bernie Sanders as proof that all democrats are communists.

Orono, I said "legislation proposed, and being referenced as a "war on women"". I did not say that I truly believe there is a "war on women". I think that there are some Conservative men hoping to decrease the number of abortions in this country by using legislation as a means to shame, humiliate and embarrass women who want to get an abortion. Personally, I believe that if you are a man, you have no business butting into abortion unless you get a woman pregnant and she is considering one. This type of legislation is for one purpose....stop abortions...which is mostly a women's issue, and abortions are still legal in this country. To those legislators I say STOP THE BS, if you believe abortions are murder, then work on THAT legislation.

I dont care what you said... Rob is the liar here. He said there was a wave of anti-female laws --- he cant name one.

Thank you, David....thank you, thank you.

So is a vaginal probe stuffed up your vagina in order to get a perfectly legal abortion...funny stuff!

Orono, I could make the same type of sweeping generalization about Conservatives....How can they always believe they are right? It would be nice if you occasionally made a point, or statement of fact instead of going down the list of comments and slashing at everyone you 'think' is a liberal. What do YOU think of the Ryan pick?

Ok, now its your turn - stick to the subject. Why the tendancy by liberals to pretend like the VP choice of Romney actually meant something?

How can you, with a straight face, ask me a question without answering the one I asked you?

Or are you saying you think it's a waste of time to discuss because it doesn't make a difference? If that's it, why on earth are you here?

BTW, I did answer some of the other things above, and I predicted you would change your thoughts about me. No worries, read it all again, and maybe we can agree to disagree again. :-)

I havent changed anything about you. However, you personally need to stop worrying about what people think about you. The older I am the more I dislike other people. Earning my respect doesnt come easy. Everyone has an agenda. What makes me successful is my ability to read that agenda. I stopped caring what others thought of me long ago. You on the other hand are conflicted. I think, you actually do care. I like you because you remind me of my daughter.

My reference (what you think about me) was because I had just run through the posts, answering different things, scolding some who attack, and then I saw your comment above about (I think) respecting me. I felt bad, as I had just gone after you in a couple spots, but you seem to let it roll off....yes, I need to do that more.

For the most part, I really don't care what people here think of me, but I do enjoy reading debates and seeing something I would like to learn more about. It prompts me to spend time researching so I can come to an educated conclusion.

There are several here that hold different positions that I have learned from...I even requested a recommendation of a book from a Libertarian(M). I find his posts informative, compelling, and without malice. There is another Conservative (DL) who I deeply disagree with on some issues, and have called him out on them, but I can appreciate his passion and have learned from him as well. I am not fooling myself into thinking that I am getting an education from Patch commenters, but it has, on several occasions, piqued my interest enough to search out information. I think that's a good thing, as no one can know everything.

I was just on a soapbox again, wasn't I? Sorry.

Why are you apologizing for being on a soapbox? Speak up.

Dennis, why can't you look it up, I grossly referenced one above. Maybe as a man, you aren't aware of the proposed "anti-women" legislation and it would do you some good to look it up and learn a thing or two.

Dennis - you truly have no clue what the "War on Women" is about, nor do you have any idea what legislation is referred to regarding it?

You seem to think that I'll buckle to your "calling me out" - pretty funny stuff - I think though you take this all too seriously - no one here is of any consequence in the halls of power - myself included because if we were we sure wouldn't be spending time having fun on an anonymous board, we would be actually dealing with people who have power to make change.

Hey - I just saw that Susan posted something interesting a couple of comments up from this one - perhaps you could run a Google search on that along with the phrase "War on Women"...

“War on women” is a made up propaganda created by the Obama camp. No one is trying to take away birth control. Conservatives simply don’t want it given away for free. Sandra Fluck wants the government to stay out of her bedroom. I and nearly every conservative out there, fully supports that decision. However, Fluck also wants the government to pay for what does happen in her bedroom. Sorry, but either you want the government involved or you don’t. Which is it? Also, forcing the Catholic Church to pay for something the fundamentally don’t believe in, is NOT anti-woman, it is anti-Catholic. Now granted there are extreme conservatives that think birth control in general is bad. But, pointing at the very few and pretending it is a “Conservative” stand is naïve. Obama wants to give away free birth control. Nothing is truly free. Birth control isn’t free now and objecting to it being free later is NOT anti-female. Including abortions in the ACA is a separate argument all together but still isn’t anti-female. Seriously Susan – Obama is standing up and stating “vote for me and I will give you free ice cream.” In this case, the free ice cream is free birth control. The conservatives are simply stating that it is stupid to start giving it away for free. You have bought into the entitlement mentality hook line and sinker.

Orono, Obama amended the Catholic church's requirement to pay for birth control, why is the right still in such a huff about it? It's fixed, the insurance companies will pay. Did you read any of the information put out by said insurance companies? They would prefer to pay for birth control than nine months of prenatal care, labor, and delivery. There is also a direct connection to the use of birth control lowering the number of abortions...you will have to look up the studies, I spent a week reading through them, and the information is overwhelming. I honestly believe that there is a 'fix' for employers who have a serious religious or moral belief against paying for the insurance to cover the cost of birth control (which might be as little as one cent per month, per female employee), but yes, it would take more legislation to do it.....I know, bigger, more intrusive government.

How does Sandra Fluke want the government to pay for what happens in her bedroom?

BTW, as an employer I won't get free birth control or ice cream, so my approval of this tidbit of legislation has nothing to do with me getting something free.

"There isn’t going to be that big tax windfall this year or next year because gains are not long term yet." Are you speaking personally?

Here is the problem - there is no single solution to the debt.

We cannot either cut spending - nor - increase taxes.

We have to cut spending and increase taxes (or raise more revenue) however you want to phrase it.

The problem is that Conservatives will not cut anything defense related, Liberals will fight cuts in social programs and neither side is going to touch stuff for old people - how about by just eliminating Medicare Part D? It was a huge government spending program that was put in place with no funding - but neither Party will touch that big government program.

And if as you believe we cannot raise revenue via increased taxes the wealthy - then the answer will - unfortunately for the rest of us be quite simple...

Eventually budget cuts will have to occur pretty much across the board - and - the Middle Class \ Upper Middle Class will see larger tax increases to make up for the tax increases that the wealthy will escape....

There is no free lunch and no way to simply cut spending to get out of this budget nightmare...

Yes - I completely agree - the rhetoric that both sides used is designed to act as a smoke screen to get "Conservatives" and "Liberals" yelling at each other so that they can both go on doing what they doing behind the scenes to ensure that the folks who are elected and living off the taxpayers remain in their seats of power - and so that BOTH sides can laugh at the little people snapping at each other while they do whatever they want - like a pick pocket who distracts you before they lift your wallet...

IMHO - the only way to get to the people in power is for folks on both sides to hold their own people accountable and for everyone to join and carry the proverbial torches and pitchforks and march on the seats of power regardless of which Party they belong to...

If we can get the left to hold Obama's feet to the fire I'd be happy to reciprocate with the more conservative side. Maybe start a new political party based on truth and math.

Finally, some rationality, if you could implement your suggestions, I am with you...where do I sign?

This is an honest question, so I don't want to get blasted...

Wouldn't it be a good thing to get 1.7 million more people on the (legal) payroll, and therefore have them pay income tax?

If they're already working under bogus SSN's they're already having that withheld and have no way to ever claim it.

That's understandable, but what about those who aren't? Is there a way to gauge the number that would now be paying taxes that weren't? There are a lot that are also working for cash etc. That may still happen, but I wonder if they would still choose to work and live this way if they could get a "real job", filing taxies, and not being considered illegal.

Are you implying it's a good thing that they were paying under a fake SSN# and could not claim it, or is this just a statement of fact?

If we didn't already have an unemployment rate of 8.3% and we were starving for workers ... Plus we have an epedemic upon us with recent college graduates looking for work in order to pay off student loans that Obama wants them to pay higher interest rates! Yes, there is the argument that these are jobs are one's that no one wants to do anyways ... I find that hard to believe for the most part.

Okay, then how are the illegals supporting themselves? I find it hard to believe that 1.7 million illegals have found a way to collect welfare. If we are honest, I think we must come to the conclusion that most are working off the books. By putting them on the books (in large part, in jobs that educated Americans don't want), we will be seeing more tax revenue...but I could be wrong...certainly not the first time.

Yes, Susan. However, would you rather the illegals have the job or actual citizens?

Orono, If the actual citizens want the jobs, then they should probably get them...but do they want them? Couldn't they have already had them? If there are job openings out there right now, why haven't our citizens taken these jobs? My guess: low pay, hard, physical jobs that we don't want or are greatly overqualified for, but that's IS just a guess.

I was under the impression that she (Fluke) wanted her employer to buy insurance that would provide free contraception? Am I wrong? Isn't she (if there is a portion of the premium she must pay) and her employer paying the insurance premiums, so the insurance company will provide free contraception? Where is the government (taxpayer) paying?

You are right, I need to look further into religiously affiliated hospitals etc., but I will ask this, are they for-profit entities? Yes, to me it makes a difference because I think if you are a religious based organization, claiming tax (and other) exemptions from the government you should be non profit. If you are not, then you can not demand those exemptions, and as an employer, impose your religious beliefs or biases on your employees.

Why isn't this as simple as the employee paying that tiny fraction of the premium that would cover contraception? I know, that's too easy...

I agree that the Democrats started the term "war on women" but my opinion is that (although not a war) the term is based partly in reality. There are Conservatives in Congress targeting some specific women's issues. They are trying to enact laws that are designed to humiliate or shame women that are considering an abortion. This is wrong....take on the abortion issue if you must, but don't do it this way!

Thanks for you input and advice, Claire.

Did I miss a name change, DIY?

Susan - it is very funny that Conservatives got their panties in bunch when the phrase "War on Women" was put forward to describe the various attempts by Conservatives to enact policies and laws that specifically target women and in many cases they want to impose the big boot of government onto the women's bodies...

Conservatives have been using the phrase "War On...." for a long time and always thought it was just fine...

"War on Religion" is just one of the latest...

The problem Conservatives are having with Obama and others is that they are finally seeing some Democrats that are willing to actually punch back and hit hard instead of running and hiding like the spineless cowards most of them are and have been when Conservatives go on their attacks....

Look - the pick of Ryan is fantastic.

IF Romney and Ryan actually run on what Conservative Republicans want to do (which they are already starting to retreat from a bit and Republicans in some state races are already in full retreat from the Ryan Plan) - then we will see a National Election on a very clear choice between Conservative Ideas on what to vs what Obama wants to do and let the chips fall where they may...

rob, I will admit that I have used the phrase "war on women" myself, here on Patch. My skin crawls every I see a male, career politician standing up and talking about women's issues and the rules and guidelines they wish to put on women's reproductive organs. We would never, never hear of this if it were about men's reproductive organs. This is why I have used the phrase, but it is a bit of an exaggeration, don't you think? I think you made a great comparison using "war on women" on one side, and "war on religion" on the other...maybe everyone should just stop saying it unless referencing Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iran (God, forbid).

And Orono, just for the sake of saying it....this is why I could never call myself a Conservative. Although I agree wholeheartedly with many Conservative positions, I really think that they need to stop trying to force their morals and religious beliefs down everyone's throat. Quite simply, live you life with integrity and by your religious beliefs, but don't you dare try to force those beliefs on me.

Rob, why do you pretend to be middle of the road? How does it help you? Serious question. You dont write what you write and still pretend to moderate.

Orono - what is your definition of "Middle of the Road"?

What does a "Middle of the Road" person believe about Contraception, Abortion, Monetary Policy, Fiscal Policy, Immigration, Gun Rights, etc....?

I just post my thoughts - if you want to apply labels that's your call - if I want to apply labels that's my call - but in the end I don't get to wrapped in labels like other people do - this is all for fun - no one is going to win or lose anything here....

Rob - I would argue that you have lost all credibility.

Thanks DIY, I will delve into your link and the bigger issue further this weekend.

"We should all call a truce on the social issues now- we have much more dire things to consider." I absolutely agree - unless the government wants to make my life harder simply because I am a woman.

I must disagree with your last paragraph, but isn't this a wonderful country that allows us to do so?

Everyone have a great night, and thanks for all the info and input!!

Neighbor - WOW, Well said. Leave it to someone from Orono to actually grasp reality.

Susan- After you have researched this and realized what garbage it truly is, ask yourself one more question. Why the need to even create this crap? DIY is correct. If Obama was truly has great as you think he is, he wouldnt have the need to insult you with this bull. He would simply run on his record. He cant. Instead he has been forced to divide and conquer. He already has the blacks, then he started his class warfare trying to divide the rich and poor, then the war on women, then amnesty to illegals to secure the hispanic vote, then the “Mitt didn’t pay any taxes” crap, now the attack on the elderly... You claim you want honest discourse on this site. How about demanding it from your President? Look back at the campaign he ran against Hillary. Google it. He was vicious. Now he is running ads claiming that Mitt Romney gave a woman cancer. Misleading ads are part of the political game. This ad is 100% false. Obama is getting away with this crap because the media allows it and because his voting base isn’t smart enough to know the difference.

I said before that picking on guys like Edward was fun and not frustrating. What is frustrating is seeing people like you who are truly intelligent but still pro-Obama. As a business woman you obviously understand that social issues don’t ring your register. I really hope that you aren’t letting silly social issues cloud your logic.

No one is telling Churches that they have to do anything as far as their Churches go...

When a religions organization wants to move into conducting business, Hospitals, Universities, etc.. they move into the business sector and should be held to the same rules and standards as every other business - if they don't want to play on the same field - they can take their toys - close up their businesses and go home.

Regarding specifically Contraception - plenty of states require Contraception as part of healthcare and the Catholic church operate businesses in those states and never had a real issue with Contraception being required in their health care plans until Obama said it...

For example: 28 states have contraception requirement laws such as California and New York require contraception coverage and the Catholic church continues to operate businesses in those states. Only 8 of those states have exempted the Catholic church's hospitals and universities.

In some situations, but not all, the Catholic church self-insures to get around the State requirement which under Obama's plan that loophole is closed.

Romney went even farther when signed legislation (eventually) that forced Catholic hospitals to provide Plan B “morning after pill” to rape victims.

So this huge outcry, I don't believe, is truly about Religious Freedom, it is simply another line of attack against Obama prior to an election that is being waged...

Orono, I was going to withhold comments until I have had time to research, but I want to say a couple things here. Look at what you wrote about that ad that has everyone up in arms. Did the ad say that Romney gave the woman cancer? No, it told a story of one individual who lost his job because of Bane, and then how he lost his wife to cancer, shortly after losing is health insurance. Do I agree with the ad, probably not, but I understand what the ad was trying to promote. You, on the other hand, just ran your own personal rhetoric about the ad....which is false. if you want me to find the truth, you might be better served by putting your own spin and rhetoric in your pocket. I think most all political ads are crap and tell varying degrees of truths and lies. The problem is that they work! Imagine if we could stop political tv ads and apply that money to the debt, or feeding the poor, whatever you like...Didn't they say it would be nearly $1,000,000,000.00 this year....hard to stomach that when you have to look at all the zeros.

You seem to have such disdain for all the candidates, will you be voting in November? I don't want to know who you will vote for, I just wonder how you can vote for anyone, if you think they are all bad choices.

"Regarding specifically Contraception - plenty of states require Contraception as part of healthcare and the Catholic church operate businesses in those states and never had a real issue with Contraception being required in their health care plans until Obama said it..."
Obviously you are not Catholic or have ever worked in a Catholic facility. And even more obvious is that you are again just making it up as you go. The Catholics have been against birth control since forever. To pretend that this is something new is just flat out stupid. Why do you think Fluck picked Georgetown as her target? There are ZERO catholic facilities that offer birth control coverage as part of their healthcare coverage.

"So this huge outcry, I don't believe, is truly about Religious Freedom, it is simply another line of attack against Obama prior to an election that is being waged..."

Rob, are you one of those guys that likes to feel important by pretending he knows everything? Let me guess, your "friends" call you Cliff Clavin. First you state that there has been a wave anti-female votes then, when pressed repeatedly, never bothered to back it up. Now, you are simply dismissing the war on woman as something the republicans and Catholics are doing to get Obama. Do everyone a favor and stay in the toy department where you belong.

"Do I agree with the ad, probably not, but I understand what the ad was trying to promote."

Probably not? You understand what they are trying to promote? Come on Susan, learn the facts about the ad:
--Mitt Romney left Bain in 1999 to work on Olympics.
--GST Steel in Kansas City was shut down in 2001.
--Top Obama bundler Jonathan Lavine was in charge of Bain Capital at the time.
--Joe Soptic was offered a buy-out.
--Soptic took another job but declined to purchase their insurance plan.
--Soptic’s wife had her own health insurance plan through 2003.
--In 2006, Soptic’s wife was diagnosed — diagnosed! — with very late-stage cancer.
--The pro-Obama PAC Priorities USA cuts an ad blaming Romney for her death.

Orono, thank you for the information, and I may look into it further, but political ads are not what piques my interest.

I said that I understood what this ad was trying to promote...misleading the public, which is what all political ads do, don't they?

I also said. " I think most all political ads are crap and tell varying degrees of truths and lies." Which is why I don't pay attention to them. I only saw this commercial once and shook my head. Then I shook my head again when the other side said that Obama is promoting a commercial that says Romney caused this woman's death. I didn't believe or trust either side. Sad, isn't it?

Orono: "There are ZERO catholic facilities that offer birth control coverage as part of their healthcare coverage."

Again - research my friend - here is what I found - its just one article - there are others and other examples...

http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/SearchCatholicColleges/CatholicUniversityofAmerica/tabid/151/ctl/Details/mid/977/ItemID/561/Default.aspx

"For example, University of San Francisco’s (USF) two health insurance plans for employees both provide for abortion, sterilization and contraception. According to the university, one of the plans cannot be altered because the contract is not yet up for negotiation. The USF Faculty Association contested a proposed change by the university to the other health insurance plan, citing a contractual breach."

"Other Catholic institutions of higher education, according to the investigation, whose health insurance plans conflict to varying degrees with Catholic moral teachings include: the University of Scranton, Georgetown University, DePaul University and Christian Brothers University."

Etc....

Did you read the article - it was posted by David Frum - a good conservative republican...

Do you typically just make comments on things without facts or did you read the piece and not understand how citations work and what plagiarism is?

You gotta at least try on your comments....

Rob - you are the pot calling the kettle black. You are the king of posting without facts.

OMG - do you want some cheese with all of that whine?

And oh, no, no one cares how you got your name...

Now - when you come back if you have an argument to make, a fact you want to put forth, a point of interest that you can discuss feel free, but to simply whine about how kids feel, how others should feel about their statements, etc... well, Bro, for myself I would have to care about you and others here feel about what I post and sorry but none of you rate high enough for that care factor to kick in....

Sorry Bro, just not that into you, so I Gotta Go.....

Rob = the king of hypocrites!

Oh Bro - do some research - its easy - you can find out what the topic War on Women is all about.

If I stated the World was Round and did not provide evidence I suppose you would say "Well that's a lie unless you provide proof".

Like i said - at least try a little bit - don't be a Knowledge Welfare Queen and expect everyone to do the work and spoon feed you the information...

He is right Rob. You threw out your opinion on Catholics and clearly have no facts. You claimed a wave of anti-female laws but couldnt even name one... And, pretending you dont care isnt going to cut it. You care deeply or you would simply go away.

"If I stated the World was Round and did not provide evidence I suppose you would say "Well that's a lie unless you provide proof".

I can google world is round and find millions of pictures proving you are correct. I can google "wave of anti-female laws" and find nothing. I can appreciate you trying to save face but it is time to give it up.

That made me spit out my coffee.

How do you know they are changing their names? What was his name prior?

Susan - clearly these folks have to resort to silly personal questions, arguments, etc... as a result of not having the ability to argue on the topic - its an old trick and really sad to see happening - I guess its just more adults who were children left behind...

Seriously talking about kids being embarrassed, etc...

And then this person uses "Bro Gotta Go" and thinks its necessary and anyone cares on how he or she came up with the name...

I think some folks here take this all FAR to seriously and think that they are really "making a difference" instead of just having some fun...

Click on someone's profile name and you can see when they created their profile. After a while, you can see a pattern in writing styles. Either someone is changing their name frequently, or many people are joining and playing the same game. Do I know for sure? Nope, but I will do my best going forward to ignore them. This is why I appreciate when individuals keep it civil - I am interested in the discussion, not those that use this forum for some silly ego boost that comes from insulting others for fun....that's for junior high.

Rob - Leave Susan out of this. You can pretend all you want, but you have nothing in common with her. You have no right to complain about anyone on here. You make up crap with no facts then call others on the same game? When confronted you either avoid the question or dont answer the reply then call others children? Grab a dictionary and look up the word hypocrite - that is your picture.

Angry? Whose angry - this is all about having some fun..

Don't tell me you take this stuff seriously or personally...

As for what I do for a living - heck I could say I'm a college prof, a race car driver, a Conservative Politician who posts against Far Right talking points to help hone my arguments, and you would have no way to confirm or deny what I say so really what's the point - but alas, no I am not a college professor - but of course you have no way to verify that so it really is a silly question you posed - at least I hope you realized how ridiculous that type of question is on an anonymous blog...

For all we know you could a Liberal Operative working for Keith Ellison who posts as a Faux-Conservative in order to try out various lines of attack to get feedback for possible talking points, you could be some old retired dude who is living off of Social Security, enjoying the fruits of Medicare and whining about those horrible liberals that made those programs possible...

"For all we know you could a Liberal Operative working for Keith Ellison who posts as a Faux-Conservative in order to try out various lines of attack to get feedback for possible talking points," That is so far fetched that I actually believe this is you Rob. It would explain your over the top stupidity.

Orono

Where is your proof? Please post all links, details and citations for your argument :)

So, do you get paid by Keith Ellison?

Here is some feedback for him. Whomever operates his twitter feed should seriously get a dictionary and spell check.

Nope - my paycheck does not come from Keith Ellison....

Does your paycheck come from a group that is related to Keith Ellison at all?

LOL - yeah - but its fun to play with them - they get so wrapped up and serious about all of this ;)

Yeah, I know, and I remember what you told me recently.

I agree with you David, and only bothered to respond because I believe this to be the same person (or someone with similar motives) attacking for no other reason than sport - they have no interest in discussing the topic. Thanks for the reminder.

Have you ever read the Star Tribune? The letters to the editor are just like this. The Strib plays dumb by stating that the opinions are expressed by our readers... Yet, the editor is the one deciding which letter gets posted. And people wonder why newspapers have died out.

I would ban people who can't do simple research and demand that others do it for them.... Jeez - get off the cross someone else needs the wood....

Where would you go then Rob? You essentially are banning yourself.

Here is the map of the USA so you can where everyone falls...

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/bush_tax_cuts_state_large_r1.png

Regarding letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire .....

"It's pretty dramatic...This is the biggest tax increase that would happen since World War II," said Will McBride, chief economist at the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation. "I can't think of anyone who's really seriously thinking we should go through this. It would almost certainly result in another recession."

Bro.... So I assume if someone posts information that you will actually go read it and then comment on the specifics of that or do you want to just say its not a site that you like so it is a moot point?

I would like to call upon Patch to institute a new policy - this new policy would require the following:

If an individual receives information that individual will have to review the information and provide specific details in their reply relating back to that information to prove that the information was read and understood along with at least six specific points (or all points if there are fewer than six) that they agree and-or disagree with..

Example
---------------
David Frum has posted a follow-up that the charge was inaccurate and that Zakaria did not commit plagiarism...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/14/plagiarism.html

To Which Bro replied
------------------------------
Sorry rob - you are wrong again. Doesn't it suck to be always wrong and look like a freaking fool? The headline posted below is from your bible - the Huffington Post.
Fareed Zakaria's Washington Post Column Will Not Run Amidst Mounting Plagiarism Allegations.

>>> Did you read the information I provided the link to? If not, why not? If you did, then please tell us all where David Frum is inaccurate?

Rob, I read the story. The author has only proven 1 of the MANY claims against the guy false. What else ya got?

Rob - Please try and pay attention.

You said:
"it would be a very interesting race between Obama and that former Governor and I could be swayed either way according to what they said."

For whatever reason you want people to believe you could have actually considered Romney.

Now review every other post berating the republican party (too numerous to cut and paste)

Being Romney is and always has been a Republican. Being Romney was the "conservative" candidate when he ran against McCain in 2008. Being your dislike for anything GOP.

I asked why you pretend to be middle of the road guy. Someone like Susan can be considered middle of the road. You are not and never have been.

So do you just lie for the fun of it?

Nope - I disagree... You and Orono keep posting about getting information fed to you - someone does that and you won't even read it and respond specifically do it?

Given that, why would anyone want to spend any time abiding by your made up rules since we see no evidence that you will even read the information...

Did you read the link I provided regarding Zakaria or not?

If you did not - is it simply because you don't like the site - or because you don't like David Frum?

If either is the case - then you will also need to include a full list of sites that you will deem "sufficient" so that no one wastes their time posting a link or details if you simply refuse to review them out of hand based on some criteria you deem applicable...

Otherwise, what specifically do you disagree with Frum on?

Why won't you answer these questions and you keep trying to change the topic?

Rob - when complaining about someone NOT reading your link, try to have actually read the link correctly.

Your turn Rob - where are the waves of anti-female laws? Hypocrite.

Rob, stop trying so hard to save face. It isnt working. I fully expect your next post to simply state "I know you are but what am I?"

Oh Orono - give it a rest - clearly you have no clue what the "War on Women" is - you apparently don't watch any news outlet including Foxnews which has covered it nor do you apparently keep up on current events...

But of course if you want a little peek - ( no pun intended ) - you may want to ask Gov Bob "Vaginal Probe" McDonnell how it is that he want to from running hard to be a VP pick and being in what many considered to be "the running" to being a no show and off the field when it came time for the final selection and a man who will never, ever be a viable Presidential nominee....

Or you may want to talk to some folks about cutting off funding for Planned Parenthood (funny that only the most Right Wing Conservatives think that they get to pick where their tax dollars can go)...

Or state mandated ultrasounds prior to an abortion when there is no medical necessity for such a procedure...

Or abortion waiting periods - jeez - its like Conservatives want the government out of everything but a woman's vagina.

Oh man - the list just goes and and on but there is a quick peek - I would say enjoy the view but you may not swing that way - who knows... (bad taste? LOL)....

But no doubt you will proclaim that those aren't anti-women at all - and I can't wait for your reasoning....

Deep stuff rob, deep stuff. And you wonder why the liberal movement is going down the toilet.

Its too bad Biden is a democrat. Clearly he is the definition of intelligent and rational thinking. Excuse me while I adjust all these chains around my neck that the republicans have slapped on me.

"Republicans" are in a tight space between the people like Karl Rove who realize what they have to do to win and to maintain their long term viable at the national level, and many of the grassroots who simply want to go as far to the Right as possible and seriously believe that everyone else will just view them as being perfectly reasonable.

Romney picked Ryan to shore up the Republican Base Grassroots who clearly do not trust Romney.

It would be great to see the Romney \ Ryan ticket run on what the further Right Republicans want such as the privatization of Medicare, etc... and I truly hope that the Romney \ Ryan ticket runs on the Ryan agenda which is truly what the Far Right says that they want...

Then, the American people will have a national election to voice their opinion of the Far Right view vs Obama's view (they would say Far Left).

But I suspect that Romney \ Ryan will start retreating from Ryan's plan as the poll numbers come out in a few weeks...

Of course I read the stories about Zakara admissions when this whole thing started - and I found them again with a simple search - so yes, I do know how to fish :)

Are you so afraid to read a simple article that shows some evidence that perhaps Zakaria was too quick to respond?

And if you actually did your own research instead of asking anonymous people to do the research for you - you may have found this little update from the Washington Post that the Frum article cites:

"The Washington Post has issued a change to its correction as of 5:04 PM (the link to the Post is a charge site - here is the excerpt that Frum published - you'll have to pay if you want to see the full article)."

Correction: This article incorrectly states that in his 2008 book, “The Post-American World,” Fareed Zakaria failed to cite the source of a quotation taken from another book. In fact, Zakaria did credit the other work, by Clyde V. Prestowitz. Endnotes crediting Prestowitz were contained in hardcover and paperback editions of Zakaria’s book. The Post should have examined copies of the books and should not have published the article. We regret the error and apologize to Fareed Zakaria.

Here is the pay site if you are interested in it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/more-questions-raised-about-fareed-zakarias-work/2012/08/13/0939fa48-e598-11e1-8741-940e3f6dbf48_story.html?hpid=z4

I'll fight you for her...

Hahaha, I would be happy to have you both 'educate' me on why I (or anyone else) should believe the Conservative ways are the best way.

Susan, nope nope nope, not going to fall for that - you are testing me ;-)

Actually, no I wasn't. To make a long story short (explained above), I have learned some things here....well, at least I've read things here that have made me do further investigation.

Maybe they're not complaining about losing the copays for colonoscopies or physicals but that's just because they don't understand that they're paying for it in their premiums whether they use it or not. This whole mind game of claiming it's free is no more than a lie.

http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/SearchCatholicColleges/CatholicUniversityofAmerica/tabid/151/ctl/Details/mid/977/ItemID/561/Default.aspx

"For example, University of San Francisco’s (USF) two health insurance plans for employees both provide for abortion, sterilization and contraception. According to the university, one of the plans cannot be altered because the contract is not yet up for negotiation. The USF Faculty Association contested a proposed change by the university to the other health insurance plan, citing a contractual breach."

"Other Catholic institutions of higher education, according to the investigation, whose health insurance plans conflict to varying degrees with Catholic moral teachings include: the University of Scranton, Georgetown University, DePaul University and Christian Brothers University."

"And why should an employer be able to dictate according to their religious freedom? What about the employees religious freedom?"
First off, you are wrong. Second, WOW. you sound just like the uneducated and spoiled occupy idiots. Third, the religious freedom of the employee is exercised when the the employee decides to accept the offer of employment. If you dont like the religious aspects of the company than work somewhere else or start your own damn company.

Since you clearly are NOT a business owner, let me catch you up. In a private business, the business owner is the boss. I have a North Dakota plant that has hired a large population of Muslims on the 2nd shift. We need the workers so we need to negoiate. They are allowed to take an early lunch (or late lunch depending on the time of year) at sundown. If they want any "religious" holidays that are not already granted, they take vacation. We put up a christmas tree every year. The non christians understand this and have to accept it. If they are offended, they are allowed to quit at anytime.

@ Dee- The employee is free to choose wherever they would like to be employed. Having a job is not a religious freedom issue. If the benefits package doesn't meet their needs, they can go elsewhere. For those who would like to seek to understand the issue, please see http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/conscience-protection/upload/Cardinal-DiNardo-s-August-2012-Letter-to-Congress-Regarding-Conscience-Protection.pdf

Please keep in mind that you don't have to agree with the Catholic point of view in order to understand that they are entitled to their point of view. Anyone of any faith should be alarmed by this violation of the First Amendment. Who will be next? There are devout business owners who have historically offered health insurance to their employees that does not collide with their fundamental beliefs, as an exercise of their beliefs. The penalty for violation of the HHS mandate is substantial and will effectively cause the religious-based organizations to fold. Do we really want Catholic hospitals to close? Catholic Charities? The Dorothy Day Center? Mary's Place? I do have a hunch who might want Catholic self-insurers to fold, maybe perhaps those interested in a single-payer system?

And as for the Catholic Church, I will say that if the Catholic Church had spent as much time, energy and effort dealing with the Pedophiles in their Priesthood as they have yelling about Contraception, well, there would be a lot fewer people on this planet who would be suing the heck out of the Catholic Church...

Here is where you are wrong.
First off try a simple search of georgetown.
http://studentaffairs.georgetown.edu/insurance/faqs.html

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/feb/10/health-care-law-catholics-birth-control/

According to the teachings of the Catholic Church, any contraceptive violates moral law. In 1968, Pope Paul VI spelled it out. Any act specifically intended to prevent getting pregnant — other than timing sex for the infertile part of a woman’s cycle — is unlawful, he wrote. Not only that, it was "an evil thing," he said, to make it easy to break moral law.

That puts Catholic organizations in a tough spot. If contraceptives must be offered without a co-pay, that means the cost is spread among employers and all insured employees whether they use the coverage or not, bishops argue. Catholics would end up paying for birth control, breaking moral law.

ThinkProgress.com is NOT a reliable or factual correct website. It only feeds you crap and makes you look like a fool.

@ Rob, you are very well-versed on your talking points. Just warning you- when you re-use tired, lazy intellect you lose the attention of anyone who has any smarts. It's a very over-used tactic by those who don't have anything useful to say, to attempt to inflict harm when they've have run out of ideas. I personally am done with you based on your comment regarding priests.

"And as for the Catholic Church, I will say that if the Catholic Church had spent as much time, energy and effort dealing with the Pedophiles in their Priesthood as they have yelling about Contraception, well, there would be a lot fewer people on this planet who would be suing the heck out of the Catholic Church..." Wow, Rob. I didnt think you could make your comments any more stupid. You have proven me wrong.

Although, your complete lack of respect for religion does answer a lot of questions. Why are liberals always the ones who are godless?

"Third, the religious freedom of the employee is exercised when the the employee decides to accept the offer of employment. " .... really? And since when do employers who are not catholic churches lay out their religious beliefs to prospective employees? We aren't just talking about catholic institutions or birth control here. Any employer could deny coverage based on their religious views. You might be singing a different tune if you were denied coverage of needed blood transfusions based on your employers religious views. This entire viewpoint of you can just get another job is a red herring.

I have been in this type of debate before. Doesn't this come down to who the health insurance belongs to, the employer, who purchases it, or the employee, who utilizes it and may also be paying part of the premium?

Some would say that since the employer purchases it and offers it as part of an employment package, it is theirs and their choice to offer what they want. However, on the other side, when an employee leaves the job, s/he is able to take certain parts of their employee package with them, such as 401K and COBRA, so this means that it is indeed the employee's policy and therefore should not be bound by the employer's beliefs.

Wow - getting attacked for calling out Pedophile Catholic Priests - now I can see how the Catholic Church was able to sweep child rape in their church under the carpet for so long...

>>> Orono: Although, your complete lack of respect for religion does answer a lot of questions. Why are liberals always the ones who are godless?

Rob>>> You mean to tell me you actually respect a religion that allowed Pedophile Priests to rape children for a very long time and they actually moved those Pedophile's around when they found out about it? And then when the victims came forward that same Catholic Church attacked the victims....

You mean to tell me you respect that type of Church?

>>> DIY in Orono I personally am done with you based on your comment regarding priests.

Rob>>>> You are done with me for calling out Pedophile Priests in the Catholic Church?

It is truly eye opening to see people actually condemning someone for reminding folks that the same church who is up in arms over contraception let Pedophile Priests rape little children and then they attacked those victims when they came forward and it wasn't until many lawsuits started flying and the evidence become overwhelming that the big time checks started being written by the Catholic Church.

Letting people stick up for Pedophiles and the Church that allowed their acts is truly a staggering thing to see on Patch.

I have kept quiet on this issue as people are very sensitive about their religious beliefs, but being as rob seems to be out here on his own, I would like to add the following...

First, I was baptized and raised Catholic. For reasons I will not disclose at this time, I no longer consider myself a Catholic...now that that is out of the way... I really do see the irony in the statements here. Even though this is two very separate issues, rob seems to have a good point. I tread lightly on this because I believe that everyone in this country should be able to practice their religion as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else....well, I guess that says it right there.

The sad thing is that the majority of priests are good men, doing good things, for the right reasons. It is sad that they seem to have been tarnished in this as well. I agree, that along with those priests who molested children, those who covered it up did a horrific thing that will hurt the church for many years to come. The indignation over paying for insurance to cover employee's birth control while still in the shadow of the molestations and cover up, does seem wrong somehow.

I have seen people post comments regarding this issue that were rude and insensitive but I don't think rob did that, he did not use derogatory words or language, he only made a point that was fitting in the discussion.

Susan, do you not feel rude, insensitive, derogatory words or language is appropriate when talking about the largest most disgusting criminal organization in the world, a hierarchy that is truly rotten to the core for allowing these atrocities to continue unchecked for decades and maybe even centuries? The United States has bombed and obliterated countries for less than what the catholic church has committed against society.

Randy, I think you might know me a little better than that by now. What I wish you would consider is the priests, nuns, cardinals, etc. that do right by their faith, and more importantly those they help and serve.

Why must a person denigrate an entire belief system because of what a minority has done. Don't get me wrong, I am appalled at how those in power handled the situation, but there are many, many people who live and love this religion, and to denounce an entire belief system because of the minority that have done it so wrong is not a fair or just assessment.

The issue can, and should be discussed, but not in a manner that starts with a tone of all inclusive disdain.

Susan, the catholic church has built its policies around bilking money from its followers (purgatory, much?) from the beginning and continued to beg for more money with the full intention of paying off those very children who were molested. That's a long list of accomplices, for those keeping track. The catholic corruption is so deep that unfortunately you cannot separate the two. The many church members, priests and other supporters with undoubtedly good intentions must be considered guilty by association so long as they continue to abide by the letter of the law set forth by the church hierarchy. The laypeople should not just sit back and wait for God to hold their leadership accountable. As a former catholic, perhaps you already have.

Randy, while I appreciate your position, I personally don't want to go much deeper into this debate. I will say that I left the church long before the scandal became so public and I do not feel that all Catholics are guilty by association. People hold different religious beliefs for different reasons, most all of which are personal. I don't feel it is my right or responsibility to dictate or preach to anyone about how they should believe, or what faith is right or wrong.

Rob, now you are just pissing me off. How dare you describe my statements as 'sticking up for pedophiles'. Totally inappropriate. I'm out............... have fun listening to your frothy self.

Come on Dee, you seriously need to go out and actually get a real job first before presenting these stupid arguments. If I offer you a job, you are presented with a huge stack of benefit information. Now here is the hard part (apparently) you are required to READ the information. If your needs are not being met, you ask or negoiate prior to accepting the position or move on to a different better suited employer.

Rob/Randy Thanks for reminding everyone how "liberal logic" works.

No one will deny that a handful of priests committed serious crimes. However, applying your godless hate on the entire catholic church is analogous to assuming every liberal wants to have sex with 17 year old boys simply because 1 liberal democrat from Duluth was caught doing it. The size of the catholic church far exceeds your little marginalized world.

The both of you are protesting a bit too much. If you need to share something, we are all listening.

Try hundreds, Orono. I'd appreciate your analogy more if the rest of the legislature and Governor knew about said Duluth liberal DFLer and picked him up, paid his tab and then dropped him off the next rest stop to meet someone else from Craigslist. How much blood money have you paid into the catholic coffers to silence all those innocent victims to ensure the abuse continued? These atrocities occurred with the knowledge of and virtually no sanctions from the church hierarchy. To pretend this wasn't widespread is ignoring the facts.

Hundreds? Show me your source.

Still, hundreds into millions and millions of Catholics worldwide is still a fraction. I am not catholic but I am a Christian and definitely believe in god.

Obviously you were a victim. Your hatred is over the top.

Oh Bro, given the amount of money flowing into Super Pac's I think all sides will have enough creativity money and supports so that all of the points you mentioned will be made available to distract the people from the real issues so that those in power (elected and non-elected) can continue doing what they will do without having to worry about us little people getting in their way.

Seriously Rob, you try way to hard to look smart. It doesnt work.

Actually - I LOOK good, I THINK smart and am one of the MOST incredibly humble people you will ever encounter.

Don't hate the playa - hate the game!

p.s. - lighten up already this is all for fun...

Pretending to look smart is something you do for fun? This is me pretending I believe you.

Dang so our "Bromance" is already over?

But that's ok - I don't do well with people who expect me to do all the work in a relationship and with folks who complain even when I provide them the information they requested and then refuse to even simply read it.

Good Luck Bro!

Why cant the next scandal just be the next time Joe Biden opens his mouth?

Funny ABSG, are you that clever, or where did you see this? I am sure it could be done for Romney too, I am just too busy today. Also, thanks for the CNBC link...more homework for this weekend. :-)

No, I did see it and copied it - thought it was and TRUE! Besides, I don't have this much time on my hands :-) I am not sure what you mean this could be done for Romney too ? ;-) LOL

ABSG, It wasn't meant to be a slam on you, only that it's a clever analogy and someone could do this sort of thing for other policies as well.

David, while I appreciate your frustration and possible boredom, I think this is why Patch has these comment sections - people leave serious comments for the first few days, and then it usually turns into an ongoing conversation, which can include some silly banter. I'm not quite sure why it upsets you when you can just ignore the thread, if you prefer.

I know you didn't Susan ... I was being sarcastic. Never comes across well in emails / posts - LOL - have a good day / weekend!

Yeah, I saw the broken smiley face after I posted. U2!

See ya David.

The bigger issue is that he lied about it. Why did he lie about using stimulus funds?

And if he didn't believe the stimulus money would work, why did he request and use it to create jobs?

Edward, please stop pretending you and your moral compass actually care about a politician lying. Youre #1 concern is making sure your neighbor doesnt get more than you. Pretending that Ryan lied and that it is somehow a big deal, is complete BS. Al Franken voted to extend the Bush tax cuts after telling everyone how against it he was. Obama has lied numerous times.

From the link you provided:
“After having these letters called to my attention I checked into them, and they were treated as constituent service requests in the same way matters involving Social Security or Veterans Affairs are handled. This is why I didn’t recall the letters earlier. But they should have been handled differently, and I take responsibility for that. Regardless, it’s clear that the Obama stimulus did nothing to stimulate the economy, and now the President is asking to do it all over again.’”

And you're doing it again; he says it did "nothing to stimulate the economy", you say it created jobs. Combining two sentence does not necesarily make them both true.

Is there a difference between lying and mis-speaking?

Regardless of our motives, or past actions. The truth has to be top priority. It must be pursued when lost, and defended when found. Lies, like other sins, require repair. They never justify more lies.

No. Disparaging the value of the entrepreneur and average citizen - the guts, tenacity, intelligence, creativity and drive to create wealth - is what the Democrat party is based on.

They say it out loud, too. See: http://mendotaheights.patch.com/blog_posts/thank-you-mr-president.

Remember - "You didn't buld that".

Oh they recognize the worth of government spending - they take the money for their district and then lie about taking it...

Donald wrote: "Disparaging the value of the entrepreneur and average citizen - the guts, tenacity, intelligence, creativity and drive to create wealth - is what the Democrat party is based on." Are you serious with this line of over-generalized thinking?

Here are the President's remarks up to the line that had all the Conservatives in a huff:

"If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think “well, it must be because I was just so smart”. There are a lot of smart people out there. “It must be because I worked harder than anybody else”. Let me tell you something, there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the way gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allows you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges and if you got a business, you didn’t build that, somebody else made that happen."

Now I would say one of two things happened here...if you listen to the speech WITHOUT BIAS, you can hear that he is either talking about the roads and bridges, or simply left out the word "helped" make that happen. Taking something out of context, which after reading your blog, leads me to believe you are, is part of the problem with politics - both sides, and as you like to say, is NOT helpful!

Nice spin, but I don't buy it. I don't think many do.

Only Obama's dedicated partisans can listen to him and not hear his constant themes: "tax the rich", "spread the wealth around", "blame big business", etc. These are not gaffes. They are the constant drumbeat of his rhetoric. Quibbling about the meaning of this particular phrase "you didn't built that" is desperate, or silly.

One might question who is doing the spinning.

I hear the themes, on both sides. I see the rhetoric for what it is, on both sides. Do you?

"Quibbling about the meaning of this particular phrase "you didn't built that" is desperate, or silly." Really? Who wrote the blog about it? If this were truly a story, everyone would still be talking about it, but they are not, except someone who links a Paul Ryan story to a blog he wrote about Obama disparaging the value of the entrepreneur.

Donald, when Mitt Romney said "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me", were we to take him at his word, or should we consider what he said before that specific statement, when considering his position on the subject?

Just to be sure you catch this, I will post it on your blog as well.

Susan - Obama doesn't talk off the cuff. He delivered the speech as writen. He meant what he said. The key sentence to me is "you didn't build that" his tone his forceful delivery was exactly the way he wanted it.

Also, ask why he would even want to say it. he wanted to remind people that he feels a bigger government is important and beneficial. He ended up screwing himself saying it. His speech will live on for a very long time.

Susan - romneys quote of I don't care about the poor is more damaging. I personally see nothing wrong with his boss quote. It at least is true.

Thanks, Orono, but I must respectfully disagree. Donald linked the speech in his blog so I listened again only yesterday. I didn't hear that forceful delivery that you speak of. I heard a man that seemed to be speaking a little more freely than normal, and responding to a crowd.

I pointed this out here because this is the exact type of rhetoric that I deplore in politics. Donald is one of the people that I referenced a few days ago. He is passionate about his views and seems to be an honest man, but I wish he would not have stooped to this level.

Whether Obama made a stupid gaffe, or whether he was talking about the roads and bridges (when you listen, it does sound like that), it is just silly to pick out one line and use it by itself...just as I did with the Romney quote.

Romney's quote was "I'm not concerned about the very poor". Thanks for reminding me. The left could (and did) use this line to get all worked up and claim that Republicans hate the poor. But I heard what he said before and after this line and considered the entire statement instead of pulling out the one line and going on a rant about how all the republicans hate poor people.

When your sources are the comment section of another blog I'm not impressed. Broad generalizations and slanted statements don't do it either. Any sentence that starts with "Rumor has it..." is usually not worth re-typing.
It's fine if you don't like the guy, he's a politician and has put himself out there for attacks. Seems like if he's the total con man you claim it'd be pretty simple to go after him without making things up. http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecoveryData/Pages/statesummary.aspx?StateCode=WI

Obama's big problem was facing an obstructionist Congress. Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader declared early on that, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." You read that right: Making Obama look bad trumped everything -- jobs, fixing the economy, building a stronger middle class. None of that mattered because job #1 for McConnell & Co. was making sure Obama admin couldn't make progress on issues so that he can't be re-elected.

Progressives need to get out and vote.

Yes, Republicans clearly had a single agenda - doing everything they could to undermine the President of the United States in order to try and win in 2012.

They have outright lied - take Paul Ryan - he said the stimulus was horrible and yet he applied for and took stimulus money and then lied about taking it - and then finally told the truth when he was confronted with evidence...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/presented-with-letters-ryan-admits-requesting-stimulus-cash/

With acorn gone how will progressives make up all their made up votes?

Edward, the democrats were first with the "one term only" idea. After Bush beat Gore that was the mantra from your beloved party.

Sorry Edward, Obama's big problem is that he promised everything to everybody in order to get elected. The first two years of his presidency were an absolute waste of a power play position and you cannot blame anybody for that besides the democrats.

Get off my side dumbarse.

True fiscal conservatives cannot get elected simply because the majority of voters want at least the pretense that they're getting something for their vote. Obama promised everything to everybody, delivered on almost nothing, and will do the same thing this time, all because the majority wants to believe that somebody else will pay.

Did you come up with those talking points all by yourself - good little liberal, keep following orders.

You mean the "you'll have to pass the bill to find out what's in it" health care plan? If you want to take that as an accomplishment go for it. At best it is a health insurance reform plan that does virtually nothing to reform health care. Granted, ramming it through congress against the wishes of the majority of the american people is an accomplishment of sorts.
That you're willing to accept so little from your guy is the reason the rest are so disgusted.

"You mean the "you'll have to pass the bill to find out what's in it" health care plan?"

Read the bill that was passed to find out what's in it. It's all there if you can read.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/content-detail.html

Click on "text" or PDF format to read it.

Romney says he'll repeal it, but I have yet to see the plan he'd replace it with . . . perhaps you could post a link to it so we can do a compare/contrast analysis.

I hear this a lot about health care "reform". Obamacare is bad but "what do you replace it with"?

Thomas Sowell said it best:

"You have cancer, and you have it removed. What do you replace it with?"

"You have cancer, and you have it removed. What do you replace it with?"

This is a bad analogy. You assume that the patient is well after the cancer is "cured". The truth about our healthcare system (if you remove the reform) is that it is broken . . . millions don't have affordable access and most bankruptcies stem from healthcare related expenses.

Donald, you and I have gone round and round on this, but I think we both know that there are some terrible problems in our health care system AND health insurance system. Implying that we don't need anything is about the same as saying that we should leave things as they are....which isn't working.

Relying on a free market for health care will not work either as consumers are indeed "captive" consumers. They have no choice, as eventually everyone needs health care, whether they can afford it or not.

To those who believe that governments can "fix" industries by taking control of them, as the PPACA does with health care, government is "the solution". To those of us who know their history, and recognize the obvious that health care in the US is better than anywhere else in the world, and at any point in history, government is the *problem*, and reducing government interference and market distortions is part of the solution.

You may have heard about an election coming up this November. That election will turn partly on whether we will try to solve problems by asserting federal control over people, or revive the freedom and independence of the American citizen by pushing back the nanny state.

Well, since charity does not keep up with need, and one illness or tragedy can devastate a family financially, I approve of a government that will help take care of it's citizens that may live in poverty, be sick, and/or elderly, until they are once again able to do it for themselves. You call it 'nanny', I call it humane.

Susan, I find your reasoning for a pro-democrat stance, interesting. Are you basing the fabulous job the government currently does in taking care of the less fortunate as your reasoning to continue it?

Just for fun, lets put together a list of what services the government actually does do well. Dont include military or police and fire. They are never going anywhere.

Orono, why can't we use the military, the police, or the fire departments as examples? Are you acknowledging that this is done well, or saying that it isn't?

Look, I don't believe that either side has all the right answers. I do think there should be a safety net (not what we currently have) because even Donald knows that charity will never keep up with true need. I believe in this because I have seen it work as it should, (to use Joe's line) a hand up, and a boot to get motivated. There are some people that are alone in this world, or who don't have a family support system. Tragedies can befall anyone, and if you don't have enough savings for...well, for as long as you need to survive, I find it a comfort to know that there is help if needed.

Can our government do this efficiently? Yes, they can. Do they now? Hell no!

That's pretty sharp there Edward, you're actually quite a funny guy. I actually have read a couple of hundred pages of that mess.If you really think it's all there you're neck deep in the Kool-Aid. As in everything, the details are what counts. Here's a real typical line:
Guidelines.--The Secretary, in consultation with experts
in health care quality and stakeholders, shall develop
guidelines concerning the matters described in paragraph (1).
Maybe that spells it out for you, but I'm not psychic and I'd really like to know where my money is going and what I'm going to get for it.

Edward would back the idea that a horse should be king if the democratic party endorsed it. Edward has a history of not thinking on his own.

Susan, I never ever ever just blindly agree with somebody or say "I agree with everything you said." It sound disingenuous and I would come across as shallow in saying so. But in this case, I do agree with your prospective and many of the points you make.

No problerm being honest here. While I'd never say "all", I do believe that the guiding principle for most of the liberals/progressives/democrat politicians is the redistribution of wealth. Progressive tax rates, safety nets, social programs, and most of their agenda involve the granting of benefits to those who cannot pay for them. If you take that as a slam against takers/losers/thieves that shows more of where your mind is than mine.
I have nothing against safety nets, and the people that need them have my sympathy as well as my tax money because it really could happen to any of us. What does not have my sympathy is the class warfare silliness espoused by Obama, Dayton, and their ilk. Not only are they attempting to divide us when we should be together, but they're using my tax money to do it and calling me names to boot. The question to ask is who benefits when they exagerate our differences and minimalize our points of agreement.

I do agree with some of what you say, Joe, but would add that it is both sides who "exagerate our differences and minimalize our points of agreement". The leaders of our parties do this, the media surely does this, and even people who tout the talking points without balancing it with the entire story.

Its time tested rhetoric that lets plenty of "Conservatives" believe that they are rugged individualists who owe no one including society for anything that they have... Of course this is silly but plenty actually believe it.

Remember how Conservatives have been yelling for a few years not that government spending doesn't create jobs?

Let's forget about the irony that plenty of those Conservatives are politicians who have their job because of the government and draw a paycheck because of government spending...

Now that Defense Spending cuts are looming what are plenty of these Conservatives now yelling about?

Defense Budget Cuts will be responsible for tens of thousands of jobs...

http://www.nam.org/Communications/Articles/2012/07/Cuts-to-Defense-Spending-Would-Cost-34200-Jobs-in-North-Carolina.aspx

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/08/06/v-print/160357/republicans-want-to-rewrite-law.html

Last time I checked the Defense Department received its money from... "Government Spending"...

So if Government Spending cannot create jobs - how can a lack of Government Spending cost jobs?

We have a DOD - Department of Defense in this country, not a DOPTW - Department of Policing the World. Of-course policing parts of the world are important to our defense, but not at the levels we are currently maintaining. It's time for us to consider some real cuts here.

And rob, that is a great point!

Well Rob, a lot of us feel that the federal government is there for the national defense and a very few other duties crucial to our country, kind of like it's spelled out in the constitution. I pay my taxes and fees and licenses because I choose to be a part of this society and there are benefits to us as a whole to work together. Do I owe something for that? Sure I do, as does every one of us, and I pay every penny asked of me.

On the other hand, I don't "owe" you or Obama jack for your pet social programs.

A certain amount of spending for defense is exactly what the federal government is supposed to do, although nation building is not in my definition of national defense. Every elected official is also supposed to to what's best for their electorate. Checks and balances, enlightened self interest and all that 5th grade political science stuff. Seems pretty simple so far. It only gets complicated when you want government to do more.
Our obvious disagreement is that I believe that people can and should be responsible for themselves and to themselves for the most part and not need your benvolent big brother style "help" to live our lives.
A fundamental disagreement on philosophy to be sure, but the financial realities are on my side.

I'm jumping in here, Joe, but I have a question about this statement: "I believe that people can and should be responsible for themselves and to themselves for the most part and not need your benvolent big brother style "help" to live our lives."

When you say people, do you also mean business? I'm not trying to trap you here, so I will say that the reason I ask is because business (BP, wall street, health insurance companies) can not be trusted to " be responsible for themselves". And if you mean just people, what do we do with people that enter ERs for health care, or that want to collect welfare instead of getting a job? When people and businesses are NOT responsible, and can cost the honest tax paying, law abiding citizen money, how can we stop them from taking advantage of us?

Everyone has an agenda Susan. The party you choose supports that agenda. Edward is Envious, rob works for Ellison, I pay wat too much in taxes and hate supporting my loser sister. I imagine you want to protect abortion or you're a single mom and worried about support.

Susan, If a business can't make it and it's not a matter of national security then they should go under, simple as that.
Since we're not going to let people starve or die we need to allow failure to be painful. Consequences are why we stop reaching for that hot frying pan. For years I worked around subsidized properties in the metro and I saw real despair. In the 80's and 90's I listened to the politicians debate work requirements for welfare. When it did pass I listened to the bleeding hearts scream about cruelty to "those poor people". For the next three years I watched "those poor people" start with crappy jobs just like the rest of us and develop self confidence and good work habits. I got to watch them leave subsidized housing and I got to see the change in the way their kids looked at them. They needed a hand to start out and they needed a boot to fulfill their potential.
I am disgusted with the smug, self-rightous folk who try to keep "those poor people" down while claiming to care. If they were truly concerned they'd help them succeed.
And yes, those who don't have the ability to succeed on their own should get help.

Government does not, and cannot do "charity". It cannot "help". It redistributes taxpayer money to the politically favored, according to law. This is why welfare is destructive. It is never "earned", because a recipient has a right to it under law.

Private charity can "help" and be "compassionate", Private charity can one make fine distinctions and detect a con. Private charity can withhold help that does not help, and add extra help when it seems wise. With private, person-to-person charity, the recipient can earn self respect, and self esteem because it's voluntary.

Great quote from FDR - 1935 state of the union speech:
"A large proportion of these unemployed and their dependents have been forced on the relief rolls. The burden on the Federal Government has grown with great rapidity. We have here a human as well as an economic problem. When humane considerations are concerned, Americans give them precedence. The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole our relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of a sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers.

The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief."

Joe, when asking about business and responsibility I meant regulation - like BP. They didn't regulate themselves and ended up hurting, even killing people and hurting the gulf. I agree with you on bailouts...enough already! But this needs to include our financial system as well.

Our DOD needs to be just that, a Department of DEFENSE. There is no reason that we need to spend (almost) as much on our military power as every other country in the world combined.

I am not sure what you mean when saying: "Since we're not going to let people starve or die we need to allow failure to be painful" Does this mean you agree with a safety net, or that you want those people to face consequences?

I agree with consequences, business and personal, but the government must ensure that the rest of us do not suffer when people and businesses are NOT responsible. I also agree strongly with workfare (although my definition may be a little different than the standard definition) instead of welfare.

Orono, abortion is a legal option for women, and should continue to be so, so I guess protect is the correct word, but I am not "pro" abortion. I feel that is a horrible thing that some pro-life people like to imply.

I am not looking for, or needing any assistance. This is not why I support a (reformed) safety net, I do so because it is the humane and right thing to do. Joe speaks to how this can work..." I got to watch them leave subsidized housing and I got to see the change in the way their kids looked at them. They needed a hand to start out and they needed a boot to fulfill their potential." I think the last sentence says it all.

Smokin' Joe - I am not disagreeing at all the Defense is part of the Constitution and is part of what the Federal Government should do, however, do we spend more than the next 14 countries spend all together and about 20% of all federal spending on it?

We have programs that even the military says can be cut, scaled back or delayed to save money but politicians refuse and do we need to be footing the bill to protect other countries, particularly plenty of wealthy countries where they use the money saved to invest in their infrastructure to better compete against us?

I believe that we need to have a strong defense, however, it is seen by far too many politicians as essentially a Public Works Program under the guise of "national security".

I also pay taxes because like you I choose to be a part of the society and we both I believe see benefits from being part of a society, however, let us be honest everyone has their "pet" government spending that they like and that someone else would say "we can cut that" - but each individual doesn't get to pick and choose where their tax dollars go so we call end up funding some things that we support and some we don't support.

Everyone will have to take a cut eventually and folks will have to pay more to get us out the deficit but it won't happen until it gets a lot worse.

Susan, businesses ought to be regulated on the most local level appropriate. Environmental concerns ought to be regulated by whomever they pay property tax to, financial by their state tax department, etc. Given a national framework of rules, the people who are affected should be the watchdogs.
A safety net should be just like in the circus, keeps you from dying when you fall, but not a place to stay. If you can work, you should be encouraged to work.
For those who can't work? In the good old days before the bleeding hearts ruled the world we had county farms where those of us without the skills to live on our own went to live and work. Most residents worked to grow some of their own food and participated in the farm to the best of their abilities. I'm aware that there were abuses, but instead of keeping what was good about the set-up they were closed because they couldn't pay their residents minimum wage. Funny how some of those abandoned county farms were redeveloped by the very people who closed them down. Know where those people went after they were saved from all of that "abuse"? Look under the bridges in those same towns. Solutions need to be flexible in order to help the less fortunate.

I knew we could find some common ground, Joe. :)

This idea deserves to be highlighted: (from "Susan")
"I agree with consequences, business and personal, but the government must ensure that the rest of us do not suffer when people and businesses are NOT responsible."

This sounds nice, but when you think about it very hard, you realize that it's absolutely ridiculous. In the first place, it is not possible to protect *everyone* from *every* irresponsible act. Take away all the knives? Not allow anyone to drive? This is physics, not law. Even to try to do this is to practice prior restraint. As a result, every bit of "protection" provided by government is a loss of freedom to everyone.

This is a good example of a great-sounding, but wrong-headed idea that is totally unworkable, and results in enormous damage if pursued.

A free society has costs, and risk and vulnerability to the errors of those around us is one of those costs. The right to be "irresponsible" is one in the same with "freedom". You can't limit one without limiting the other.

Donald, we can not have a society without rules, to think otherwise is absurd...See I can insult your line of thinking, as well. Any chance I can get you to lighten up on the 'ridiculous' theme you seem to have going with me?

"absolutely ridiculous, wrong-headed, desperate, silly" All this directed at me, and these are just from the little bit of this thread you participated in. I could go back and point out how you like to rev up your sanctimony when it comes to me in other threads, but it is not worth my time or effort.

How come you never answer any of my questions? You only want to tell me how I am such a silly girl... Well, this silly girl is quickly changing her tune about how she feels about you, sometimes your self righteous attitude is worse than the trolls that drop in to spread their venom.

I don't track who says what, nor do I target people in my comments, nor soften my words to pander. I try hard to exchange ideas, and I don't think I have called anyone names.

I have called ideas silly, ridiculous, and absurd. This seems to me totally appropriate.

You (Susan) seem to be an articulate spokeswoman for what I call "the left". "The left" is fond of a number of absurd and poorly thought-out ideas. When I shoot down the ideas, I can't help but wing the messenger from time to time. I'm sorry you feel attacked, but if you want to be that messenger, it comes with the territory.

Thank you for the clarification, Donald. Please allow me to do the same - I am no one's messenger, but my own. I have been called a moderate here, an independent at other times, and even a liberal. Well, I have big issues with unions, welfare, and spending without a means to pay the bills....do you still think the liberals or the Democrats (the left) would call me one of their own?

Speaking against someone's ideas is fine, but you don't have to use insulting language all the time when directed at one person....it may be a technicality (insulting a comment vs. person), but we know what effect you are going for.

One other point, the right is also "fond of a number of absurd and poorly thought-out ideas". Yet reading those ideas, as well as the good ideas is more persuasive without the negative, insulting adjectives, don't you think?

Donald, you write that "The right to be "irresponsible" is one in the same with "freedom". You can't limit one without limiting the other.
As long as someone's actions affect only them I'd happily concede your point. However, while I generally agree with much of what you say, this breaks down under the social contract.
When a business or individual damages me through their acts, whether intentional or otherwise, my freedom to beat the crap out of them for their irresponsibility has already been restricted. Therefore, since our society has deemed it in their best interest to restrict my freedom to retrieve my pound of flesh through my own devices, they must aid in redressing my grievance. And not only to provide lip service. A failure to make the damaged party as whole as possible will lead to a social arbitrage where people choose to take advantage of weak laws. A good example of that would be the current attitudes towards marijuana on the left coast where it is still a crime to possess but there's no real penalty to follow. Maybe the environmental laws in China? People not paying their mortgages? Can you imagine the fallout if bank robbery was punished with a slap on the wrist? Simply said, the punishment must fit the crime. A lack of suitable consequences will encourage the very behaviour that our society seeks to restrict.

Thank you for the feedback. My statement was incomplete, but not incorrect.

I said the right to be irresponsible, but did not mean the right to be irresponsible without consequences. Of course, consequences for harmful actions are required for good order in a society.

The question here is how we deal with harm. One way is punishment after the fact, and the other is prior restraint.

Today, you generally have a right to do as you please as long as you don't hurt anyone. You don't have to submit a daily plan to a government official before you leave home in the morning.

Imagine the alternative. Imagine a country where you have to get government permission to act - *before* you act.

Prior restraint is Very Bad if you value freedom.

Freedom is not worth much if it is limited to what "officials" consider "responsible".

Smokin' Joe: "When a business or individual damages me through their acts, whether intentional or otherwise, my freedom to beat the crap out of them for their irresponsibility has already been restricted. Therefore, since our society has deemed it in their best interest to restrict my freedom to retrieve my pound of flesh through my own devices, they must aid in redressing my grievance. And not only to provide lip service. A failure to make the damaged party as whole as possible will lead to a social arbitrage where people choose to take advantage of weak laws"

Rob: When we were going through the banking disaster I thought would those CEO's and Exec's have enacted the business practices they did to maximize short term profits if instead of being able to hide behind their lawyers and the "corporation" if the very real possibility of a mob going in and dragging them out to the streets was a reality - I wonder how many of them would have chosen to implement the practices that they undertook.

And yes, if a person goes into a bank and steals a few hundred or a few thousand dollars they will go to prison for a decent amount of time but if a CEO plunders millions without being overtly obvious they will almost certainly not only just walk away from it - they'll be able to keep the million's in bonuses they were given even if the company is left in a complete wreck and the CEO announces that he or she is "moving on for other opportunities".

Rob, I've got to admit that the vision of a frankenstein type mob with torches and pitchforks beating down Bernies' M's doors brings a smile. As to the banks: it'd be a problem of figuring out who to go after. When Bank of America is forced to buy Countrywide which in turn destroys their valuation, do you burn the bankers or Bernke and Paulson who directed the debacle? Maybe all of them, lawyers first?

Somkin Joe: Maybe all of them, lawyers first?

Rob: Given how many lawmakers have law degrees, I would amend it to be going after "Lawyers and MBA's" first - for some reason so many people who are hosing very large numbers of the population at time seem to have those titles after their names... and yeah, given how cozy Big Business is with the Government (even when those same companies denounce government - I mean really talk about their hypocrisy).... I think that marches on "Wall Street" and "DC" are equally warranted....

"So if Government Spending cannot create jobs - how can a lack of Government Spending cost jobs?"

Here's a brief analysis. http://www.epi.org/blog/years-recovery-state-local-austerity-hurt/

"First, public-sector workers need to use inputs into their work that are sourced by the private sector. Firefighters need trucks and hoses, police officers need cars and radios, and teachers need books and desks. When public-sector jobs are lost, it stands to reason that the inputs into these jobs will fall as well, and indeed research shows that for every public-sector job lost, roughly 0.43 supplier jobs are lost.3

Second, the economic “multiplier” of state and local spending (not including transfer payments) is large – around 1.24.4This means that for every dollar cut in salary and supplies of public-sector workers, another $0.24 is lost in purchasing power throughout the rest of the economy. Teachers and firefighters stop going to restaurants and buying cars if they’re laid off, which reduces demand for waitstaff and autoworkers and so on. Add these two influences together (supplier jobs and jobs supported by this multiplier impact) and roughly 0.67 private sector jobs are lost for every public sector job cut. This means that the public sector being down 1.1 million jobs has likely cost the private sector 751,000 jobs (1.1 million*0.67)."

Edward, there are several flaws in your logic.
"When public-sector jobs are lost, it stands to reason that the inputs into these jobs will fall as well, and indeed research shows that for every public-sector job lost, roughly 0.43 supplier jobs are lost."
Your assumption is that if these jobs are eliminated from the public sector then they are eliminated, period. If teachers, firefighters, policemen, and other necesary positions were dropped from the public sector it's very likely that their duties would be fulfilled by others. Maybe it wouldn't be a one for one replacement but people will still have their kids educated and security will still be needed. You do notice that most of the road projects going on now are done by private contractors?
As to using multipliers, they're really handy in that you can justify any side of the argument you wish just be changing something that can't really be measured.

Keynesian economics strongly resembles perpetual motion. Just borrow and spend - the "multiplier" effect will recycle the dollars and cause growth.

Even in Keynes' time, economists pointed out that if the job does not matter, then we should have government hire 2 teams of people to dig holes. One team would dig holes, and the other would fill them up again.

The theory sounds fine, until you take it to its logical conclusion, which is nonsense.

Modern economists (except for Paul Krugman and other unrepentant leftists) reject Keynesianism as a deeply flawed model.

In the end, the only time a job is a net gain to the economy is when the inputs are less than the outputs. It's called adding value. This is sometimes called _profit_. Government doesn't, shouldn't and can't do profit.

The best (and only) way to get economic progress is to get more productive activity, and that means more private sector activity. Government employees rarely do that. Regulators, administrators, inspectors, social workers and teachers are either long term investments with unmeasurable returns, or simple drags on productive activity.