Type to search

7 Tea Party Debt Truthers Who Don’t Believe We Need To Raise The Debt Limit

Economy Memo Pad Politics

7 Tea Party Debt Truthers Who Don’t Believe We Need To Raise The Debt Limit

Share

whiteslavery
Listening to Tea Partiers describe how we can hit the debt limit without default is like listening to a broke gambler describe his “system.” It all hinges on a belief that it’s possible to game the house and come out ahead, no matter what the odds are.

The truth is that we don’t know what will happen if America defaults on its debts because no Congress has ever been dumb enough to find out. The only technical default since the Great Depression was the result of a computer glitch in 1979. But until 2011, no one had ever come close to hitting the debt ceiling on purpose.

The Treasury Department reports that America will run out of authority to borrow more money on October 17. At that point, since the spending is higher than the amount of taxes it takes in, it will not be able to pay all its bills. Legally and practically, this would eventually lead to default on the interest payments on our debt. The last debt limit crisis — when Congress came dangerously close to the debt limit — cost the government $1.3 billion and erased billions of dollars in value from the stock market.

What would an actual default look like? Bloomberg‘s Yalman Onaran explains:

Failure by the world’s largest borrower to pay its debt — unprecedented in modern history — will devastate stock markets from Brazil to Zurich, halt a $5 trillion lending mechanism for investors who rely on Treasuries, blow up borrowing costs for billions of people and companies, ravage the dollar and throw the U.S. and world economies into a recession that probably would become a depression. Among the dozens of money managers, economists, bankers, traders and former government officials interviewed for this story, few view a U.S. default as anything but a financial apocalypse.

But Onaran’s article isn’t being forwarded to Tea Partiers. Instead, the word is being passed around from one Tea Party expert to the next that the debt limit is like climate change, the benefits of early childhood education or the female orgasm — a hoax, a fraud, a scam.

More and more Republican congressmembers — including leaders of the party — are coming forward to say that Congress doesn’t need to raise the debt limit in the next week or so, or possibly ever. They nearly all point out that President Obama voted against raising the debt limit, when he was in the Senate minority and knew the bill would pass. Of course, testing their hypothesis would literally put millions of Americans’ jobs and homes at risk as we struggle to recover from a financial crisis.

And there’s already evidence that the markets’ reaction to anything close to default would be “scary.”

Here’s how seven Republican debt limit truthers explain why they don’t believe potentially releasing a financial apocalypse is a big deal.

Photo: cometstarmoon via Flickr

315 Comments

  1. JD Mulvey October 8, 2013

    This whole “prioritization” thing is simply laying the groundwork for blaming the President when we default.

    Reply
    1. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

      I wouldn’t blame him for a default as he doesn’t hold the purse strings.

      Reply
  2. charleo1 October 8, 2013

    Very few of these cracked T-Pots seem to know anything at all about how the
    financial markets work. Either that, or they do know the severe consequences
    for the U.S. of intentionally doing something so incredibly stupid. And are for
    it, because, they, or their big dollar supporters, see some advantage in it.
    But as far as what a default, or even the possibility of one would do to the
    Country, there really is no controversy, outside of these few Republican, and
    T-Pot politicians. Of course, if you’ve got the money, you can always hire
    someone with a degree in economics to stand up, and say anything you want.
    And, the Right Wing may do just that. But we can’t afford to allow this to become
    yet another issue where reasonable people could disagree. And we have this
    drawn out back and forth, and a miscalculation in Washington causes us to
    stumble into an unintentional default. Suddenly the stock market, with it’s auto-
    mated hair trigger, and it’s herd mentality starts it’s fall. That effects markets
    around the world, which raises the interest on say, Italian debt. (Italy has an
    economy too big to fail, but also too big for the EU, even with Germany’s help,
    to backstop.) Just so we understand. Italy was feared to be teetering a couple
    of times last year. And they really have no plan B. But if it goes, the entire EU
    one of our largest trading partners, could be wiped from the board. What we’ve
    got to realize is this. The U.S. has so many Countries around the world, who’s
    economic futures, and prosperity depend on a stable, and responsible U.S.
    And the U.S, enjoys all the privileges, and advantages of it’s primary position.
    What a terrible price we would pay, if we allowed the political brawl we are having.
    To result in us permanently crippling our Country’s economy.

    Reply
    1. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

      And when Obama did it multiple times did you call him the same? Did you name him something like O-nuts-anator?

      Reply
      1. jmprint October 9, 2013

        aghostdancer _ What are you talking about?

        Reply
        1. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

          google obama 2006 debt ceiling. “The fact that we are here today voting on raising the debt ceiling is a failure of leadership” He (Senator Obama) also called bush unpatriotic, unamerican, wreckless and other things about his spending. He was soo right then and I agreed with him. But now the GOP are threatening to not raise it and I find myself because i am issue based not polital based agreeing with them as I did the democrats in 2006 and 2007. I guess that is the difference between being political and being practical. You should not be for or against anything as the parties are because they are only for or against the other party. You should stand on issues no matter who agrees or disagrees and not waver you opinion to fit the political wind. that is what i am saying sir.

          Reply
          1. Dominick Vila October 9, 2013

            Dancer, the difference between what President Obama said in 2006 and what is happening today is that the bills we had to pay then involved $1T wasted in an unwarranted and deceitful war, including tens of billions of dollars in what was one of the largest redistributions of wealth from the public to the private sector in history (sole source contract to FOB – Friends of Bush – for contracts that were seldom completed. Our obligations today involve the need to honor the commitment made by the Federal government when it accepted our FICA contributions, and the MEDICARE fees that all seniors pay into the program. The same goes for ACA, a program designed to help 40 million uninsured Americans get the insurance coverage they need to have access to preventive medical care and survive.
            The difference, in a nutshell, involves wasting $1T in a country that hated our guts, and spending money in the United States.

            Reply
          2. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

            And that trillion bought s nothing i fully agree big waste. One thing you miss is even though all we had going was the wars. At that time we had men and women (brave men and women my husband amoung them) on the ground fighting because the senate and congress voted to send them. I agree we wasted a lot of money there and disagreed with the borrowing then too.

            Want to really help those 40M people afford healthcare. Well I did look at the numbers and many of them choose not to be covered like my sister and brother inlaw who make plenty of money but they are young and healthy so why waste the money was what they thought. But back to actually achieving the said goal of lowering costs.

            1) tort reform but they wont do that because lawyers need the easy money
            2) increased competition
            3) reform medicare so it’s less bloated and more efficient and more people could be added to its rolls

            all three would lower the price now and for the future where this law has increased costs, increased paperwork and overhead and has not achieved its stated goal “affordable”.

            Nor will it ever as it stands.

            Reply
          3. RobertCHastings October 9, 2013

            Medicare is already far more efficient than the private insurance industry. A much more efficient and cost-effective form of public health care is that found in Great Britain, France, Germany, etc., where ALL people are covered, ALL people are a part of the premium base, thousands don’t die every year because they DON’T have insurance, hundreds of thousands don’t fall into bankruptcy, the country as a whole spends half what we do with better outcomes. The US spends 17% of our GDP of healthcare. Only one other industrialized, modern country (includes about 3 dozen) spends more than 10% of GDP on healthcare. Among that elite group, our life expectancy is among the lowest. From everything that has come out regarding benefits and premium costs, the Affordable Care Act delivers on what was promised.

            Reply
          4. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

            As someone with family in te insurance industry I can tell you they aren’t more efferent that is why they are also broke. They pay pennies compared to private insurance as well. This from family in the hospital systems. (Private not for profit hospital). Medicare pays out 1/3 as much as private insurers. So they effectively raise the cost to you and I not on Medicare.

            Reply
          5. RobertCHastings October 10, 2013

            One form of insurance that is becoming prevalent is that which doesn’t PAY for services, but NEGOTIATES the price of services. as Medicare does. I am on Medicare, and since being on it have needed triple bypass surgery, for which I have yet (2 1/2 yrs later) to receive a bill, of any kind. I am quite happy with that kind of coverage, and it is not, by any stretch, a premier package. This is what ALL of us should have available to us. I don’t mind paying premiums for part A, part B and part D, just as I did not mind paying premiums when I was employed and receiving insurance through my employer. And I really like the fact that millions are receiving rebates from their insurance companies because Obamacare requires at least 85% of premiums to go to actual medical costs. So, really, what is your basic problem with Medicare/ACA?

            Reply
          6. aghostdancer October 10, 2013

            1) I never said I want it repealed nor am against covering or helping those in need.
            2) Every thing the government does is bloated and inefficient. It gets bogged down with rules and regulations and paperwork.
            Post office, SSI. Medicare all government programs and all broke.
            3) It is the PPACA I am all for the PP part and covering people who have no insurance because they can’t afford it. I want everyone who is an American to have access to American medicine which is the best in the world bar none.
            4) I am against forced at threat of fine, and jail insurance. Romney care was a disaster and has cost 11.5x more than all estimates even the highest ones. This plan is based on Romney care. Mistake 1.
            5) Romneycare lead to higher premiums, and more government waste, bloated systems and 100s of the poorest the ones NEEDING insurance unable to get it and receiving fines instead.
            I know people who today have said the fine is only like 1,000 dollars I get (blah amount) back per year I will just pay the fine. That doesn’t get them insured. So they continue to live without the costly insurance and continue to not get routine care which would make us all a little healthier.
            So I am not against the entire bill I am against the forced part of the bill. And if they ever come after me with fines I intend to sue in a way that hasn’t been done before and a way the supreme court has already ruled on. You can not be coerced into ANY contract governmentally, legally or by means of fines or punishment. That is the ruling and guess what healthcare insurance falls under the services contract law. They challenged if the government had a right to impose a tax and taxes are indeed constitutional but on a personal legal contracts fall under other laws. Not a constitutional issue at all.
            The same as blue cross can not enter your home and say buy this insurance or pay us 2,000 dollars neither can the federal government. This is the ONLY part of this bill I oppose truly.
            I do believe to “reduce costs” which this bill even according to the CBO will NOT do. We could improve tort law, which would reduce medical malpractice and save between 25 and 40% off the top of current care. (depending who you believe I will go with the CBO again and say it should save 25%.
            Next remove federal and state barriers to competition which this PPACA did some of we should have gone farther with the health care exchange honestly. Here is a place I don’t think the bill went far enough.
            Anyway hope this clears up my stand in your mind I am not against the ideas of the PPACA but I believe it could have been done better and forced compliance will not work. The district courts have already ruled in favor of removing the teeth from Romneycare in forced compliance and the State maybe stuck paying back all those fines with interest. I will be watching when it reaches the supreme court is will tell exactly what will happen with PPACA aka Obamacare.

            Reply
          7. RobertCHastings October 10, 2013

            Apparently, you did not pay much attention to the SCOTUS ruling on this issue.

            Reply
          8. Lisztman October 11, 2013

            I do believe we can all now safely ignore the Ghost. Another RWNJ troll who makes up numbers, whose only source to date is “his brother-in-law”, and who would like to scuttle half the ACA and improve the other half. Sounds like most of the Tea Party, to me.

            More than anything, he probably could use a good GED.

            Reply
          9. RobertCHastings October 12, 2013

            That was COLD! But delightfully delicious.

            Reply
          10. Lisztman October 11, 2013

            OK. One by one.
            1) So you’re with the people who want to keep the parts they like and do away with the parts they don’t like. Go do some studying. You can’t dismantle half of it and have the rest continue to function properly.
            2) “All broke and bogged down.” Perhaps because Congress insists the USPS run independently — but then sets up roadblocks. E.g., UPS does not deliver “standard” packages on Saturdays. The USPS is required to. Doesn’t make business sense, now, does it? SSI is broke? That’s news to all of us. Etc.
            3) Let’s see. You want everyone to have access. And you’re even trying to sound middle-of-the-road. But you haven’t explained what to do about those with income and assets who choose not to carry insurance — and stick the rest of us with the bill when a bill suddenly shows up. The only way a full-healthcare system will work is when everyone, and I mean everyone, participates.
            4) Romneycare has cost ELEVEN times more than projected? You’re making up numbers. Source, please. If you have one. (snicker)
            5) The gist of your #5 is that you don’t believe it. Oh, well. Too bad. You lost the election. Good luck with that lawsuit. You’re gonna lose. After you post your sources, you can tell us all where you got your law degree from, for you have some very strange perspectives on the law, and even less understanding of constitutional law.

            Reply
          11. aghostdancer October 11, 2013

            I didn’t lose the election. You ASSUME I don’t support the president and also I am against the PPACA both assumptions are incorrect. I am FOR people having access but against mandatory by threat of fines and taxes (Not paying taxes means you go to jail). You will still have many not participating by the way the Obama administration has admitted already more than 20 million will remain uninsured. Meaning we spent trillions to insure 9 million people.
            I work in computers specifically in IT security and infrastructure. I review and negotiate contracts ALL the time. Support, services, and hardware contracts.
            The reports are in on Romney care and the Mass Government reports costs go look it up.
            As for UPS and FedEx they still deliver per package at a better cost than the post office. Believe what you like I’m not worried but when someone challenges the part of the law with the tax under contract law it will break down quick enough.

            Reply
          12. RobertCHastings October 12, 2013

            Once again, your numbers are WAY off. Prior to ACA about 50 million were uninsured, and the president has stated, clearly, that about10 million will still be uninsured, leaving about 40 million, a much bigger number, by the way, than your 9 million. The “trillions” have not been spent, yet, most of that not even appropriated. It can’t be spent until Congress appropriates it (Medicare and the ACA don’t have concealed budgets like the DOD).

            Reply
          13. aghostdancer October 12, 2013

            According to the white house and their own numbers 19% make over 75,000 dollars, Only 32% of your 50.7 million make less than twice the poverty level. 32% of 50.7 million who may NEED help would be 16.224 million Americans uninsured who can not get it on their own of from their employer. These same people will just not get insurance and have the means to challenge the fine/tax. and of those 16 million only half are below the poverty line but those 8 million ALREADY qualify for Medicaid/Medicare but haven’t applied for whatever reason.

            Of the 34.5 million above 2x the poverty level half can get insurance at work at a more than affordable price. 2o 50.7 – (those who have employer sponsored healthcare available) ]leaves the number I quoted of 32 Million.
            The same information shows of the 20 million who will be left without insurance about 14 million will still be those living below 2x poverty level. So the people it is meant to help will still not be helped. At a price tag of according to the CBO is already over 1.4 trillion and every report it goes up the same as the estimates for SSI and Medicare did they went up and up to almost 4x the estimates.

            All this came from

            Health Policy, Room 447D
            Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
            U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
            200 Independence Ave, SW
            Washington, DC 20201

            Fax: (202) 260-2524

            NOT any form of right wing source!

            Reply
          14. RobertCHastings October 12, 2013

            What is the poverty level? For a family of four, it is $23,500, an amount which results in many people in this country living out of their cars or a shelter. The ACA levels the economic playing field, making healthcare affordable for many who simply cannot make it.

            Reply
          15. aghostdancer October 12, 2013

            indeed the poverty level is low. But I don’t get to make the numbers. I personally know people making less than that as a family of four. I have a friend making about 20k/yr for his family of four. They have a home. It’s not a mansion but he found a way to provide. Is it right? Nope. But even the poor here are better of then other countries. /shrug The percentage mentioned makes twice that by the way. Oh and they are choosing to not be insured anyway in large numbers according to the source I already quoted.
            So IF large numbers are going to remain uninsured the bill failed and hasn’t done what was intended. Many many things can be done to get to said goal. Reducing costs with steps like tort reform, increase competition which this bill does much of though I’d like it increased further. Adding cheap catastrophy insurance for the major events and cover outright physicals, flu shots and related well visits. I know BC/BS offered that as an affordable option in florida before PPACA. If you implement lots of little things we could have lowered prices for real and moved on from there. We’d have had an immediate impact and immediate lowering of premiums and healthcare related costs.
            So many ideas and if its sooooo important why are we still waiting for it to be inplace why not day one? /shrug again the bill failed to lower premiums instead it raised them. It will still leave many of the most vulnerable americans uninsured.
            I wish it had ben done in pieces and immediately with additions of things like tort reform and rather than mandatory insurance make it so if you are ill and clog the emergency room that you will need to repay your costs via garnishing taxes/wages whatever is needed. If people knew they would have to actually pay that bill they would get the insurance themselves.

            Reply
          16. RobertCHastings October 13, 2013

            That’s all well and good, IF you have two parties to the discussion who honestly hold the best interests of their constituents at heart. As that is NOT the case due to the ideological intransigence of the rabidly conservative Tea Party, there is not much else the Democratic Party can do other than insist upon the survival of the ACA.

            Reply
          17. aghostdancer October 13, 2013

            I guess you didn’t see the news the congress showed they have the votes to pass a clean budget INCLUDING full funding for PPACA but only if the senate will drop the trillion dollars in tax increases and agree to talks on cutting budgets. The senate flatly said no WITHOUT a vote.
            You are right ONE party doesn’t want to negotiate nor solve this.
            They both still suck.

            Reply
          18. RobertCHastings October 13, 2013

            So you are saying the Senate has intruded tax increases into the discussion? And where did you pick up this juicy tidbit?

            Reply
          19. aghostdancer October 13, 2013

            http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/23/17426960-senate-passes-budget-with-1-trillion-tax-hike?lite
            NBC is far far from right wing. have fun. This is a NO go for republicans they will not approve it. Time for the other side to give a little or it’s not negotiations. See unfortunately the media will not report the republicans passed the bill with no cuts to PPACA and no tax hikes but the senate turned it down without a vote. CSPAN will tell you otherwise.
            However even after dropping the defunding Harry Ried said this is a positive step.. Yeah what he meant was now all they have to do is give us everything we want and at the same time give up everything they want. That is not the way negotiations work. If I was the congress I’d simply be on every news outlet 24×7 saying “we have agreed to not defund PPACA if the senate will drop it’s trillion dollars in tax increases and this would end this stand off period and avoid default and reopen the government. We have come half way if they refuse to budget it’s all on them from this moment forward.”
            Course I am neither of the parties.

            Reply
          20. RobertCHastings October 13, 2013

            And what was the date on that item? TOTALLY inapplicable to the current discussion.

            Reply
          21. aghostdancer October 13, 2013

            The senate plan has not changed since it’s inception.

            Reply
          22. RobertCHastings October 14, 2013

            The Senate plan has changed a lot since the article you cited.

            Reply
          23. aghostdancer October 14, 2013

            Your source? Because if by changed a lot by your definition means republicans of the house have changed a lot as well.

            Reply
          24. RobertCHastings October 15, 2013

            The article you cite was from March of this year. A few things have changed since then.

            Reply
          25. RobertCHastings October 15, 2013

            As you say, Congress has a bill including the “trillion dollars in tax increases”. However, the tax increase to which you refer is the funding of the ACA. The spending levels which the House refuses to pass are the spending levels which they originally sent to the Senate, months ago.

            Reply
          26. Lisztman October 14, 2013

            True, Sir. And aghostdancer keeps forgetting that, though the ACA could have been fashioned in “better” ways — she forgets that “better” is in the eye of the beholder. The ACA, as passed by Congress and signed by the President, was a series of compromises that made it acceptable — that’s “acceptable”, not “ideal” — to sufficient members of Congress to get it passed.

            The big problem the Tea Party has right now (in addition to forgetting that they represent only 20-odd percent, tops, of the Nation as a whole) is that they keep playing this extremist “cliff” stuff. “Give me what I want or I’ll, I’ll, I’ll — hold my breath and turn blue and it will be your fault.” As has been stated, one does not negotiate with terrorists. If and when the TP stops playing brinksmanship and starts trying to actually work its interests into the system, it stands a chance of being taken seriously.

            Reply
          27. RobertCHastings October 15, 2013

            What the TP is doing is the equivalent of what we see in many of the newer democracies around the world – boycotting elections or finding other ways to refuse to participate in the political process. Withholding one’s vote merely gives the green light to one’s opponents.

            Reply
          28. Lisztman October 11, 2013

            Sounds like your family’s in Fire Insurance, or Boat Insurance. “Medicare pays out 1/3 as much as private insurers.” Please show us the numbers. From a reputable source. Not from your family, with an axe to grind because, yes, Medicare, does pay less than full-boat insurance. One third? Ghost, you’re making it up. Start playing by standard rules of engagement (i.e., you provide the source for your data you might be believed) and we’ll treat you as something other than an emasculated troll.

            Reply
          29. aghostdancer October 11, 2013

            I am making nothing up. I state what has been told to me by persons I know in the accounts receivable department of a major hospital he deals in claims and the receivables from insurance companies and patients.

            Reply
          30. RobertCHastings October 12, 2013

            Then he also knows that what the hospital bills the patient is grossly inflated from the actual cost to the institution. Thank God Medicare reserves the power to negotiate these grossly inflated prices. What Medicare pays is not a shot in the dark number, but a close approximation of what it actually costs the institutions with whom they are dealing.

            Reply
          31. aghostdancer October 12, 2013

            Then if you are as smart as you think you also know these prices are inflated BECAUSE of the uninsured and Medicare paying so little.

            Reply
          32. RobertCHastings October 12, 2013

            Thanks to President Reagan, the “uninsured” who manage their healthcare by visiting the emergency room are not, really, uninsured, are they? We all pay, in one form or another, for their “emergencies”. The ACA is ONE way of establishing a system whereby these emergencies can be managed through regular preventive care and doctor visits.

            Reply
          33. aghostdancer October 12, 2013

            Reagan AND the democrat controlled house and senate. But there will always be uninsured. Illegals are uninsured and make a vast majority of emergency room visits by uninsured. They won’t be covered by PPACA at least that is what the president himself has claimed.
            Anyway you are picking at straws when the government demands you buy and eat Brussels sprouts and if you don’t they will fine you come back and see me. Over and out.

            Reply
          34. RobertCHastings October 13, 2013

            Throughout this whole discussion you are ignoring one very important factor, although you seem to pay it some lip service. There are poor people in this country with incomes beyond the poverty level who simply cannot afford health insurance, period. Those on the right like to claim the jobs are out there, but they immediately come back and say they are minimum wage. As you understand, a minimum wage job CANNOT afford insurance coverage, without assistance. When I was employed, my coverage was excellent, and I paid, for individual coverage, perhaps $50/month. When I was laid off, through COBRA that same policy cost more that 12 times that, something I would have been unable to afford on unemployment, even though my yearly was about 40K. Thanks to Obama’s subsidizing the cost of COBRA coverage to millions of folks in my position, 65% of that costs was covered.

            Reply
          35. aghostdancer October 13, 2013

            I didn’t ignore the fact you just don’t read. COBRA is always at your cost. If you couldn’t afford it then the state (all of them) offer an insurance. Many on unemployment qualify for Medicare or Medicaid assistance. Those are the funds which covered a percentage of your COBRA. You paid into these funds and that is what they were meant to be used for.

            Reply
          36. RobertCHastings October 13, 2013

            Among other items in Obama’s stimulus program, subsidizing COBRA was one of the items used to keep laid off workers solvent, along with an unusually long extension of unemployment. While both of these MAY have been operated under the auspices of the individual states, the money came from the federal government. COBRA originally helped the unemployed maintain the insurance they had under their former employer, although it was at pretty much full cost. When Obama initiated his program, it was, coincidentally, at the same rate that unemployment was paid – 65%. Millions of laid off workers would NOT have been able to afford insurance without it.

            Reply
          37. aghostdancer October 13, 2013

            Again we’ve no debate on this so why do you persist on it? /shrug you must just like to here yourself speak. If you can add nothing new to this debate I will assume it’s over. thanks

            Reply
          38. RobertCHastings October 13, 2013

            One of your noticeable characteristics is to back away or shut off discussion when you are shown to not understand what you are talking about.

            Reply
          39. aghostdancer October 13, 2013

            There is no debate on government helping those in need we already both agree on the position. This is a non-debate item which you seem stuck on when there is nothing you’ve added I disagree with. To debate there must be 2 opposing sides. PPACA has nothing to do with your COBRA situation. Nor are we actually in disagreement about helping those in need yet you seem unwilling to actually listen to the debate in progress. again you add nothing to anything we’ve been debating. It is you shutting down sir. You have brought up something we agree upon and wish to force me to the other side. Not gonna happen.

            Reply
          40. aghostdancer October 11, 2013

            My family is in medicine. Including actual administration of medicine as healthcare providers, family in the insurance (healthcare insurance business), friends and family on the inside of medical billing. It’s a subject unfortunately I know more than I’d like to know about.

            Reply
          41. shawnthesheep October 13, 2013

            BS. Medicare does not drive up costs for other people. Providers do not lose money when they treat Medicare patients. Doctors love Medicare. They don’t get paid as much per procedure but they have far fewer administrative and bureaucratic hassles. With Medicare, if there’s a billing code for it, you know Medicare will pay and how much they will pay. With private insurers it’s always a battle. I’ve worked with many doctors who would gladly go to a Medicare only practice if they could.

            Medicare is not the reason that people pay alot for healthcare. The problem is for-profit insurance companies with their outrageous administrative costs and healthcare providers that set costs as a basis for negotiating with insurance companies on payment.. If you have insurance and are given a $20 Ibuprofen tablet at the hospital, your insurer will negotiate the price of that tablet down to maybe $3 or $4. But if you have no insurance the hospital will bill you $20 and expect you to pay the full amount. Having millions of uninsured people with no choice but to go to the ER to receive treatment also drives up costs.

            Obamacare may not be perfect, but it goes along way to reigning in healthcare costs, by requiring providers and insurers to spend a minimum percentage on care and reducing administrative costs, by insuring millions more people which enables them to receive cheaper preventative care instead of expensive ER care and by creating exchanges that create competition and drive down cost.

            Reply
          42. aghostdancer October 13, 2013

            Medicare pays 1/3 of what is considered customary for procedures. Why do you think many doctors won’t take medicare patients. customary charges are the amount things cost.
            /shrug believe what you will but I have family who know what they are doing and talking about in the field I think I will believe people who do the jobs over propaganda and political BS

            Reply
          43. Lisztman October 14, 2013

            There’s that “1/3” number again. Please provide a source for that number that doesn’t come from “someone in your family.”

            Reply
          44. aghostdancer October 14, 2013

            Try looking here The National Institutes of Health

            They even state the Medicare/Medicaid payments to hospitals and doctors is less than half what commercial insurance pays for the same procedure.

            Their report says “services will be reimbursed at Medicare rates that are less than half those of private payers, putting further pressure on hospital revenue.”
            They say less than half that supports my brothers claim of 1/3 He obviously couldn’t provide me patient details as that violates hippa laws and perhaps your privacy in the process.

            Reply
          45. aghostdancer October 14, 2013

            And if this law is so good why did “26 states, including Tennessee, rejected ACA’s offer of federal funding to expand Medicaid.” (USA Today)
            Why did they refuse it? Because they won’t be bound to other terms later. This law defers costs to individual states. That means half the states have at least some problems with this law. They know the federal funding will end soon leaving them stuck with the bag. Instead this leaves the federal government responsible to pay. Some states have brains it seems.

            Reply
          46. charliebrown737 October 10, 2013

            Good post, one issue, the Congress did not authorize Bush, Clinton or Obama to go to war.
            The first American KIA was too many, those savages have been fighting for 1,000 years and we are not going to change that.

            Reply
          47. RobertCHastings October 10, 2013

            None of them were authorized to go to war? Really? Congress was kept completely out of the loop? How very interesting, and how very wrong.

            Reply
          48. aghostdancer October 11, 2013

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

            That sir is a vote to continue the war in Iraq. a similar vote for Afghanistan. Congress does not vote to GOTO war they vote to remain in military activity. Anything longer than 90 days without such is unconstitutional.

            Only one person in the congress voted against war in Afghanistan. I forget who but I believe it was but it was a lady from California. I’m too lazy to go look it up 😛
            That doesn’t mean I support either war just proof congress voted to remain at war.

            Reply
          49. Lisztman October 11, 2013

            Sorry, ghost. You’re making up numbers. “Many of them choose not to be covered.” In the instance wherein, today, someone goes to the ER (say, appendicitis — which can attack the “healthy”) lacking insurance… if it’s your sister and BIL, then I presume they can pay the bill. Far too many of their ilk don’t have anything put aside for such a catastrophe. And the rest of society ends up paying their bill.
            That “many who choose not to be covered” are the ones who will now either acquire coverage, or pay a tax — because things like appendicitis, or a hit-and-run pedestrian accident, or a fall down a stairwell (their own — no one to sue) — know no boundaries of “young and healthy”.

            So you’re back to the tried-and-true GOP arguments. Tort reform. Yes. That might reduce the level of costs overall. But it does nothing to address the issue of non-coverage. “Increased competition.” Guess what? There’s all kinds of competition for all these new customers. Show me where there’s a need for more.
            In what respect is Medicare bloated and/or inefficient? Please show numbers and a source — or, at the least, a reasonable source.

            And then, when you’re done, you can tell us where “this law has increased costs” — because, AFAICT, the law is just now beginning to take effect. So if you have some magic crystal ball that tells us that costs, paperwork, and overhead have increased, please share your wisdom with us, and, again, give us your facts. Otherwise you’re just spouting undereducated opinion.

            Reply
          50. charliebrown737 October 10, 2013

            All the green loans that have defaulted and you and I have to pay.

            If you had an employee and they were not doing their job, would you fire them?

            The President is required by law to submit a budget once a year and have it ratified by Congress. This year was the FIRST year that the president has submitted a budget and it was rejected by not only 100% of the Republicans but 100% of the Democrats.

            The entire Congress, all of their staff and the President and all of his staff, including the official dog walkers that are making 3 times what I make, should have been off the payroll for over 4 years.

            Time to start cleaning house, House of Rep impeach NOW and we will worry about removing him next congress. Of course he will be ruling from the under ground bunker.

            Here is what the media that is not under his thumb is reporting. Do not expect to get any truth from the US media.

            http://www.eutimes.net/2013/10/pentagon-warns-to-expect-radical-change-in-us-government-soon/

            Reply
          51. RobertCHastings October 9, 2013

            Apparently, you totally do not get the concept of a debt default by the US government. Perhaps you need to reread charleo1’s post. It is not mere speculation that a default will have an enormous effect upon the stock market – because of the shutdown the Dow has dropped 600 points in the past week. The Dow dropped by 1/2 in 1929, as it did during the first five years of the Bush administration, both incidents costing trillions in wealth to be lost, for both the wealthy AND the middle class, as well as the rest of the world, and millions to lose their jobs (many of which have yet to come back), real estate values to plummet (still not recovered completely). Obama was correct in 2006 – 2007 because it was becoming apparent that Bush was getting us into a recession (not acknowledged until 2008) and, if you are such a great student of history, you should be well aware that what happened in in 2006-2007 is not even close to what will happen in the remaining months of 2013 SHOULD WE DEFAULT.

            Reply
          52. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

            We can cut the existing budget and not cut SSI/Medicare/Obamacare/Medicaid ect.. cut the waste, stop borrowing now and still pay our debts. A fact he failed to even explore.

            Reply
          53. Barbara Morgan October 10, 2013

            Where can the existing budget be cut, in what departments? show your proof this can be done. The ones wanting the cuts in SS( which I paid into for over 44 years) Medicare ( which I pay a monthly insurance premium for each mouth) Medicaid and the Affordable Medical act are all Tea Party Republican politicians and their base. I guess you mean President Obama failed explore all your and?? suggestions? Explain how you know that fact. When someone makes statements like yours , I am like the people in Missouri show the proof of your statements using courtroom beyond reason doubt proof and not the ramblings of people like Boehner, Mitchell, and company.

            Reply
          54. aghostdancer October 10, 2013

            I posted it already over 890Billion in cuts. You listen to too much ABC/NBC/CBS/MSNBC/CNN because there is not a single Tea Party Member of power NOR a single Republican advocating cutting SSI/Medicare ect..

            We are looking to spend 791Billion in new debt here is 890Billion you nor any American would ever miss.

            We sure can. Stop the wasteful spending which Harry Reid will not hear of and will not pass nor allow to a vote. And stop borrowing more. Pay the debt down with the 890+Billion dollars of wasteful spending in this budget.

            Here you go get rid of these items and we don’t need to borrow a single DIME from anyone. I just solved the problem and I am not even a politician and acording to one person on this list i am stupid. So if a stupid person like me can solve it why can’t everyone. DEBT = PAID, borrowing = ZERO!

            $450,000,000.00 Aid package to Egypt above and beyond foreign aid
            $50,000,000.00 New TSA uniforms
            $3,000,000.00 UCLA grant to study video games
            $700,000.00 To study methane gas emissions from dairy cows.
            $615,000.00 University of California at Santa Cruz to digitize photos, T-shirts and concert tickets belonging to the Grateful Dead
            $750,000.00 New soccer field for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.
            $20,000,000.00 Helping students from Indonesia get master’s degrees.
            $175,587.00 To determine if cocaine makes Japanese quail engage in sexually risky behavior
            $200,000.00 A tattoo removal program in Mission Hills, California
            $500,000,000.00 On a program that will, among other things, seek to solve the problem of 5-year-old children that “can’t sit still” in a kindergarten classroom.
            $30,000.00 To develop a tourist-friendly database of farms that host guests for overnight “haycations”
            $800,000.00 In “stimulus funds” to study the impact of a “genital-washing program” on men in South Africa.
            $440,995.00 Was spent this past year on an office for former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert that he rarely even visits.
            $5,000.00 One Tennessee library was given federal funds to host a series of video game parties
            $2,500,000.00 The U.S. Census Bureau spent on a television commercial during the Super Bowl that was so poorly produced that virtually nobody understood what is was trying to say.
            $137,530.00 A professor at Dartmouth University received to create a “recession-themed” video game entitled “Layoff”
            $600,000.00 The National Science Foundation gave the Minnesota Zoo so that they could develop an online video game called “Wolfquest”.
            $60,000.00 A pizzeria in Iowa was given to renovate the pizzeria’s facade and give it a more “inviting feel”.
            $195,000,000.00 The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to maintain hundreds of buildings that it does not even use.
            $1,800,000.00 went for a “museum of neon signs” in Las Vegas, Nevada
            $35,000,000.00 reportedly paid out by Medicare to 118 “phantom” medical clinics that never even existed.
            $150,000.00 The Conservation Commission of Monkton, Vermont from the federal government to construct a “critter crossing”.
            $440,000.00 In California, one park received in federal funds to perform “green energy upgrades” on a building that has not been used for a decade.
            $239,100.00 A professor at Stanford University received to study how Americans use the Internet to find love.
            $216,000.00 The National Science Foundation spent to study whether or not politicians “gain or lose support by taking ambiguous positions.”
            $442,340.00 The National Institutes of Health spent to study the behavior of male prostitutes in Vietnam.
            $1,000,000.00 U.S. taxpayer money was used to create poetry for the Little Rock, New Orleans, Milwaukee and Chicago zoos.
            $30,000,000.00 On a federal program that was designed to help Pakistani farmers produce more mangos
            $17,800,000.00 On social and environmental programs for China
            $2,600,000.00 To train Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly.
            $13,500.00 The U.S. Postal Service spent on a single dinner at Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse.
            $25,000,000,000.00 The federal government spends a year maintaining federal buildings that are either unused or totally vacant.
            $2,000,000,000.00 U.S. farmers are given each year for not farming their land.
            $123,050.00 On a Mother’s Day Shrine in Grafton, West Virginia. It turns out that Grafton only has a population of a little more than 5,000 people.
            $998,798.00 U.S. military spent shipping two 19-cent washers from South Carolina to Texas
            $293,451.00 U.S. military spent sending an 89-cent washer from South Carolina to Florida
            $400,000.00 The National Institutes of Health paid researchers to find out why gay men in Argentina engage in risky sexual behavior when they are drunk.
            $100,000.00 The U.S. government spent on a “Celebrity Chef Fruit Promotion Road Show in Indonesia”
            $500,000.00 The feds gave Alaska Airlines “to paint a Chinook salmon” on the side of a Boeing 737
            $300,000,000,000.00 In foreign aid to countries which preach hatred and death to america
            $200,000,000.00 The Department of Agriculture’s Market Access Program spends a year to help U.S. agricultural trade associations and cooperatives advertise their products in foreign markets. Including funding of a reality TV show in India that advertised U.S. cotton.
            $141,450.00 The Environmental Protection Agency awarded a grant under the Clean Air Act to fund a Chinese study on swine manure
            $1,200,000.00 The Environmental Protection Agency awarded a grant to the United Nations for clean fuel promotion.
            $84,500,000.00 Federally subsidized Amtrak lost on its food and beverage services
            $12,000,000.00 The U.S. Navy bought 450,000 gallons of biofuels for $12 million—or almost $27 per gallon—to conduct exercises to showcase the fuel and bring it closer toward commercialization. It is the largest biofuel purchase ever made by the government.
            $121,000,000.00 The Department of Justice alone spent to host or participate in 1,832 conferences.
            $325,000.00 RoboSquirrel.” was spent on a robotic squirrel named “RoboSquirrel.” This National Science Foundation grant was used to create a realistic-looking robotic squirrel for the purpose of studying how a rattlesnake would react to it.
            $2,000,000.00 Cupcakes. In Washington, D.C., and elsewhere across the country, cupcake shops are trending in Small Business Administration loan guarantees
            $2,000,000,000.00 In New York and Massachusetts. Food stamp recipients spent on sugary drinks alone.
            $2,500,000,000.00 Improper SNAP payments accounted for in waste, including to one exotic dancer who was making $85,000 per year.
            $750,970.00 Despite Smuttynose brewery’s financial success and popularity, it is still getting a Community Development Block Grant to build a new brewery and restaurant facilities.
            $520,000.00 To fix the Stevenson Road Covered Bridge in Green County, Ohio, which was last used in 2003.
            $92,000,000,000.00 On corporate welfare (excluding TARP)
            $250,000,000.00 Federal agencies are delinquent on nearly 20 percent of employee travel charge cards, costing taxpayers annually.
            $3,900,000.00 The Securities and Exchange Commission spent rearranging desks and offices at its Washington, D.C., headquarters.
            $60,000,000,000.00 Health care fraud costs taxpayers more than annually.
            $295,000,000,000.00 A GAO audit found that 95 Pentagon weapons systems suffered from a combined $295 billion in cost overruns in 2012.
            $146,000,000.00 The refusal of many federal employees to fly coach costs taxpayers annually in flight upgrades.
            $131,000,000.00 Washington will spend in 2013 to enhance the Kennedy family legacy in Massachusetts.
            $20,000,000.00 Additionally, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) diverted from the 2013 defense budget to subsidize a new Edward M. Kennedy Institute.
            $190,000.00 for the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, Wyoming
            $75,000.00 for the Totally Teen Zone in Albany, Georgia.
            $350,000.00 The Federal Communications Commission spent to sponsor NASCAR driver David Gilliland.
            $84,000.00 Personalized calendars for the members of congress
            $20,800,000,000.00 In 2012 more than $13 billion in Iraq aid has been classified as wasted or stolen. Another $7.8 billion cannot be accounted for.
            $200,000.00 The Transportation Department will subsidize up to $2,000 per flight for direct flights between Washington, D.C., and the small hometown of Congressman Hal Rogers 200,000 annually
            $3,000,000,000.00 Washington will spend re-sanding beaches — even as this new sand washes back into the ocean.
            $2,500,000,000.00 A Department of Agriculture report concedes that much of the $2.5 billion in “stimulus” funding for broadband Internet will be wasted in 2013 alone.
            $100,000,000.00 The Defense Department wasted on unused flight tickets and never bothered to collect refunds even though the tickets were refundable.
            $6,000,000.00 Washington spends $60,000 per hour shooting Air Force One photo-ops in front of national landmarks several times a year at a cost of $6 million annually.
            $90,000,000.00 Members of Congress are set to pay themselves $90 million to increase their franked mailings for the 2013 election year.
            $9,000,000,000.00 Congress has ignored efficiency recommendations from the Department of Health and Human Services that would save $9 billion annually.
            $5,000,000.00 Taxpayers are funding paintings of high-ranking government officials at a cost of up to $50,000 apiece. At a cost of $5 million per year.
            $43,000,000.00 The state of Washington sent $1 food stamp checks to 250,000 households in order to raise state caseload figures and trigger $43 million in additional federal funds.
            $20,000,000.00 Congress appropriated for “commemoration of success” celebrations related to Iraq and Afghanistan.
            $15,600,000.00 The National Institutes of Health spends $1.3 million per month to rent a lab that it cannot use.
            $2,400,000,000.00 Congress spent on 10 new jets that the Pentagon insists it does not need and will not use.
            $50,000,000.00 Medicare officials recently mailed $50 million in erroneous refunds to 230,000 Medicare recipients.
            $34,000,000,000.00 Audits showed $34 billion worth of Department of Homeland Security contracts contained significant waste, fraud, and abuse.
            $1,800,000.00 Washington recently spent to help build a private golf course in Atlanta, Georgia.
            $150,000,000.00 The Advanced Technology Program spends $150 million annually subsidizing private businesses; 40 percent of this funding goes to Fortune 500 companies.
            $2,100,000.00 The Department of Agriculture in 2012 spent $2 million on an intern program for the Office of the Chief Information officer. One intern was hired. The budget for 2013 is $2.1 million.
            $55,660.00 The Rural Business Enterprise Program gave a dairy farm to package its butter in smaller containers.
            $6,100,000.00 The Department of Veterans Affairs spent $6.1 million on two training conferences in Orlando, with $50,000 going to a video boosting Human Resources
            $862,000.00 The IRS stores unused furniture at a warehouse for $862,000 annually.
            $500,000.00 The Department of Energy cannot locate $500,000 worth of green energy manufacturing equipment
            $1,495,000.00 The Department of Labor will spend on commercials promoting an initiative for green jobs in 2013
            $25,000.00 Grant was used to translate a Maldivian love ballad
            $56,666.67 The National Institutes of Health will spend $170,000 over three years researching the hookah smoking habits of Jordanians.
            $200,000,000.00 The Department of Agriculture spends annually advertising U.S. food in other countries.
            $850,000,000.00 The Government Accountability office found that people who double-dip from unemployment insurance and disability benefits cost the U.S.
            $850 million annually.

            Posted. Hope this clears the point and please do not make me defend the republicans or the tea party but I dislike untruths when I see them.

            Reply
          55. RobertCHastings October 10, 2013

            If just a few of your figures were just a little larger, you might be able to get to the numbers you claim – NOT! How many items have you posted, with the average item being less than 1 billion (far less, if I don’t miss my guess). At that rate, you would need close to a thousand such entries to approach your figure. How many do you post, less than 200? The numbers,unfortunately, don’t add up, and, consequently, neither does your argument.

            Reply
          56. aghostdancer October 11, 2013

            25B up keep on empty buildings
            2B in farm aid
            92B in corp welfare
            2.4B on NEW jets for congress
            9B in efficiency recommendations from the Clinton era still not implemented
            200B in foreign aid programs to countries that hate us and will never ever like us
            the numbers add up to over 850B in cuts

            Reply
          57. RobertCHastings October 11, 2013

            I cannot readily speak to the rest of your figures, but I do know that our total foreign aid budget is less than 10% of what you quote. So, my only logical assumption MUST be that the rest of your claims are equally incorrect.

            Reply
          58. aghostdancer October 11, 2013

            foreign aid is more than cash, it’s also the military aid, support bases, (France, Germany ect..) Many things go into this final number not just cash layout to “buy friendships”

            Reply
          59. RobertCHastings October 12, 2013

            The cases you have issue with are NOT foreign aid as they directly impact our international security. Maintaining embassies and consulates and bases is not budgeted as foreign aid. Much is budgeted in the Department of State or Dept. of Defense. So you want to cut out those two departments? I don’t think our national security would hold up very long.

            Reply
          60. aghostdancer October 12, 2013

            Nope neither needs to be cut out We do not need to be the worlds protectors either. France and Germany and places like such are more than capable of defending themselves. Embaseys yeah how is lybia and the others that have been attacked working out? We have instant ways to communicate today and there is not a need to leave American citizens in harms way especially in countries that hate us.

            Reply
          61. RobertCHastings October 12, 2013

            Finally you have something to say with which I can readily agree. We do not need to be the world’s policeman, and we do not need to encourage others around the world to accept our form of government. Embassies around the world keep us in close contact with those who need our help, and those who will work with us to make the world a safer place. Still hung up on Benghazi? Get over it. Issa got nothing to bite chasing that dog around the Capitol.

            Reply
          62. aghostdancer October 12, 2013

            Yes but not like the GOP I don’t think we could have done much to change things EXCEPT to not have been there at all. As well as all the other countries we might find americans in danger just for being there.
            We have enough technology to not need to be there to be in touch.

            Reply
          63. RobertCHastings October 13, 2013

            Collateral damage is a term that has been around for a long time, and seems to have come into its own aw the US has expanded its technological advantage and is using machines and technology to fight battles that were once fought with boots on the ground. While we brag about being able, with good intel, to take out an al Qaeda leader and his entourage with laser precision, we have also taken out entire wedding parties and funeral mourners. We can instruct Americans that they will receive NO (as an absolute) protection if they go places that the government knows are dangerous (Iran, N. Korea, Syria, etc.), especially if they are stupid enough to proselytize for a religious cause in an obviously non-Christian area. With a truly global economy and a culture that is following closely behind, we cannot assume a stance of isolationism. Obama was forced, because of the turmoil in DC over the shutdown, to cancel an Asian tour involving several very large conferences. Our not being there created a vacuum, filled immediately by a nation that does not hold US interests close to its heart. By our not being there, months, if not years, of close interpersonal diplomacy received a big setback. How do we make up that lost ground? By just leaving the game entirely?

            Reply
          64. aghostdancer October 13, 2013

            I don’t consider lives needlessly sacrificed as acceptable. We learn more from our technology than from people in buildings hidden behind fences. Diplomats are not spies.
            So no don’t leave the game just don’t play games with peoples lives. Either provide acceptable force to protect them or don’t place them there.
            We should have considered acceptable casualties as loses of those attacking US citizens. The generals in the area should have power to act and not wait for “permission” when americans are under attack. Had this been the case we’d have had air planes there in under 15 minutes. And special forces on the ground in 30. However the way the structure is today is the way it was since WWII ended. Before WWII the generals in the area had permission to fight any conflict as they saw fit. Local decision making by qualified and competent people.
            One or the other should happen period anything else is playing politics with American lives.

            Reply
          65. RobertCHastings October 13, 2013

            I hate to say it, but you can’t have it both ways. The US must either remain the world’s policeman, or get out of the business. If we get out, we must rely on others to forward our interests. If we stay in, we must use our force wisely and effectively.

            Reply
          66. aghostdancer October 13, 2013

            We shouldn’t be the police force. We should however as it’s been said walk quietly and carry a big stick.
            When you F with us the response should be immediate and with no mercy. We don’t start fights but we should end them none of this pansy crap we did in Iraq. Bush did indeed lie to me when he said “We will use every weapon at our disposal to keep our men and women in uniform safe” where was MOAB? The bunker busters? The bombs that draw air out of caves? The microwave gun that gives people sunburns even though walls? Instead we send them into caves to be shot, we rush into holy places to not “shoot it up”. So many weapons we didn’t use.
            We have the technology and we should push the envelop in that technology and invest in more. Screw protecting France, Germany and places that don’t need us there.
            /shrug either way I don’t think we need to be the worlds police force. And when the UN has a problem there should be equal numbers of other nations not just the USA doing the work.

            Reply
          67. RobertCHastings October 13, 2013

            We don’t start fights. What about Iraq in 2003? It has been conclusively demonstrated some time ago that the myth of WMD was manufactured. There absolutely NO reason for the invasion of Iraq, but every reason to stay in Afghanistan until the job was done. We are still fighting the Taliban, and our foray into Iraq has done just what al Qaeda said it would -bring more jihadists to the cause of killing Americans.

            Reply
          68. aghostdancer October 13, 2013

            Again I said what SHOULD be not what is. So again attempt to twist my words and meaning because you can’t debate what I said.
            Once more so you understand OUR POSITIONS SHOULD BE “We don’t start fights but we sure the hell end them”.
            We have also covered the ground in this set of posts I disagreed with both god dam wars. You point remains what?

            Reply
          69. RobertCHastings October 14, 2013

            I prefer to deal with what actually is, not what I wish things to be. If a frog had wings, he wouldn’t bump his ass along on the ground. War is a condition which humans choose to live in, not something that is going to go away simply because we wish it so. However, IF enough people were to wish it so, then it could be eliminated. IF we could learn to live in harmony with those with whom we disagree, and accept their humanity, perhaps they wouldn’t be so hell-bent on destroying us. American foreign policy since our founding has been to negotiate through force, a condition exacerbated and exemplified by our own Civil War.

            Reply
          70. aghostdancer October 14, 2013

            War is a conditions politicians (most of whom have never seen war) force upon us. It’s the elites and rich killing off the less privileged since none of their sons or daughters will be sent to war only yours/ours.
            So when people choose to live differently they get the attitude you are demonstrating. Only by action does change exist. We must act as we wish the world to be and strive for what we desire. You can not do this by holding to “the way it’s always been”.

            Reply
          71. RobertCHastings October 15, 2013

            A practical acceptance of current reality requires us to understand and deal with the power structure as it exists at this point in time. If we ignore what the structure is NOW in favor of what we want it to be at some time in the future, we have no foundation from which to pursue change. This is what the Occupy Wall Street Movement did, by fully understanding how the system works, NOW, and building a system to effectively combat it.

            Reply
          72. aghostdancer October 15, 2013

            Where is OWS lately? I haven’t heard from them where can I catch up on them? I do mean that sincerely I tried to follow it and for a long time it was easy in your face on every news channel.
            know the couple of twitter accounts but lately they are mostly dead 🙁

            Reply
          73. RobertCHastings October 15, 2013

            Try Googling either OWS, Occupy Wall Street, or David Graeber. It is in the character of this organization to be disorganized.

            Reply
          74. aghostdancer October 15, 2013

            David Graeber that was his name. Thanks, and google tends to make me wade throw a ton of right wing BS just like googling tea party makes you wade throw the left wing BS. /shrug
            Oh lots of good stuff on him I lost track after #Occupy and #OWS went dead. probably shut down by the powers that be.

            Reply
          75. aghostdancer October 13, 2013

            PS My husband served 3 times in afganistan. Not a single soldier needed to be sent. Bomb their asses to the stone ages. If that is unacceptable then the war was not worth fighting. (period)

            Reply
          76. RobertCHastings October 14, 2013

            You are right, of course. If we choose to look upon those who are different in beliefs and culture from us as something less than us, as NOT part of our special group, however, it becomes all too easy to accept them as less than human and not worthy of the concern we would show to those of our own group. Dehumanizing enemies is what led to the Holocaust, to the genocides in Sudan and Rwanda, to slavery in the US and its continuing effects.

            Reply
          77. aghostdancer October 14, 2013

            The US no longer has slaves nor continues the effort. The US is not innocent of crime my people suffered at wounded knee and at broken promise after broken promise. We beat the americans and to get peace they said fine you can keep the black hills we will leave you and your land in peace. Yet another lie.
            However I do not live in the past. I live here and now. the people who wronged my people are long since dead, and the people they wronged also long since dead. I will prefer to live now as a free woman and citizen that I am.

            Reply
          78. RobertCHastings October 15, 2013

            The US recognizes the existence of both slave labor (some places in THIS country, but mostly around the world) as well as sexual slavery (something a large percentage of runaways end up in). IF reservations are, in actuality, under the jurisdiction of the local tribes, then there should be no ability by the states to impede ANY economic development on those reservations, including the establishing of casinos. While the individuals (George Custer, Andrew Jackson, etc.) who perpetrated atrocities against Native Americans ARE, indeed, long gone, the culture that supported those atrocities is still very much alive.

            Reply
          79. aghostdancer October 15, 2013

            And in many cases benefiting like I have from todays society. Runaways end up as prostitutes and when picked up are generally returned home where they promptly run away again.
            DHHS (department od health and human services is indeed broken) and has been since Reagan or longer.

            Reply
          80. RobertCHastings October 15, 2013

            Over the past few months, several hundred laborers have been killed in factory fires in Pakistan and Bangladesh, in sweat shops that make apparel for Tommy Hilfiger, J. C. Penney, etc. These people are working under slave conditions, constantly confined and with little or no compensation. The children who run away and wind up as sex slaves are another form of slavery that this country seems to accept, as nothing is being done about it in a serious manner. The Center for Missing and Exploited Children, in conjunction with John Walsh (America’s Most Wanted) do try to find some of them, but little is being done to combat the underlying conditions that led to their running away in the first place.

            Reply
          81. aghostdancer October 15, 2013

            We can’t control Pakistan and our government NAFTA (The one big thing the best president ever did that I hated) did this. When we allow companies to do business in places where this is allowed. It’s no better in china where workers are paid pennies a day for 15-18 hours 6 days and sometimes 7 days a week.
            As for the children in this country I 100% fully agree. Conditions in other countries are deplorable all for the all mighty dollar. All because NAFTA allows it. One way to stop is don’t buy things made by slave labor and send a message with your purchasing power. I don’t buy hillfiger nor JC penny but a this time there are few American made alternatives.
            When we don’t buy their products and sales drop they will listen. After all it’s about the all mighty dollar. They will hear you not buying and writing to tell them why. If enough people do it then they will listen.

            Reply
          82. RobertCHastings October 15, 2013

            Did you Google the Occupy Movement? I was surprised to find as much as I did, not just archives, but their 2nd anniversary activity from last month.
            The I-Phone/Pad is the same sort of product. the only part made in this country is the screen, the rest being made overseas. Costing in excess of $300, Apple (with shipping, etc.) has less than $50 in each unit (this includes components, raw products, assembly, everything). No wonder Apple stock is worth so much – huge profit margin.
            Believe it or not,I have enjoyed these discussions with you. I believe my misunderstanding you got us off on the wrong foot. Please forgive me, and good luck with OWS.

            Reply
          83. aghostdancer October 15, 2013

            Thanks I am glad they fixed it. Last year it was so full of right wing propaganda that you couldn’t find OWS for anything. So glad google fixed it.
            My Dell is mostly made overseas except the screen, processor and a few other chips. Sad indeed. So much manufacturing which used to be the meat and potatoes of the middle class now gone.
            🙁 enjoy and forgive me as well. I knew we were closer on most issues than not. I just dislike this one bill the way it was written and done. I think we could have done better, faster, more and cheaper to have done it in pieces.
            🙂 cheers

            Reply
          84. RobertCHastings October 16, 2013

            On the ACA, I think Obama knew he had to move as he did, when he did. This is something that needed doing since the LBJ administration. Medicare was no more perfect than the ACA, when it was first enacted. Many changes have been made to Medicare since the mid-1960s; but, thank God, Congress did not throw the whole thing out. Even the Voting Rights Act has, over the years, shown its issues, and it is not nearly as complicated a piece of legislation as the ACA. If we can remove the Tea Party from the equation in Congress, both parties will be able to work together to improve the ACA. Even though Obama had both Houses on his side when the ACA was passed, he made a good-faith effort to achieve compromise, resulting in a bill that has well over 100 inclusions of Republican initiatives.

            Reply
          85. Lisztman October 11, 2013

            OK. You made your point. You’re a complete, total, idiot (please; I’m trying to be polite) — and believe that we must be bigger.

            I’m going to ignore the chump-change stuff <1B. You and I may not approve of it, but member items will always exist. Now for the "big stuff". Notice how many places you made up numbers.

            1) 2B in NY and MA for food stamps for sugary drinks. The entire SNAP to MA in 2012 was 1.35B, to NY, 5.46B. 29% spent on “sugary drinks”? Pick another planet.
            http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/monthly-food-stamp-benefits/
            (P.S. That’s called a “source”.)

            2) 300B in “foreign aid to countries which preach hatred and death to America.” Sorry. The entire 2012 foreign aid budget, military and humanitarian combined, was 53B. Amazing that a few countries got six times more than the total that was passed out.

            3) 60B in “health care fraud”? Source, please.

            4) 21B aid to Iraq “wasted or stolen.” Is that out of the 53B in foreign aid, or the military budget?

            5) 2.5B for broadband Internet. “Much” is wasted. How much is “much”?

            6) 2.5B in SNAP waste. Source?

            7) 34B wasted by Homeland Security. Per WaPo, 2/14/2011, the entire HS budget for 2012 was 57B. 60% was wasted?

            8) 2B for not farming farmland. I’ll concede that one (although I know by now that you may have inflated the number).

            IOW — you’re still making up numbers. You’re a jerk. An idiot. An uneducated troll who thinks we’ll just throw up our hands in despair like the typical Tea Partier and shout, “Oh, my! Aghostdancer, our savior!” Wrong. More like, um, the idiot troll, is at it again.

            Reply
          86. aghostdancer October 11, 2013

            You fail to report the bases and other aid of our soldiers and our money to defend countries like france? Germany? ect.. Really?

            http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6837797n

            CBS news is far from right wing or pawns to the GOP considering the tow the line for the Democrats.

            Another source forbes

            http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml

            The CBO

            http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml

            Don’t care what you think since you prefer to call names than debate

            You lost the debate the moment you begin the names. Insulting your opponent demonstrates you are in a corner and believe you must attack.
            The rest of the numbers stand as well I’ve neither the time nor desire to reprove each.

            Reply
          87. Lisztman October 14, 2013

            The reason you don’t have the time is because the numbers won’t stand up.
            Re insults: Up above, “If you’re as smart as you think you are…” You can’t have it both ways.

            Reply
          88. aghostdancer October 14, 2013

            I am not the one claiming to wish it both ways. If france and Germany had to provide for their own defense you would see drastic changes in their budgets and debts but as of now we pay for their defense. I wish that stopped.
            There is no “both ways” about my statements. It is you who is confused and the reason I have no more time for this illogical debate.

            Reply
          89. aghostdancer October 10, 2013

            Further cuts stop the corporate welfare it doesn’t work.

            Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
            SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
            Solyndra ($535 million)*
            Beacon Power ($43 million)*
            Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
            SunPower ($1.2 billion)
            First Solar ($1.46 billion)
            Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
            EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
            Amonix ($5.9 million)
            Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
            Abound Solar ($400 million)*
            A123 Systems ($279 million)*
            Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
            Johnson Controls ($299 million)
            Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
            ECOtality ($126.2 million)
            Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
            Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
            Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
            Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
            Range Fuels ($80 million)*
            Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
            Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
            Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
            GreenVolts ($500,000)
            Vestas ($50 million)
            LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
            Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
            Navistar ($39 million)
            Satcon ($3 million)*
            Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
            Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)
            All now out of business and not a dime to ever be repaid this is 4 years of wasted tax payor dollars. Stop this and you save another few 100 million a year.
            One more sad fact every company listed has a president/owner/majority stockholder that was a big donor in the 2008 presidential elections. Kick back or bad decisions?
            the government should never be involved in making one company succeed with tax payor money it is a prover failure.

            Reply
          90. Lisztman October 11, 2013

            I don’t believe anything you say any more. You’ve lost ALL credibility.

            Reply
          91. aghostdancer October 11, 2013

            Because you can’t refute a single claim you question my credibility prove them wrong.

            Reply
          92. Lisztman October 14, 2013

            I already did. I answered your 800B in cuts up above. You didn’t bother to answer me on most of them.

            Reply
          93. aghostdancer October 14, 2013

            Reading back there is not a single issue you raised to which I did not provide an answer. The only thing I avoided was your comments about the Tea Party and only representing 20% so what that 20% deserves a voice even if you and I disagree with their voice. After all to deny an American or group of americans a voice because the people in power dislike the message means when power shifts and You and I are not the majority then they will silence us.
            Try again.

            Reply
          94. aghostdancer October 10, 2013

            Now using your “show me” logic besides Barack Obama and the SSI tax holiday which by the way took 100s of millions of dollars that would have been placed into the SSI funds.

            Besides that tax holiday an president Obama name one person capable of stealing your SSI? Medicare? No one has that power.
            A few whackos suggested allowing people to put it in an IRA type account but you would still have YOUR money. The entitlement is protected under the law and can’t be revoked or taken from you. Same as PPACA.
            Good day to you and sorry I’ve no more time right now but I’d love to talk with you about things.
            PS Even the tax holiday took a super majority all democrats and limited republicans to steal the money that should have gone into the SSI coffers. That is as bad as the Reagan years and robbing the SSI funds then too.
            Dam politicians are in it for votes not doing what is right. The democrats have been screaming for decades the republicans want to take away a womans right to choose, SSI, medicare. and even when they had all the power include a stacked court under the first years of bush they did no such thing. And they won’t ever it’s political suicide.

            Reply
          95. Lisztman October 11, 2013

            Glad you’ve decided to stop talking. There’s already too much of your vomit on my computer table.

            Reply
          96. RobertCHastings October 10, 2013

            You must be a BFF of Lana Ward, since you both seem to preach the same sermon. Too bad your bible is in a language no longer in use.

            Reply
          97. aghostdancer October 10, 2013

            Already proven they want to borrow shy of 800billion and I posted over 890billion in wasted programs. So if that is a bible so be it. I stand by my gospel then because its accurate. Not a single entitlements program, not a single dime from the department of education/justice/interior/defense cut. No cuts to protecting the environment, helping the needy or our ability as a nation to react to disasters. /shrug you maybe blind to truth but I reamin open.

            Too bad Washington not the democrats OR the republicans has the balls to do it. Votes are more important.

            Reply
          98. RobertCHastings October 10, 2013

            Are you still claiming that the American system of health care is the best in the world? Perhaps you haven’t read numbers from the WHO (World Health Organization). Your claims for the superiority of our system are WAY over stated. We do NOT lead the world in life expectancy; we do NOT lead the world in efficacious outcomes from medical treatment; We do NOT lead the world in a wise and prudent use of our resources in the pursuit of the main objectives of health care. In terms of GDP, we spend a higher percentage than ANYONE else in the world. Except for only one or two others, we are the ONLY country that spends over 10% of GDP in this manner and, considering our GDP is by far the greatest in the world, it is only logical to believe that there is waste, a lot of waste. And yet, for private citizens and those covered at their workplaces, insurance needs are handled through the private sector, and inefficiencies in this area are NOT the fault or responsibility of the federal government, unless, of course, you feel the federal government should be telling the private insurers what to do (not a very popular stance for a libertarian or a conservative)

            Reply
          99. aghostdancer October 10, 2013

            If you remove suicides as other countries do we have the lowest death rates. Every country in the world has people coming here when they are ill and can afford it. The healthcare here is the best in the world the price tag is a problem and I’ve never disputed this because it’s a fact. The WHO doesn’t mean crap honestly facts mean everything and Canada/france/Britain ect all come here if they can afford it. Because the medicine is the best. 80+% of every noble prize in medicine is to an American or someone working in America paid but an American company or grant from our government.
            Yes I stand by my words. Why did canadas PM come here for heart surgery? Because he got “the best care available in the world” his words sir.
            Thanks have a good day.

            Reply
          100. RobertCHastings October 10, 2013

            And we have tens of thousands of “medical tourists” who go to places like Mexico, India, etc. to receive hip surgery, knee replacements, angioplasty, transplants, etc. because they can get it done much cheaper OUTSIDE the US, with just as favorable outcomes. Why did Chavez NOT come here for cancer treatment? Because, while Cuba is a destitute country, they provide ALL their citizens with the best healthcare available, for free.

            Reply
          101. aghostdancer October 10, 2013

            And if he came to America he’d still be alive and not dead from complications. People go because it’s cheap not better. Or because the FDA doesn’t allow drug x or treatment Y.
            /shrug don’t care the fact remains the healthcare here is the best in the world. Also the most expensive which unfortunately is also true.

            Reply
          102. RobertCHastings October 11, 2013

            “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”, a delightful movie about seniors coming of age, brings to a personal level the issue of “medical tourism”, while dealing with several ancillary issues. People don’t go to India to die, they go there to have surgery performed which they cannot get elsewhere, and the survival rate is no worse than were it performed here, GB, or India. Tens of thousands do it annually, with no problems, and return home in much better shape for having had the surgery done. Many procedures, such as unapproved cancer treatments, MAY result in the death of the patient, but only because this type of treatment is for someone who is already with one foot on a banana peel and the other in the grave. This is no more desperate a move than going to a faith healer.

            Reply
          103. aghostdancer October 11, 2013

            Thank you for a chuckle this morning you are too funny.

            Reply
          104. Lisztman October 11, 2013

            Sorry. I didn’t find your 890B. As I detailed above, you made up an awful lot of the numbers. Next time quote your sources. The deep dark recesses of what passes for your mind don’t count.

            Reply
          105. Lisztman October 14, 2013

            I already poked big holes in your “890billion in wasted programs.” Go back and do your math over again. And give us sources. Without sources we all know you made up your numbers.

            Reply
          106. aghostdancer October 14, 2013

            google is your friend. Many taken from the CBO reports ect.. Try researching and proving anything wrong the facts stand sorry but I am done replying to you it is not worth it. You don’t listen, are lazy and can’t debate. End of story enjoy your life.

            Reply
          107. charliebrown737 October 10, 2013

            Do as I say, not do as I do.

            Reply
      2. charleo1 October 9, 2013

        I assume you’re taking about Obama doing the usual oppositional
        demagoguery on raising the debt ceiling that had been business
        as usual for years. He did it once. And he was obviously wrong.
        But then, it was merely a benign exercise in redundancy, that politicians kept around for just such activity. I guess it was a
        politician thing. It’s not in the Constitution, and it’s not appropriating new money. And it certainly was never meant to be an economic nuclear bomb, used as a bargaining chip to force concessions.
        And then Senator Barack Obama’s Party was not threatening default.
        Now, you want to deal with the issue? Or, just keep beating the
        Obama drum?

        Reply
        1. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

          Incorrect sir he voted against it THREE times not once. I agreed with him when he voted against it. We WEW raising it because of a lack of leadership and lack of people willing to tackle the bigger problems like honestly balancing the budget. We are STILL in the same place today because of lack of leadership from the same man Obama blamed the president himself.

          I want to deal with the issue and not have to repay this monstrous debt the baby bombers raise. We can balance the budget now if we wanted to without default, without hurting SSI, medicare, or the social safety nets and without hurting our ability to respond to global threats. Are you saying you are ready cause that would make you a tea partier.

          Reply
          1. jmprint October 9, 2013

            The problem is that we are not in the same place today. 7 years later to be exact. The GOP uses the debt ceiling as a yoyo, first it’s defunding ACA a law already in place and now the debt ceiling is not needed. We are a country trying to stay afloat and just like a wound, if you don’t take care of it, it will get infected and cause you more problems, that’s exactly what happens to our country if we don’t take care of it. I say pass the debt ceiling and then work on programs that are pork waste. The economy was just starting to get bad in 2006, the two bush/cheny wars have cost us to be where we are today. Let’s be realistic when trying to blame President Obama about remarks he said before then.

            Reply
          2. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

            As stated I don’t blame I support his previous stand. He was right then and is wrong now. he was right to say borrowing makes us weaker and less secure. It makes us less safe as a nation and a people. I say solve the problem now we have kicked it far enough down the road already. Time to get back to no debt and yes our nation has been debt free before. We should be again.

            Reply
          3. jmprint October 9, 2013

            “Time to get back to no debt and yes our nation has been debt free before. We should be again.”

            That’s going to require the rich be taxed, and no loop holes.

            That’s how Clinton did it. But Tea Party ain’t gonna have that, because the kock brothers said no.

            Reply
          4. RobertCHastings October 9, 2013

            Placing the blame exactly where it belongs, thank you. Over the past thirty+ years, thanks to people like the Koch brothers, the American middle class has had their pockets picked to the tune of 30 trillion dollars. Today, the top 400 families in this country own MORE wealth than the bottom 150,000,000 on the totem pole. The last time there was such a huge discrepancy in wealth in this country was just before 1929.

            Reply
          5. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

            And 99% of the Tea Party are not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination.

            Reply
          6. jmprint October 10, 2013

            I didn’t say they were, they just suck up for the political money bags. It’s all about the pocket lining.

            Reply
          7. RobertCHastings October 10, 2013

            Precisely, which makes it difficult to understand why the majority of those who voted for the Tea Party support an agenda that so favors the wealthy.

            Reply
          8. aghostdancer October 11, 2013

            Why did OWS play puppets to George Soris? The world may never know.

            Reply
          9. RobertCHastings October 11, 2013

            You think the Occupy movement was orchestrated and choreographed? Interesting conjecture. Aside from the fact that Soros quite probably thinks some of the same thoughts that were demonstrated by Occupy, there is no indication the Movement had ANY directing leadership, purposefully. You apparently don’t understand the dynamics of the movement.

            Reply
          10. aghostdancer October 11, 2013

            http://www.humanevents.com/2011/10/21/george-soros-funds-occupy-wall-street/

            http://frontpagemag.com/2011/matthew-vadum/occupy-wall-street-and-soros-fingerprints/

            It’s not far fetch and is easy to demonstrate. Human Events Is kind of right leaning but I’ve found front page to generally stick to facts. Other sources reported it as well. The movement had no real dynamics that was one reason for the chaos. Just like when a million people showed in DC shortly after someone captured it as the Tea Party ut before hand they had no real dynamics either.

            But to suggest OWS had no backing and organization?

            http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/unions-bused-occupy-protesters-to-charlotte

            Again many more stories like that one. Big unions are about as organized as one can get a model of efficiency. Not the only model but one OWS followed an was guided by.

            Reply
          11. RobertCHastings October 11, 2013

            “The Democracy Project” by David Graeber, written by an architect and activist in the Occupy Movement, explains just how it worked, WITHOUT leadership or guidance from outside sources. The main premise for operating without a leadership hierarchy was to prevent authorities from going after the leaders. When everyone is capable of developing discussion groups, cleanup groups, sanitation and food committees, then who will the authorities go after, everyone?

            Reply
          12. Lisztman October 11, 2013

            Nope. They’re not intelligent by any stretch, either.

            Reply
          13. aghostdancer October 11, 2013

            Again you lack the ability to debate them so you throw rocks and belittle them. Shows perhaps they are smarter than you? I personally am not part of that but I do not dismiss their desire, their voice or their intellect. I do not dismiss their passion nor patriotism. They believe they are doing the right thing even if I disagree with much of their platform. We americans last I checked had a right to our own opinion. I am glad you wish the world otherwise. Here it’s not and people can say and do as they please and believe as they please. I prefer debate over dismissal and names.

            Reply
          14. Lisztman October 14, 2013

            I would also prefer honest debate. You, sir, are not being honest. I have asked you, repeatedly, for sources for those 800B numbers you enumerated up above. You elaborated a few of the numbers, but didn’t bother to source any of the significant ones that I questioned.
            Which, in turn, tells me you made them up. Mostly because your math doesn’t work.

            Reply
          15. aghostdancer October 14, 2013

            google dude or put up and prove any of them wrong but since you can’t you want me to go back and provide sources for each number not happening. Prove me wrong as it has already been shown I have provided many many sources for many many things you just refuse to believe your own eyes.
            Amen god bless, rest in peace we are done. Oh by the way being a military wife I’ve known forever sir is the only way to address a superior officer be them male or female. Thank you for the distinction it was nice.

            Reply
          16. Lisztman October 18, 2013

            Sorry, ghost. You should have finished HS, or gone to your classes, or gone to college. You would have learned about these things called “footnotes”. That thing at the end called a “bibliography”. All fully cross-referenced as required.

            Because it is the responsibility of the writer — including you, to separate “opinion” from “fact”. If you’re expressing an opinion — you’re free to say anything you want, whether world-changing or trite, whether deep or shallow. On the other hand, if you’re using fact to make your point, you quote the source of your facts. It is never the responsibility of the reader to go figure out where it was you got your numbers or words. In the absence of quotable sources, it may safely be assumed that you made up the numbers.

            Reply
          17. aghostdancer October 18, 2013

            To bad so sad for you. I finished both HS and college. I read and write 4 languages, read lips in 3 languages and sign. English is my 4th written language and my 5th if you include ASL as a language.
            Your feble attempt at insulting my intellect is falling upon deaf ears. PS I finished both HS and college near top of my classes without any special help of programs for the deaf. I did not ask for government handouts, special treatment or anything else.
            Stop being lazy and go find your answers or prove me wrong which you already admit you can’t do by your unwillingness to do so. I accept your defeat and good night.

            Reply
          18. Lisztman October 21, 2013

            And whatever research papers you submitted in the process received good grades without a bibliography and/or footnotes? How sad.

            Reply
          19. aghostdancer October 21, 2013

            This is a debate not a research paper. Here is how a debate works.
            PersonA (me) presents items as fact for debate
            PersonB (you) presents own facts and challenges specific points made by PersonA with facts and refferences.
            PersonA (me) now presents answer to specific challenges made by PersonB
            So far you’ve provided not a single specific challenge except to say i challenge it all without presenting evidentory material for purpose of said challenge. You are not debating you are not even in the game. So instead you mislead and abuse the purpuse and nature of debate. IF I were sumbitting a paper it would include said missing part. Since I am not submitting a paper and instead engaging in simple debate I will follow known and acceptable terms of debate.
            Get in the game, it can be a lot of fun to open ones mind through debate.

            Reply
          20. charliebrown737 October 10, 2013

            Place the blame? Detroit which once was a vibrant thriving city is now a war zone and has NEVER had anything but Democrat rule.
            Where do you place the blame?

            Washington DC spends nearly $20,000 per year per student and has the worst schools in the US if not the world, nothing but Democrat rule.
            Where do you place the blame?

            Utah has some of the best schools in the US and they spend $5,000 a year, no Democrat in charge, place the blame?

            I could go on and on but the results are always the same.

            Reply
          21. RobertCHastings October 10, 2013

            Better check the Constitution. Congress exercises authority over MOST of what happens within the District. And I could go on and on, but what would be the point? We would continue to disagree, and we would both have just cause to do so. After several years under the governorship of an actor (again), California had a ruined economy. Today, under a DEMOCRAT, California is once again thriving. Go figure. The Great Depression happened under a Republican president (Herbert Hoover, three years before FDR was elected. The collapse of 2007/2008 happened under a George W Bush (a Republican). Once again, just go figure.

            Reply
          22. aghostdancer October 10, 2013

            California is thriving? I am here and guess what it’s not. The number 1 business in California is renting trucks to LEAVE the state.
            Yup thriving with debt that is chocking it off and California will be bankrupted soon enough.

            Reply
          23. RobertCHastings October 10, 2013

            Apparently, you DON’T live in California, or the California Department of Finance is filled with liars. I am not saying that you would never believe that, but the figures they publish certainly do contradict your claims.

            Reply
          24. aghostdancer October 10, 2013

            I said I WAS HERE. I AM here on business as I would never choose to live here. Too much smog and the freeways oh vey don’t bother trying.

            Reply
          25. RobertCHastings October 10, 2013

            Touchy, aren’t we?

            Reply
          26. aghostdancer October 10, 2013

            Nope merely clearing up what is obviously a misunderstanding you assumed I lived here in California. I only work here from time to time when the need presents itself.

            Reply
          27. RobertCHastings October 11, 2013

            Not necessarily a misunderstanding. I understood very well what you CLAIMED to be the continuing economic collapse of the state of California, and I just happened to disagree with you, as published reports show that California, while not fully recovered from the 2007 worldwide crisis OR the failures of the previous governor,is STILL in much better shape than you appear to believe.

            Reply
          28. dpaano October 11, 2013

            Gee, ghostdancer, I too live in California and have for my entire 67 years…..we have a surplus; things are going well under Governor Brown, and I couldn’t be happier. Our unemployment rate is still high, but things will take time to “right” themselves. I’m optimistic that California (which, by the way, is doing better than Texas) will be fine.

            Reply
          29. Lisztman October 11, 2013

            Troll.

            Reply
          30. aghostdancer October 11, 2013

            There are two arguments frequently deployed against Texas: Texas’ economic growth is driven by population increases due to the attractiveness to business of cheap labor and a warm climate; and energy production plays the main role in Texas’ economy.

            Texas’s relative success is best measured against a peer: California.

            California and Texas are the most populous states. They both have diverse populations, large numbers of immigrants, abundant energy and natural resources, long coastlines and a border with Mexico.

            Most importantly, California and Texas, alike in many ways, have diametrically opposed public policies. California’s state and local tax burden ranks as America’s 4th-highest compared to Texas at 45th. California taxes a 42 percent larger share of state income than does Texas, California’s restrictive energy policies discourage oil extraction, even though it has the largest proven shale oil reserves in the nation; while its industrial electrical rates are 88 percent higher than in Texas.

            These policy differences contribute to a divergence in economic performance.

            In June, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis released new data on state real per capita gross domestic product for 2012. Performance for 2009-2011 was also revised, with California seeing a downward revision of 2.6 percent and while Texas’ performance was revised upward by 0.5 percent. The new figures show that in 2011 Texas surpassed California in real per capita gross domestic product while a separate report showed Texas expanding its lead in real per capita personal income.

            What’s remarkable about this data showing Texas’ prosperity relative to California is how counter it runs to prevailing notions that California, with Silicon Valley and Hollywood, is a land of wealth and opportunity while Texas, part of the South, is mired in low wage poverty. In fact, Silicon Valley, as important as it is to California, only amounts to 10.4 percent of the Golden State’s economy while employing 6 percent of Californians. The mining industry in Texas, of which oil and gas extraction are the main part, generated 9.8 percent of Texas’ GDP in 2012 significantly less than manufacturing’s share of 14.5 percent—the Lone Star State’s economy is more diversified than its critics contend.

            As for population and job growth, from 2000 to 2012, California grew 11.9 percent. Texas more than doubled California’s growth at 24.4 percent. The U.S. population expanded 11.3 percent in that time. Much of Texas’ growth came from domestic migration, while California lost residents to other states, Texas being the most common destination; this alone should cause pause to those who say that migration to Texas is driven by the weather. From January 2000 to April 2013, nonfarm payroll grew an anemic 2.6 percent in California compared to Texas’ 19.7 percent. U.S. job growth over that time was 3.6 percent.

            If, as the critics opine, Texas is adding jobs simply because it is adding people, then the ratio of jobs added to population increased ought to be roughly the same there as in the U.S. as a whole. The data shows the opposite. Texas added one new job for every three people from 2000 to 2013, while the nation added one job for every seven people, meaning that Texas outperformed the U.S. job creation rate by more than two-to-one. In the same period, California added one job for every 11 new residents.

            No amount of taxes will allow one worker to support 11 people indefinitely, no matter how robust the welfare state.

            Taking into account official measures of regional price parity, Texas’ real personal income was about 4.6% higher than California’s in 2011. But this data reflects Texas’ far lower unemployment rate.

            California’s wages, for those who had jobs, were higher. But wages are used to buy goods and services. Once California’s higher costs for housing, food, transportation and health care are considered, Texas workers end up with the advantage: $47,413 in cost of living adjusted average wages compared to California’s $41,680—before taxes.

            The policy differences between the two biggest states result in vastly different outcomes for the most vulnerable of residents. The U.S. Census Bureau recently published a new, more comprehensive measure of state-by-state poverty that took into account cost of living as well as the value of government assistance. This survey showed that California had America’s highest poverty rate, 23.5 percent, with proportionately 42 percent more people living in poverty there than in Texas.
            I rest my case the numbers from the US census and the CBO. /clap
            More names I see.

            Reply
          31. Lisztman October 11, 2013

            And Seattle politics is thoroughly dominated by Democrats, so they must be responsible for the rain.
            charliebrown — go take a course in statistics, and correlation.

            Is it that D.C. has the worst schools? Or that its students have the toughest lives?

            Is it that the Dems destroyed Detroit? Or that corporate myopia lost tons of vehicle sales to Asia? Or that, for all those companies in Detroit that used to make auto parts — economic policy caused them to lose out to, e.g., China, where they have dirty air and subhuman wages?

            After you’ve passed Statistics 101, come back and have an intelligent chat.

            Reply
          32. Barbara Morgan October 10, 2013

            Just before the Great Depression from which this Country did not fully recover from until the end of WW2.

            Reply
          33. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

            No Clinton did it two fold and no one sane debates those facts. 1) He raised the tax rates on the most wealthy. 2) He reduced the tax rates on companies. He also cleared government out of the way making America more friendly to do business.
            Course he also signed NAFTA /shudder
            But Clinton was the greatest president ever in my opinion.
            Last the Tea Party is not in charge of anything and is made up proportionately to the population of the USA. If you look at the % of democrats/republicans/independents nationally the Tea Party actually mirrors that with it’s enrolment. If you look at the number of blacks/Hispanics/whites the tea Party enrolment mirrors that as well. Male/Female/Christian/muslim/Jew ect.. It is one of the few organizations truly grass roots and representative of a decent cross section of people.I personally am not a Tea Partier but at least they support my believe to stop the spending which Barack Obama in 2008 campaigned on himself.
            He let me down and I should have known when any politician is moving his lips he is lying.

            Reply
          34. jmprint October 10, 2013

            Look you have to be a little bit more realistic. The religious group follow the tea party because they are against abortion, and some against birth control. The Male that support them are comfort in their zone and don’t want to help anyone less fortunate, the majority voted for Obama and he also has the same type of following Male/Female/Christians/Muslims/Jews etc., so you made no point other then wanting for Obama to swallow his word of 2008.

            Reply
          35. aghostdancer October 10, 2013

            Well I believe that claim to be false about not wanting to help others. My brother is religious, is against abortion (makes for interesting holiday talk at times), and is against taxes being so high. But he does donate a lot of time and money to helping others. That is but one example and he is Tea Party (which also leads to interesting family holiday talk) I agree with one position of the tea party and that is stop the out of control spending.
            I do not want the president to swallow his words I want him to honor them He was right then and I was one of the few who supported him. To not stand by the principals and flip-flop on this would make me a hypocrite of which I am not. I was against the spending under both the former and current president.
            I can not see passing this mountain of debt onto my children because those we elected are to cowardly to do the right thing. President Obama then senator Obama and a few others DID the right thing in 2006 and 2007 and 2008. I expect people to honor their words. He has failed to do so at least on this issue. I was truly hoping he’d lead on this and do as he said cut the spending and balance the budget.
            That’s why I voted for him in 2008 and for mickey mouse (couldn’t vote for Romney) in 2012.
            So once more the point is He was right before and is wrong now. Period. We can cut this budget and not sacrifice PPACA, SSI, Medicare, Military spending and still not borrow a dime. We should do it but the dumbbutt politicians (BOTH SIDES) lack the balls to do it.

            Reply
          36. Barbara Morgan October 10, 2013

            I have never seen many if any African Americans, Hispanics and other people of color at any Tea Party gathering that I have seen in person or on TV. When did the Koch brothers become grass root people? I must have being hearing and seeing people that are in a different Tea party than the ones you describe for these past 5 years. The Tea party I know about is actually controlled by Koch brothers money and their representative Oliver Norquist. The members of the Tea party I am familiar are are people like Michelle Bachmann who was cheering the fact that the government had been shut down the night it was happened, Representative Scott DeJarlis of Tennessee.
            The original founder of the Tea party who did live in Tennessee and I believe still does has even said that the Tea party of today isn’t the Tea party he founded years back

            Reply
          37. aghostdancer October 10, 2013

            Again I am not a Tea Partier it is not my place nor position to defend them. I know gallop released a poll showing 13% of the Tea Party or those who identified as such were black and 12.6% of the national population was black. The poll brock out that x percent of the tea party were democrats vs republicans vs independants, women vs men.
            I agree Backman couldn’t disappear fast enough for me. And so the Koch brothers were involved some how the billionaire sorros and the unions actually paid people to attend anti-tea party rallies and to attend OWS rallies. /shrug
            The Tea Partiers I know are grass roots as much as any. And they unlike Bauckman are decent people.

            Reply
          38. charliebrown737 October 10, 2013

            No loop holes, if you were to take 100% of every persons salary in the USA there would not be enough to pay what the tax and squander crowd in DC are spending

            There are now more people on the dole in almost half the states than are working. Why should I work so some one else can lay around and live off of me?

            Reply
          39. jmprint October 10, 2013

            Why should I work so some one else can lay around and live off of me?”

            Don’t work, don’t care! I have been self sufficient since I was 16 years old, never suck suck on government tit, but I would gladly help a person in need. The reason so many people need assistance is because congress passed legislation on their raises, but kept the minimum wage too low to live on. It should have been raised as the cost of living and inflation went up. That’s why the rich got richer. I was making $7.85 back in 1979, and barely surviving as a single parent, and the minimum wage is lower then that now. How do you expect people to survive.

            Reply
          40. aghostdancer October 10, 2013

            Why? Because maybe you were raised with a work ethic and ultimately you know those folks who “lay around and don’t work” live in utter poverty. Perhaps you want better than poverty?
            Now don’t call them lazy many are disabled or poorly educated or even raised the way to accept handouts. Not all of them desire to stay poor.

            Reply
          41. jmprint October 11, 2013

            I WAS RESPONDING TO CHARLIEBROWN. “Why should I work so some one else can lay around and live off of me?” That was his statement.

            You don’t have to tell me about the poor. I will always help my fellow man as long as they are good humans. A person should not be judged as to what he earns, but what’s in his heart.

            Reply
          42. aghostdancer October 11, 2013

            I wasn’t chastising sorry if it seemed that way I was giving you a compliment and reminding people the poor don’t choose to stay poor, sometimes they have no choices or no examples otherwise.
            I knew you were responding to someone else. /shrug
            My apologies if you mistook my words. English is my 4th language. 5th is ASL counts as my first. But English is my 4th written language. I sometimes screw it up.

            Reply
          43. RobertCHastings October 10, 2013

            Apparently, you have no concept of the wealth held by the top 5% of the population. The top 400 families in this country control MORE wealth than the bottom 150,000,000 individuals (half the country). And that bottom half includes a large chunk of the middle class. IF everyone in this country paid taxes at the rate they were paying after WWII, there would be no budget or debt issues, and the middle class would be thriving, as would the wealthy.

            Reply
          44. Lisztman October 14, 2013

            “Living on the dole.” Are you including Social Security in that number? If so, you just failed Civics 101. SS is not a “gift” from the government. SSI is a non-optional (or “enforced”, if you prefer) retirement savings program. It is administered by the government for the following historical reason.

            Up to 1929 this nation had “poorhouses”. Places where the homeless impoverished lived on public assistance (whether private- or government- sponsored). People who could afford to put aside savings for retirement did so — perhaps in the stock market, perhaps in bank accounts.
            When the market crashed in 1929, and took stocks and banks with it, millions lost their life savings. The poorhouses couldn’t deal with the numbers.

            Social Security was the answer; not to the immediate problem — but the answer to keep this scenario from repeating. The government would assess workers a small percentage of their income — and guarantee that those workers would receive a wage after they retired. No one ever claimed one would be living high-and-mighty on SSI wages. But it would buy food and a room.

            SSI is self-funded. The only reason it even appears in the Federal budget is because in the 70s some in Congress wanted to make the budget numbers look better — which they accomplished by moving in the SS accounts. But to insist that SSI recipients are “on the dole” is disingenuous and dishonest. If you’re using Romney’s “47%” number — then you’re including military personnel. Glad to hear you consider them “on the dole”.

            Show me your numbers. Right now you’re in the “don’t believe” column with Ghost.

            Reply
          45. aghostdancer October 11, 2013

            If you took every dine the rich earn (any making 250k a year of more. 100% income tax rate you couldn’t run the government for a month.

            Reply
          46. jmprint October 11, 2013

            If the politicians were to put 100% all their donations in a bank account it would run the government for several months!

            Reply
          47. aghostdancer October 11, 2013

            HAHA 🙂 Maybe so, maybe so.

            Reply
          48. Lisztman October 11, 2013

            Yup. There’s an absolutely simple way to get us debt-free. After the Bush 2001 tax cuts (that he promised during the 2000 campaign, even though no one had asked for them) — the debt started to mount (it had been shrinking in the latter years of the Clinton administration).

            Don’t believe the Tea Party, or the GOP. You can find the numbers almost anywhere. Here, I’ll help you along…
            http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/12151-personal-income-tax-rates.html#axzz2hTFV32ve
            The US has one of the lowest income tax rates in the industrialized world.

            No, you can’t put it back all at once. But phase out the “temporary” Bush tax cuts over the next five years and the deficit will disappear, and, somewhat thereafter, the debt.

            Reply
          49. aghostdancer October 11, 2013

            I’ve not once said tax increases may not be required. TO pay the debt off we need more income. Income for the government is taxes. (period) but we can live within our means should we have the will to do so.

            Reply
          50. charleo1 October 9, 2013

            The best way to bring down the debt, is to grow the economy. The most effective way to create more debt, is to let banks borrow 40 times their reserves, and go bust on a real estate scheme. Or. cut taxes while planning to go war. Something not done before 2003. The surest way to guarantee we’ll never get out of debt, is to create uncertainty about our willingness to pay our debts on time. Because,
            that the surest way to increase the interest rates we pay.
            That in turn increases the cost of money for all businesses.
            Businesses that may want to expand, or hire new workers. Or, families trying to buy a home. Or, the builders of that home, and all the jobs created by the businesses that sell what goes in that. Or, the new car that sets in the driveway. What the T-Party needs to be doing, if they were really interested in cutting the debt, and deficits, is stop this nonsense today. Do their job, by making sure government does it’s part. Remove the job, and investment killing, threats, and uncertainty they are themselves are creating. Then set down like men who respect the democratic institutions that elected, not just them, but the opposing party as well. And
            work within that framework to enact those policies they so
            strongly believe in.

            Reply
          51. Barbara Morgan October 10, 2013

            Are you calling the people that are retiring now and the ones that have retired in years gone by baby bombers? Because if you are, here are some choice words for you . To start with every time there is Republican President the country’s debt and deficit go up. Then a Democratic President and Congress has to come in, bring the deficit, and the budget which President Obama and the Democrats were doing and doing well until the lies told in the 2010 elections, that if elected the Republicans and Tea party would focus on getting jobs, jobs, jobs created where as the President was ignoring the need for jobs. They got a majority in the House and what have they done to help create jobs not one thing They even voted down a jobs bill to help our returning military find a job when they returned civilian life that was brought to the floor and would have been passed in the Senate, every house Republican and Tea party member of Congress except the one that introduced the bill voted against the Bill because IT MIGHT MAKE THE PRESIDENT LOOK AND WE DON’T THAT TO HAPPEN-John Boehner December 2012.
            Also WE BABY BOOMERS have not raised nor will raise any monstrous debt because of We draw SS and medicare. SS is not funded by the Budget but the Social Security Income taxes that is paid out workers pay checks and insurance premiums are paid by us every month for Medicare.
            ALSO PEOPLE THAT DRAW SOCIAL SECURITY NOW PAID FOR SOCIAL SECURITY THAT YOUR GRANDPARENTS AND GREAT PARENTS DREW. ALSO PAID 2/3 MORE IN SS TAXES FROM THE 1980’S DURING REAGAN’S 2 TERMS IN OFFICE UNTIL THEY RETIRED SO THEY WOULD HAVE A BETTER RETIREMENT AND THE YOUNG PEOPLE WORKING TODAY WOULDN’T HAVE TO PAY A LOT IN SS TAXES SINCE THERE IS FEWER OF THEM THAN THEY WERE OF US. I AM SHOUTING.
            Only bombers drawing Social Security, and get Medicare are the mostly men and few women that served in the Korean War, Viet Nam and all other military actions since since they turned 18.
            If you can the balance the budget now without the safety nets being cut, send your facts and ways to Representative Jim Cooper, Tennessee Democrat, he has been trying to get a balanced budget bill passed for years. Better still take your ideas and proof that they will balance the budget to his office in DC, he is there everyday Monday-Friday even with the government being shut down.

            Reply
          52. aghostdancer October 10, 2013

            I am calling the polititicans in charge baby boomers.
            2) When the current president took over the deficit including obligations already promised per the fiscal year that ended 10/08 was 9.1 Trillion dollars today that debt is 16.75 Trillion dollars with 4 trillion added his first 2 years alone. Bush in 8 years added 4 trillion. Clinton balanced the budget (best president ever).
            The current president sits at 6.65 trillion in added debt already in propses adding over 700 billion this year alone. At this rate he will double the debt single handedly which means just like bush did 5 trillion to 9.1 trillion.
            Further more I never claimed SSI should be cut so calm down. Wow. Nor have I claimed the shut down was good.
            But you have to know the shutdown is not all onesided. The democrats in the senate drafted a budget adding 1 trillion in taxes and new pork and did nothing to reduce or stop the spending. They knew 100% this was dead on arrival in the house because the republicans can’t be seen as raising taxes. So they draft a budget killing PPACA which they knew was Dead on the floor in the senate. Neither will give so we shut down. BOTH need to abandon the stupidity not just the republicans.
            yes you are shouting but there is no need in civil discourse which we I believe were or are attempting to have.

            Reply
          53. Barbara Morgan October 11, 2013

            Your post said baby bombers not boomers and I don’t usually shut but there times when I feel the need to do it and with you that feeling is very strong.

            Reply
          54. aghostdancer October 11, 2013

            Then it would seem you lack the manners required for civil discord. Our debate is over because yelling suggests you are upset and once upset reason and logic are removed from the equation and civil discord and debate become impossible.
            Perhaps you will calm down and not scream and yell and become upset when your advisory in debate is rational and calm. Peace /takes her bow

            Reply
          55. aghostdancer October 10, 2013

            PS already sent you the facts it’s all in the budget already for 2012 and will be carried by default into the new budget that is what is called a “clean budget” meaning no cuts to anything but some things need to be cut.

            Reply
          56. Lisztman October 11, 2013

            Am I ready? Absolutely. Having said that, it can’t be done. Unless you’re choosing to completely gut a very large number of programs. I guess you like breathing the soot from coal-fired power plants. Sorry. I don’t.

            Reply
  3. Budjob October 8, 2013

    The T-baggers are nuts and,the ones that aren’t nuts are RACISTS!!! So conversely they also would be NUTS!!!!

    Reply
  4. paganheart October 8, 2013

    My personal theory is that these Flaming Bags of Dogsh!t (aka the Tea Party) actually WANT a default to happen, because they believe it will bring about the thing they want most of all: the complete dismantling of the Federal government, except for the Department of Defense, the CIA and Homeland Security (and maybe one or two other things that benefit them personally.) They think that with no money coming in to pay for anything except interest on debt, the President will have no choice but to make their wet dreams come true, and close down all those nasty government programs and departments that they so loathe because they are so against their holy, precious, must-be-taken literally Bible…er, Constitution (or that benefit someone besides the filthy rich 1% pigs who they have whored themselves out to.) Say goodbye to the IRS, EPA, BLM, Education, Health and Human Services, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, National Parks, and every other filthy nasty disgusting program that the Flaming Bags Of Dogsh!t loathe, at last, they will have the chance to take their country back (to the 19th Century, but who cares???) So what if the country and the world spirals into Depression and millions of innocent people probably will suffer and die. Those people were probably just unpatriotic, unchristian, evil “takers,” the dregs of society anyhow, and the world of the Flaming Bags Of Dogsh!t will be better off when they are all gone, so the strong “makers” can rise up and take their rightful places pillaging, raping, killing and destroying the world.

    In all seriousness, I have heard some people in my family, who are “Tea Party” disciples and sympathizers, say they honestly believe that forcing the government to end things like welfare, Medicare and Medicaid would be a good thing, even if it takes a shutdown to do it. In addition to their lamentations over how the US is “flat broke,” they honestly believe that people these days “don’t suffer enough” because government programs keep them “soft, weak and dependent.” (Before his death, my grandfather even said that the reason there’s “so many f-gs in the world nowadays,” is because “damn liberals give them everything and don’t beat their sons enough to turn them into men!”) If pressed, they will concede that yes, “a lot of people will suffer” if government programs go away, but they argue that is actually a good thing because, “only suffering and pain make people strong enough to take care of themselves.” This also kind of reminds me of a Sunday school teacher I had back in the Eighties who thought that a nuclear war with the USSR would actually be a good thing, because “It will hasten the day when our lord will come back to rule us all.”

    These people are insane.

    And I am terrified for the future.

    Reply
    1. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

      Wow nice names debate them instead. “Show me a man who resorts to name calling and I will show you a man out of ideas” _Einstien

      Reply
      1. jmprint October 9, 2013

        AGHOSTDANCER- Show a women who doesn’t understand basic knowledge and that’s you.

        Reply
        1. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

          More names from a person with no ability to debate. I pay little attention to fools. Have a good life and may karma bless you with all you deserve.

          Reply
          1. Lisztman October 21, 2013

            You don’t debate. You post conjecture and lies as fact and challenge us to find sources to refute them.

            Reply
          2. kmkirb October 21, 2013

            I have to agree with you there Lisztman. Whenever I make a statement, I always back it up with my own links. It’s proper, courteous, & respectful, whether they agree with what I said or not is no never mind. No one should have to dig to try & figure out what the other person saw, what they read, where they got it from, et al.

            Reply
          3. aghostdancer October 21, 2013

            “challenge us to find sources to refute them”
            Haha which means they ARE true if you can’t refute them. I win thank you. I lack the time to go back and forth with you anymore. Either provide evidence and we can bein earnest debate or you are that pathetic and lose. Period

            Reply
          4. Lisztman October 22, 2013

            “Pathetic”. I thought you wouldn’t stoop to name-calling…

            Meanwhile — we could refute them. But in any debate, or presentation, it is the responsibility of the speaker to back up his allegations. It is valid, in debate, to say, “On whose say-so?” It is not valid to stand in your corner, as you do, and say anything you feel like (BTW, I DID refute your billions and you failed to respond…) and expect us to take you down.

            You’re an irresponsible shill for the TP. That’s not name-calling. It’s sad fact.

            Reply
          5. aghostdancer October 22, 2013

            Pathetic is not a name it is a state of being. The speaker backs up alligations when challenged on one. I have backed up every statement and every challnge please repost your specific challenge I wil prove the line item to you.
            I was on the debate team I know how debates work. Please now challenge a point or yeild the floor and simply saying i challenge everything is not a debate. You challenge any single point I’ve already in this thread proven many of them true.

            Reply
    2. progressiveandproud October 9, 2013

      Wow! Too bad you can’t divorce your family. Based on your writing, I presume you’re sane. How did that happen after having been reared in such a looney toons family?

      Reply
      1. paganheart October 9, 2013

        I have asked myself that many, many times. I can only conclude that I must have been switched at birth, or that god (if she exists) has a really, really sick sense of humor.

        I am the first person in my family to graduate college, my mother didn’t even finish high school. I was a “gifted” kid and to her credit, my Mom was at least smart enough that she didn’t want her kids to end up like she did (pregnant and dropping out at 15.) She encouraged us to study and I studied my ass off in high school because I knew it was the only way I could escape the craphole town I was born in. I managed to amass enough scholarships that I could leave my home state for college, and it really opened my eyes, and mind. Many of my extended family have never left the state (or even the town!) they were born in, and live very small, narrow, poverty-stricken existences. Drug and alcohol abuse is rampant in my family, but instead of taking advantage of education and programs (many of them yes, evil government programs) that could help them get themselves out and improve their lives, they choose to blame the government, liberals, feminists, Jews, minorities, and non-Christians for all of their problems. They pray every day that their Jesus will finally come down and rid the world of all these evil people that are persecuting them.

        It’s truly sad. They are unable or unwilling to change or evolve. And that which does not change or evolve, dies.

        Reply
        1. progressiveandproud October 9, 2013

          Unfortunately, yours is a very common story in small, rural towns across this country. With the loss of manufacturing base, the problem will only grow.

          Reply
          1. paganheart October 9, 2013

            In the intermountain West, in an area that has pretty much always been backward and economically depressed, even back in the so-called “good old days.” I’d rather not say more.

            Reply
          2. LotusJoan October 9, 2013

            You forgot to mention the drain on our future from incarcerating
            practically a whole generation of young black men for minor drug use. They are imprisoned with hard core evil doers. When they come out they have a further stigma; that of former felon that impedes their ability to get a job and care for themselves or others.

            Reply
        2. Barbara Morgan October 10, 2013

          You are to be admired because there are far to many young people especially today that don’t even try to improve their lot in life, their attitude, I was born into so it is my destiny to stay here,

          Reply
    3. jointerjohn October 9, 2013

      You are correct Paganheart, their dream is that with debt service to be paid first without authorization for any more borrowing, it will strangle off those programs that they despise but cannot gather the political strength to kill. They dream of a country where starving people will trample each other to take sub-minimum wage jobs. I am hoping that as we near this calamity the business and banking community that live in the real world, as opposed to the Koch Brothers who do not, will begin calling up the republicans they have supported for years and put a stop to this. Republican-leaning business owners in this country would become the first casualties of this suicide plan of these whores of the mega-rich. Kraft Foods, The American Dairy Council, Sara Lee, Armour Star, etc., are just as dependent upon SNAP as the poor people who use it. They can stop this madness and I trust they will.

      Reply
      1. Barbara Morgan October 10, 2013

        I read an blog yesterday that said even the Koch brothers are backing off the government shut down and letting the Country default on their debts, saying it is hurting businesses and people I didn’t get to read the whole thing, my computer decided it wanted to go to an site and jumped to it,I couldn’t get the blog I was reading back.

        Reply
        1. kmkirb October 11, 2013

          Here’s one to back you up Barbara Morgan 🙂

          “Obamacare Fight Gets Too Hot for Kochs: We’re Not Backing GOP’s Shutdown Tactics”

          http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/obamacare-fight-gets-too-hot-kochs-were-not-

          Reply
  5. Adam Markon October 9, 2013

    They really don’t get it. The debt limit is money that we’ve already agreed to spend. We can’t just “not spend it.” The money is, for all intents and purposes, gone. There is literally no way we can not raise the debt limit and not default.

    Reply
    1. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

      It’s call do as you must do every day. Live within your means. Obama said recently that the average american can’t pick and choose which debts he will or won’t pay. He was wrong we do it all the time. We cut useless spending when we become unemployed, or spend beyond our means. We don’t keep getting new and bigger credit cards. We can’t vote ourselves such either. I once went through the 2010 budget line by line and came up with over 800B $ in things we don’t need like 250T $ to study why gay brazilan men undertake risky sexual behavior when drunk. Geee the last 2 words said everything i needed to know about why “WHEN DRUNK” 1,000 of items like this exist. We give 100s of billions in foreign aid to countries that hate us. It’s called do what you and I must do our economy is actually no different personally than the larger economy. We have bills, obligations, and choices in our lives. We have to earn money and function the same as the government. The only difference we can’t vote ourselves raises (By raising taxes they do just that, by making new taxes they do just that) and we can’t vote our debt limit up.

      Obama called bush wreckless, unamerician, unpatriotic and the single biggest threat to america BECAUSE of his spending. Well Mr’ President what does that make you now?

      “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. ” – Barack Obama on raising the debt ceiling in 2006!
      ‘The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.
      Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/debtlimit.asp#KgiFDCGv9PwS7pOQ.99
      The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. ‘The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.
      Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/debtlimit.asp#KgiFDCGv9PwS7pOQ.99
      ‘The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.
      Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/debtlimit.asp#KgiFDCGv9PwS7pOQ.99'The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.
      Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/debtlimit.asp#KgiFDCGv9PwS7pOQ.99
      ‘The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.
      Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/debtlimit.asp#KgiFDCGv9PwS7pOQ.99'The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.
      Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/debtlimit.asp#KgiFDCGv9PwS7pOQ.99

      Reply
      1. Adam Markon October 9, 2013

        And you are one of the ones who doesn’t get it. Regardless of our policies in the coming fiscal year, the money that will have us reach the debt limit has already been spent. It’s just being divided evenly throughout the fiscal year, so that’s why we have not hit the debt limit yet.

        Reply
        1. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

          Did you say the same thing about the democrats in 2006? and again twice in 2007? Did you say the same about Barack Obama? My bet you didn’t because you are politically motivated not motivated by actual content. I agreeded back then with Obama and the democrats to NOT raise it then and i remain against raising it now. We can pay our bills if we cut the billion in wasteful spending 2010 i personally found 800B in wasted spending 2011 another 890B and the same 890B in 2012. If we cut that we pay our bills AND live within our means. I guess it’s because I am ideals driven not political driven. I do not see all republicans or democrats as good or bad. I see them individually as such.

          Reply
          1. Adam Markon October 9, 2013

            I’m not a fan of Obama, but I think he is unfairly blamed for a lot of stuff, just as Bush was unfairly blamed for a lot of stuff. I’m an independent voter, and I vote for the candidates who I feel will do the best in office, not those that are in one political party.

            I agree with you that the government partakes in quite a bit of wasteful spending, but the bottom line is that this is only something that can be fixed for future years. We can not prevent ourselves from reaching the debate limit because the debt that we are accruing, as I’ve said three times, is money that has already been spent and allocated. We can not prevent hitting the debt ceiling this year.

            Reply
          2. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

            Ahh we find common ground. I am neither a fan nor a hater. He like all presidents has done good and bad. But you begin with a false presumption there is over 890Billion dollars in wasteful spending in this budget now. Cut that and nothing else and this year we don’t need to borrow a dime. Then we can work on taxes and revenue perhaps to pay down the debt. I listed 100s of billion in wasteful spending in this budget. including 43Billion for buildings we don’t use to upkeep them like cleaning, mowing the lawns. SELL those buildings now and stop paying for things we don’t need and use.

            We can balance the budget now but neither party have the fortitude to do it because it would mean giving up little perks for their state, state schools, or pet projects. When you clear that hurdle we are half way there to recovery economically and as citizens of our great nation. People need to stop dividing on political lines. Like calling the Tea Party names when they are a near perfect cross section of america. By percentages to the populations there are a proportionate number of blacks, hispanics. democrats, republicans, independents, men, women, young and old within it ranks. But they seem to be a favorite target for many.

            Anyway glad we have some common ground it is always a good place to begin discussion and debate. Both very healthy unlike the names and bashing going on in many comments here. They show ignorance of issues and the world and an unwillingness to work toward common goals and good.

            Reply
          3. Adam Markon October 9, 2013

            I’m just glad that there are other logical, well-reasoned, non-partisan people out there. Regardless of differing opinions, the ability to have a calm, logical discussion is something sorely missing from most parts of society.

            Reply
        2. aghostdancer October 10, 2013

          no you don’t get it we aren’t talking apples to apples. I am talking about the budget and you are talking about the debt limit. We can solve both by cutting the fat from the current budget and not give up a single entitlement program like SSI/Medicare/ect..
          I believe they need to solve the problem of the budget because without a budget the president isn’t authorized to spend a dine on non-essential spending and IF you are going to count this spending as essential then the IRS already collects more than enough to pay the interest on our debts.
          Still apples to apples without a budget the debt ceiling means nothing because the presidents hands would be tied and he couldn’t pay it anyway.

          Reply
      2. Adam Markon October 9, 2013

        We can not avoid default, at least not this time. We must raise the limit now. As for your argument against Obama, he may not agree with raising the debt limit, but he is also aware that it’s necessary.

        Reply
        1. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

          We sure can. Stop the wasteful spending which Harry Reid will not hear of and will not pass nor allow to a vote. And stop borrowing more. Pay the debt down with the 890+Billion dollars of wasteful spending in this budget.

          Here you go get rid of these items and we don’t need to borrow a single DIME from anyone. I just solved the problem and I am not even a politician and acording to one person on this list i am stupid. So if a stupid person like me can solve it why can’t everyone. DEBT = PAID, borrowing = ZERO!

          $450,000,000.00 Aid package to Egypt above and beyond foreign aid
          $50,000,000.00 New TSA uniforms
          $3,000,000.00 UCLA grant to study video games
          $700,000.00 To study methane gas emissions from dairy cows.
          $615,000.00 University of California at Santa Cruz to digitize photos, T-shirts and concert tickets belonging to the Grateful Dead
          $750,000.00 New soccer field for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.
          $20,000,000.00 Helping students from Indonesia get master’s degrees.
          $175,587.00 To determine if cocaine makes Japanese quail engage in sexually risky behavior
          $200,000.00 A tattoo removal program in Mission Hills, California
          $500,000,000.00 On a program that will, among other things, seek to solve the problem of 5-year-old children that “can’t sit still” in a kindergarten classroom.
          $30,000.00 To develop a tourist-friendly database of farms that host guests for overnight “haycations”
          $800,000.00 In “stimulus funds” to study the impact of a “genital-washing program” on men in South Africa.
          $440,995.00 Was spent this past year on an office for former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert that he rarely even visits.
          $5,000.00 One Tennessee library was given federal funds to host a series of video game parties
          $2,500,000.00 The U.S. Census Bureau spent on a television commercial during the Super Bowl that was so poorly produced that virtually nobody understood what is was trying to say.
          $137,530.00 A professor at Dartmouth University received to create a “recession-themed” video game entitled “Layoff”
          $600,000.00 The National Science Foundation gave the Minnesota Zoo so that they could develop an online video game called “Wolfquest”.
          $60,000.00 A pizzeria in Iowa was given to renovate the pizzeria’s facade and give it a more “inviting feel”.
          $195,000,000.00 The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to maintain hundreds of buildings that it does not even use.
          $1,800,000.00 went for a “museum of neon signs” in Las Vegas, Nevada
          $35,000,000.00 reportedly paid out by Medicare to 118 “phantom” medical clinics that never even existed.
          $150,000.00 The Conservation Commission of Monkton, Vermont from the federal government to construct a “critter crossing”.
          $440,000.00 In California, one park received in federal funds to perform “green energy upgrades” on a building that has not been used for a decade.
          $239,100.00 A professor at Stanford University received to study how Americans use the Internet to find love.
          $216,000.00 The National Science Foundation spent to study whether or not politicians “gain or lose support by taking ambiguous positions.”
          $442,340.00 The National Institutes of Health spent to study the behavior of male prostitutes in Vietnam.
          $1,000,000.00 U.S. taxpayer money was used to create poetry for the Little Rock, New Orleans, Milwaukee and Chicago zoos.
          $30,000,000.00 On a federal program that was designed to help Pakistani farmers produce more mangos
          $17,800,000.00 On social and environmental programs for China
          $2,600,000.00 To train Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly.
          $13,500.00 The U.S. Postal Service spent on a single dinner at Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse.
          $25,000,000,000.00 The federal government spends a year maintaining federal buildings that are either unused or totally vacant.
          $2,000,000,000.00 U.S. farmers are given each year for not farming their land.
          $123,050.00 On a Mother’s Day Shrine in Grafton, West Virginia. It turns out that Grafton only has a population of a little more than 5,000 people.
          $998,798.00 U.S. military spent shipping two 19-cent washers from South Carolina to Texas
          $293,451.00 U.S. military spent sending an 89-cent washer from South Carolina to Florida
          $400,000.00 The National Institutes of Health paid researchers to find out why gay men in Argentina engage in risky sexual behavior when they are drunk.
          $100,000.00 The U.S. government spent on a “Celebrity Chef Fruit Promotion Road Show in Indonesia”
          $500,000.00 The feds gave Alaska Airlines “to paint a Chinook salmon” on the side of a Boeing 737
          $300,000,000,000.00 In foreign aid to countries which preach hatred and death to america
          $200,000,000.00 The Department of Agriculture’s Market Access Program spends a year to help U.S. agricultural trade associations and cooperatives advertise their products in foreign markets. Including funding of a reality TV show in India that advertised U.S. cotton.
          $141,450.00 The Environmental Protection Agency awarded a grant under the Clean Air Act to fund a Chinese study on swine manure
          $1,200,000.00 The Environmental Protection Agency awarded a grant to the United Nations for clean fuel promotion.
          $84,500,000.00 Federally subsidized Amtrak lost on its food and beverage services
          $12,000,000.00 The U.S. Navy bought 450,000 gallons of biofuels for $12 million—or almost $27 per gallon—to conduct exercises to showcase the fuel and bring it closer toward commercialization. It is the largest biofuel purchase ever made by the government.
          $121,000,000.00 The Department of Justice alone spent to host or participate in 1,832 conferences.
          $325,000.00 RoboSquirrel.” was spent on a robotic squirrel named “RoboSquirrel.” This National Science Foundation grant was used to create a realistic-looking robotic squirrel for the purpose of studying how a rattlesnake would react to it.
          $2,000,000.00 Cupcakes. In Washington, D.C., and elsewhere across the country, cupcake shops are trending in Small Business Administration loan guarantees
          $2,000,000,000.00 In New York and Massachusetts. Food stamp recipients spent on sugary drinks alone.
          $2,500,000,000.00 Improper SNAP payments accounted for in waste, including to one exotic dancer who was making $85,000 per year.
          $750,970.00 Despite Smuttynose brewery’s financial success and popularity, it is still getting a Community Development Block Grant to build a new brewery and restaurant facilities.
          $520,000.00 To fix the Stevenson Road Covered Bridge in Green County, Ohio, which was last used in 2003.
          $92,000,000,000.00 On corporate welfare (excluding TARP)
          $250,000,000.00 Federal agencies are delinquent on nearly 20 percent of employee travel charge cards, costing taxpayers annually.
          $3,900,000.00 The Securities and Exchange Commission spent rearranging desks and offices at its Washington, D.C., headquarters.
          $60,000,000,000.00 Health care fraud costs taxpayers more than annually.
          $295,000,000,000.00 A GAO audit found that 95 Pentagon weapons systems suffered from a combined $295 billion in cost overruns in 2012.
          $146,000,000.00 The refusal of many federal employees to fly coach costs taxpayers annually in flight upgrades.
          $131,000,000.00 Washington will spend in 2013 to enhance the Kennedy family legacy in Massachusetts.
          $20,000,000.00 Additionally, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) diverted from the 2013 defense budget to subsidize a new Edward M. Kennedy Institute.
          $190,000.00 for the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, Wyoming
          $75,000.00 for the Totally Teen Zone in Albany, Georgia.
          $350,000.00 The Federal Communications Commission spent to sponsor NASCAR driver David Gilliland.
          $84,000.00 Personalized calendars for the members of congress
          $20,800,000,000.00 In 2012 more than $13 billion in Iraq aid has been classified as wasted or stolen. Another $7.8 billion cannot be accounted for.
          $200,000.00 The Transportation Department will subsidize up to $2,000 per flight for direct flights between Washington, D.C., and the small hometown of Congressman Hal Rogers 200,000 annually
          $3,000,000,000.00 Washington will spend re-sanding beaches — even as this new sand washes back into the ocean.
          $2,500,000,000.00 A Department of Agriculture report concedes that much of the $2.5 billion in “stimulus” funding for broadband Internet will be wasted in 2013 alone.
          $100,000,000.00 The Defense Department wasted on unused flight tickets and never bothered to collect refunds even though the tickets were refundable.
          $6,000,000.00 Washington spends $60,000 per hour shooting Air Force One photo-ops in front of national landmarks several times a year at a cost of $6 million annually.
          $90,000,000.00 Members of Congress are set to pay themselves $90 million to increase their franked mailings for the 2013 election year.
          $9,000,000,000.00 Congress has ignored efficiency recommendations from the Department of Health and Human Services that would save $9 billion annually.
          $5,000,000.00 Taxpayers are funding paintings of high-ranking government officials at a cost of up to $50,000 apiece. At a cost of $5 million per year.
          $43,000,000.00 The state of Washington sent $1 food stamp checks to 250,000 households in order to raise state caseload figures and trigger $43 million in additional federal funds.
          $20,000,000.00 Congress appropriated for “commemoration of success” celebrations related to Iraq and Afghanistan.
          $15,600,000.00 The National Institutes of Health spends $1.3 million per month to rent a lab that it cannot use.
          $2,400,000,000.00 Congress spent on 10 new jets that the Pentagon insists it does not need and will not use.
          $50,000,000.00 Medicare officials recently mailed $50 million in erroneous refunds to 230,000 Medicare recipients.
          $34,000,000,000.00 Audits showed $34 billion worth of Department of Homeland Security contracts contained significant waste, fraud, and abuse.
          $1,800,000.00 Washington recently spent to help build a private golf course in Atlanta, Georgia.
          $150,000,000.00 The Advanced Technology Program spends $150 million annually subsidizing private businesses; 40 percent of this funding goes to Fortune 500 companies.
          $2,100,000.00 The Department of Agriculture in 2012 spent $2 million on an intern program for the Office of the Chief Information officer. One intern was hired. The budget for 2013 is $2.1 million.
          $55,660.00 The Rural Business Enterprise Program gave a dairy farm to package its butter in smaller containers.
          $6,100,000.00 The Department of Veterans Affairs spent $6.1 million on two training conferences in Orlando, with $50,000 going to a video boosting Human Resources
          $862,000.00 The IRS stores unused furniture at a warehouse for $862,000 annually.
          $500,000.00 The Department of Energy cannot locate $500,000 worth of green energy manufacturing equipment
          $1,495,000.00 The Department of Labor will spend on commercials promoting an initiative for green jobs in 2013
          $25,000.00 Grant was used to translate a Maldivian love ballad
          $56,666.67 The National Institutes of Health will spend $170,000 over three years researching the hookah smoking habits of Jordanians.
          $200,000,000.00 The Department of Agriculture spends annually advertising U.S. food in other countries.
          $850,000,000.00 The Government Accountability office found that people who double-dip from unemployment insurance and disability benefits cost the U.S.
          $850 million annually.

          Reply
          1. disqus_fsqeoY3FsG October 9, 2013

            Please provide your source for your figures and the documentation. I don’t disagree we have spending that can be cut, but it is not just Democrats – Republicans like spending too. Taking our Country hostage is not the answer. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/03/republicans-have-already-won-so-why-wont-compromise/
            “Senate Democrats, of course, had been begging for a budget compromise for months – ever since the senate passed its budget last spring. But Republicans rejected this attempt at
            compromise 18 times, refusing to allow the Senate and House of Representatives to go to a budget conference to hammer out a deal that would have put an end to this cycle of continuing resolutions.”

            Reply
          2. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

            To respond to your comments on the senate. They passed 1 budget with 1 trillion in tax hikes and no cuts plus more spending it was DOA on the house floor but that wasn’t 18 months ago all current discussions are about this years budget and have been within the past 2 months.

            Likewise months ago the house proposed a budget which cut the funding of the Affordable Healthcare Act and that was DOA on the senate floor. neither side is “compromising” and they are both presenting budgets they know are dead the minute they arrive.

            The budget from 2012 with every line item can be found at the CBO website. They are tasked with tracking all the spending and putting out accurate numbers for the year. Some numbers in 2012 are marked as estimated since the 2012 fiscal year has only just ended.

            Both the house and senate passed a budget bill in March 2012 and both died the day they hit the other chamber. Unlike the house though Harry Reid wouldn’t even allow the house budget to be voted on.

            As for the Tea Party they are not in control of anything the speaker is NOT from the Tea Party and only 4 senators and a few dozen congress are tea Party candidates. This mess goes back to 2006 when the new house took office and refused to do their constitutional duty and pass a budget. For the next 4 years the democrat controlled house never passed a single budget. The Republican controlled house did no better since they took over also not passing a single budget nor proposing one till this year.

            I lame blame on both parties for neither willing to compromise and both submitting budgets they knew would be dead in the other chamber instantly. Such large tax increases are a non-starter for republicans, giving up any social program is a non-starter for democrats. They both know it and yet they BOTH play the game and pretend the other is the bad guy here. And for some reason people are buying into it.

            Reply
          3. disqus_fsqeoY3FsG October 9, 2013

            You are ignoring the fact that that Democrats requested Budget Conference 18 times to negotiate and were rejected by Republicans. The Tea Party is in control of the House because John Boehner is a weak leader and will not take control. I agree that both parties need to get a reality check and start with budgets that can actually begin a negotiation and compromise process and leave their ideologies at the door.

            Reply
          4. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

            I also do not blame The presidents for his remarks i supported him then and believed he was right. I also agree on Boehner being a weak and I would add ineffective leader.

            However the democrats sending a trillion dollars in new taxes as a budget was a no brainer that would fail. They also play politics and partisan games. You ignore the fact the Republicans also requested the same and what did both parties do? Failed to make a single compromise. The democrats wont give up the taxes and the republicans wont give up defunding the AHA.

            It is not the first time a law has been defunded under the civil rights act the democrats defunded the agencies (EEOC and others) to delay or try to kill the civil rights law which was passed. Democrats also voted to defund the two wars even though we had soldiers in harms way. So this is not the first nor will it be the last attempt to defund a law.

            Neither party is all good or all bad. But we do have a failure to communicate. Both parties pander to their base and play the political games. I just don’t buy into any of them.

            Republicans have requested meetings, negotiations and even a special panel to clear the budget hurdle. My bet in the end both the democrats and republicans will have to give up their stand. I believe the republicans put in the AHA defunding is a tool to get the democrats to drop the trillion dollar tax increase. Both sides will have to lose their position or this will not be resolved easy. I don’t buy either of their games.

            We both agree though the wars (ratified by the house and senate including by every democrat in the senate and all but one in the house.) Were a bad idea.

            Thanks for sharing your thoughts in a calm and rational manner I enjoy debate with people capable of discussing difficult positions without names and games. /hats-off-to-you

            Reply
          5. disqus_fsqeoY3FsG October 9, 2013

            I agree people can have different points of view and still remain respectful and acknowledge the similarities their points of view may have.

            Reply
          6. Barbara Morgan October 10, 2013

            disquis, did you see any where in that list that she listed the welfare money given to big companies, corporations, oil, coal and big mega farms like the one Michelle Bachmann family?I didn’t but I did see listed money being used to advertise farm food products, she seems to think it is a waste of money to advertise in order to sell a product to a new markets, which helps American farmers make more money that that will be spent in the US helping the Country’s economic help

            Reply
          7. awakenaustin October 9, 2013

            Seen all of this before. It isn’t your work product and it isn’t accurate. Feel free to prove otherwise.

            Reply
          8. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

            You’ve seen it before because it is 100% truthful. I found much of this and verified it. Your point still stand mute.

            Reply
          9. awakenaustin October 10, 2013

            I believe the word you are searching for is moot.
            Swans may be mute. People may be mute. Points, however, are never mute.
            The only place that list is ever offered as a truth is by wing-nuts and right wing blog sites. To the extend it has any validity it is cherry-picked and ripped from any context, distorted and/or fabricated.

            Reply
          10. aghostdancer October 10, 2013

            The CBO is far from a right wing anything. But your point is mute as it fell on deaf ears. I make it a point to not listen to fools. Yes a point can be mute and I used the term I desired.

            Reply
          11. Barbara Morgan October 10, 2013

            Where is the welfare money given to rich companies and corporations, big oil, coal companies and mega farms like Michelle Bachman’s family gets?
            I don’t see those anywhere in your list about large amounts of money being wasted?. Yet that money is the biggest waste of money there.
            The Department of Agriculture is adverting US food in other Countries to get them to buy US food products which in turns help the American farmers to have more money to support their families and more money for the farmer means improvement to the Country’s economic health.

            Reply
          12. aghostdancer October 10, 2013

            I guess you didn’t read the list. $2,000,000,000.00 U.S. farmers are given each year for not farming their land.

            Oil companies do not get subsidies they get to take off items like research ect from their taxes. This myth was prove false when the oil companies appeared before congress and one was told about subsidies and he said show me one dollar in us tax payor money paid as any form of subsidy sir. The congressman could not and that ended that.

            I am not sure what coal subsidies there maybe but those could be cut as well. Also all the green energy subsidies especially considering they all close shortly after getting millions of dollars or as soon as we stop paying for them to stay in business.

            The countries the department of agriculture advertises in do not buy many products we import them for free like semolina, west Africa, Ethiopia ect…

            $9,000,000,000.00 Congress has ignored efficiency recommendations from the Department of Health and Human Services that would save $9 billion annually.

            2 billion to farmers

            $500,000,000.00 On a program that will, among other things, seek to solve the problem of 5-year-old children that “can’t sit still” in a kindergarten classroom.

            $850,000,000.00 The Government Accountability office found that people who double-dip from unemployment insurance and disability benefits cost the U.S.

            $92,000,000,000.00 On corporate welfare (excluding TARP)which is also where they probably hid subsidies you maybe referring to like coal

            $25,000,000,000.00 The federal government spends a year maintaining federal buildings that are either unused or totally vacant.

            You missed those or do you think 25 BILLION, 92 BILLION, 9 BILLION ect to be small numbers? All total that list alone is 850 BILLION dollars. they look to borrow 790BILLION dollars.
            Those cuts above ALONE balance the budget.

            Reply
      3. jmprint October 9, 2013

        THE FACT THAT WE ARE HERE DEBATING IS BECAUSE THE GOP HAS EXCEPTED THE BIRCH SOCIETY MENTALITY A RISING THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A LONG TIME AND YOU IDIOTS DON’T UNDERSTAND. WHEN THEY STARTED THIS BULLSHIT IN THE 50’S IT WAS THE DAD KOCK PUSHING IN DOWN OUR THROATS, NOW IT’S HIS SONS. COMPARE THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT THE UNITED STATES NOW HAS COMPARED TO WHAT IT WAS IN THE 50’S. YOU CAN’T HAVE THE SAME MENTALITY IT ISN’T GOING TO WORK. WE THE PEOPLE DON’T WANT TO IMPLEMENT THEIR WAY. THERE IS WASTE, BUT WHY DON’T YOU GOP FIX THAT PROBLEM, BECAUSE YOU SUCK OFF THE GOVERNMENT MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE. JUST LIKE THEY PASSED THE FARM BIL WHY, DID YOU RESEARCH TO SEE HOW MANY GOP BENEFITED FROM THIS?

        Reply
        1. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

          Yet another coolaid drinking sheeple. All people whp think one party or the other is worse should get their heads out of their butts and take a look around. The same GOP you fault are the reason we got rid of the Jim Crow laws (Jim Crow was a democrat BTW) The GOP is the reason we have the civil rights act today. But does that mean all democrats are racists because they were against civil rights and for segregation and for slavery? No it does not sir. I sense much fear in you young padawan. Obamacare IS waste but so are many other pet projects of both dam sides. That sir is the point the democrats you so vigorously defend don’t give a rats backside about you and neither does the GOP. They just want your vote.

          Reply
          1. omgamike October 9, 2013

            Those democrats, or ‘dixiecrats’, if you will, were racist and bigoted. And when the Civil Rights Act got passed and signed into law, those dixiecrats switched, to become republicans — and give birth to the southern strategy. We do have a few left, who call themselves ‘blue dogs’, but they are few and pose few problems. The majority of the democratic party member fully support civil rights reforms for all.

            If, by saying that democrats don’t give a rat’s backside about us, you are referring to the politicians, then you are probably right. Politicians only care about themselves and how to get re-elected. It’s up to us to keep their feet to the fire, working also for our interests.

            Reply
          2. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

            Not one of them switched parties. Byod died a democrat as did they all. Now are republicans any better I already said hell no. neither cares for you or me in anyway.

            Reply
          3. awakenaustin October 9, 2013

            Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and Wills Godwin. Three though few is more than none. The Dixiecrats is a self-limiting concept since it only includes those specific politicians designated as Dixiecrats at that time. There was however over the 60’s,70’s and 80’s and into the 90’s a wholesale movement of conservative Democrats (at all levels of party membership) in the “South” from the Democratic party into the GOP. It is the explanation for why the solidly Democratic South became the solidly Republican South. Texas is full of elected office holders even today (e.g., Rick Perry) who started out in the Democratic Party. Many left because they believed, accurately, that the GOP was more conservative and more in line with their thinking. Some left because they were simply opportunists and saw that as the only way to be elected.
            Politicians like everyone else in every profession and in every walk of life come in all shapes and sizes and with varying levels of commitment to the public good and their own personal good. Broad statements about them all being this or them all being that are on their face twaddle.

            Apparently, you believe that one’s historical antecedents define them forever and justify them (or don’t) today. Because the GOP once got it right and the Democrats got it wrong, they are still the same parties?
            I confess I vote for a party which once had an abysmal record on the issue of slavery and civil rights and still has far to go and a lot to learn. However, Democrats today are more liberal, forward thinking, progressive, and equality seeking than the other guys. So, despite its bad history, they offer a better choice for a better future. The other guys with the marginally better history on civil rights (if you go back a hundred-fifty years and only count up to about 50 years ago), by contrast, are staring back longingly at life in this nation in the 1890’s and wishing we were there.

            Who hired you ‘ghostdancer’ ? You are a professional!

            Reply
          4. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

            I never claimed they were the same parties. I have however told you time and tme again party means nothing and neither actually cares for you personally as a party so being loyal to a party is just plan slly.

            Reply
          5. awakenaustin October 10, 2013

            Well then time and again you would be wrong.

            Reply
          6. aghostdancer October 10, 2013

            I am not wrong on this. The PERSON with the D or the R might care about you but the party he/she belongs to does not care one bit about you. One might argue that more members of party A care about me/you than members of party B but belief the party would be delusional.

            Reply
          7. awakenaustin October 10, 2013

            Don’t be anthropomorphic. Political parties are things, not people. Parties have positions and policies and platforms. (People care, or don’t care.) One votes for a party because the policies it advocates match or most closely match one’s own preferences.
            I don’t vote because I get warm and fuzzy feelings from a particular candidate (or a party). I try, as best I can, to assess his/her positions on issues and vote for the one I think closest to the positions I favor or most likely to support those positions.
            Frankly, I don’t care whether my president feels my pain, identifies with me or cries when he sees hungry children. I want him to do something about hungry children. I don’t care if he welcomes every coffin back from Iraq or Afghanistan.
            I want him to keep us out of stupid wars and I want him to properly provide for the needs of returning veterans.
            I did not vote for President Barack Obama because he was half-black or half-white or because I liked his smile and thought he was smart. (Although all of those were pluses.) I didn’t vote for him because he was a flaming liberal because he isn’t (as every liberal in the nation knows.) I voted for him because of the policies he advocated and the positions he took on issues were much closer to my way of thinking than the other guy’s were (both times). I vote Democratic almost all of the time because that party most closely advocates the political, social, cultural and economic policies I advocate. I don’t vote Democratic because I think the party “cares” about me. I don’t vote Republican, not because I don’t like frat boys and “cracker Christians,” although I don’t, but because I disagree with their politics. Their policies, the ones they have for the last several decades advocated and the ones they advocate now, have wreaked havoc in this nation and their policies will continue to do so if they are allowed back in power.
            So don’t worry about me being deluded about which party cares about me or the fact that neither party cares for me. In any case, political parties don’t have feelings and I don’t care about their lack of feelings, I care about their policies and their politics.
            I, personally, would like to see a prosperous nation where the benefits of its prosperity are shared by all, because all have contributed to it and because the greatness of a civilization is measured by the way it treats the least of its members. I would like to see a forward looking nation, rather than one which looks backwards to the good old days (which weren’t all that good for most people.) In essence, that is why I vote for the Democrats.
            I’m not perfect and I’m not pure, so I don’t expect perfection or purity from my politicians or my political party. I only expect them to get it correct most or much of the time or, at least, some of the time.

            Reply
          8. aghostdancer October 10, 2013

            In your so humble opinion. But thanks for it I will be sure and file the information where it belongs. Remember opinions are like buttholes everyone has one.

            Reply
          9. Barbara Morgan October 10, 2013

            You were alive and old enough to know that the Democrats that became Republicans never changed their label from Democrat to Republican?
            . If Byod is suppose to be Robert Byrd senator from Virginia, according to his biography he did change his voter registration card from Democrat to Republican and when his picture was show in a news paper, magazine,TV the caption under it said Senator Robert Byrd-(R) from Virginia or words to that effect,, there was Senator Strum Thurmond of North Carolina that had the same caption show up under his picture only his said NC instead of VA. those are the two that I know changed their political party without looking them up. When the Civil Rights Act became law, I was in my teens and remember very well the Civil Rights Act being signed into by law by President Lyndon B. Johnson.

            Reply
          10. aghostdancer October 10, 2013

            Sorry I said Byod I mean Byrd (D) west Virginia born and died democrat and also grand dragon of the kkk.
            Al Gore Sr. also (D) and voted against civil rights never changed parties. ect…
            Your point is also why I am NOT a republican but I also don’t believe every democrat is good like I don’t believe every republican is bad. I am not brainwashed like that. Some are I am not. I vote with my head not along party lines. Though I know many like my brother who will never ever vote democrat and lectured me on my vote for Obama in 2008. I however am not the type to allow others to tell me how to vote nor what to think.
            I wasn’t born back then but the congressional voting records exist and will for eternity. I have seen those.

            Reply
          11. jmprint October 9, 2013

            That’s just it it’s not the same GOP, this tea party group are not the same as the republicans before. And please I here about the coolaid drinking all the time, the only one drinking it is you.
            The Tea Party’s main purpose was to get rid of the black president. So they can run this country like communist do. NOW explain how Obama care is waste, please.

            Reply
          12. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

            Yup coolaid drinking is me because i don’t by all democrats are good nor do i buy all republicans are good. i judge each man and woman alone not as a party they represent. Nice try though keep chugging the democrat kpoolaid you will see eventually they like the republicans could care less about you.

            It’s all about being re-elected and if they have to kiss your butt today to get there they will and if tomorrow they have to kick that same butt trust me they will.

            Reply
          13. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

            AHA as it is called aka Obamacare was supposed to make insurance more affordable and healthcare less expensive. all the new regulations and such with the 1200 page law has made medicine MORE expensive and it will get worse and has drive healthcare rates up as it does anytime you make a product mandatory.

            Example in NH auto insurance is not required. My Chevy would cost me about 312$ a year full coverage with my great spotless driving record because i don’t HAVE to have their product. But in Florida for a town of similar size and accident rates about the same as Manchester I would pay 912$/yr and why? Because there is NO competition. AHA does the same thing. You MUST have insurance now so they (business) have you over a barrel. Even the government exchanges (run by the fed) are 3-4 times more expensive today than before the law was passed. Some of that is inflation and costs of doing business but much of it is not.

            Oh and didn’t you hear we had 35Million people uninsured before it and we will have 27Million uninsured after it because frankly the fines will be cheaper than the insurance. So we are spending a few Trillion dollars to insure 8Million people. And like medicare was supposed to cost 100 million it’s first year and it cost 8 times that so will this bill. Our government is not good at running an efficient business proof? SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans hospitals, post office all broke.

            It’s sad when UPS and Fedex can deliver more packages than the USPS for less money. This monstrosity is bound to fail and why because the government who bankrupt everything is going to run it.

            Reply
          14. jmprint October 9, 2013

            First of all it’s not AHA, it’s ACA and you are only repeating assumptions, not facts. ACA has already helped millions of people. The Pharmaceutical and insurance company are the ones raising the cost needlessly why, because of greed. That is why we do need to fund ACA. And don’t forget people run the government. Are you a government employee?

            Reply
          15. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

            First off since you are being picky it’s PPACA (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act)

            Second No I am not a government employee but my husband is a Soldier so he is.

            Reply
          16. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

            Since you are in a correcting mood you are also wrong it is not the ACA it is the PPACA (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) My husband is a soldier he is therefore a government employee.

            Reply
          17. Barbara Morgan October 10, 2013

            And the Republican Party-Tea party is the party that is bringing back Jim Crow laws in a different way. The voter fraud preventing picture ids passed in time for last year elections and are still being passed today in Republican controlled state legislatures and with Republican governors are being passed for the same reason today as the Jim Crow laws of history were passed, to keep people of color and poor whites from voting.
            During the Jim Crow years there was a poll tax of $2, which the law makers of the time knew that neither poor blacks or poor white could pay, they were just barely feeding their families and that $ 2 poll tax was as much to them then as $2,000 dollars would be today to most people, and that a picture ID can only certain kinds of ID in order to vote today is the same as if a black or a poor white happen to be able to pay that poll tax, they had to take a literacy test and if they failed that, which the poll workers and the person taking the test knew they would fail, they were not educated didn’t get vote. They didn’t get the $2 poll tax back either.
            There are people is this Country that were born before it was a law in every state that babies born a live had to be issued a birth certificate by the state. The last state to pass that law was Mississippi in early 1960’s The voting fraud laws as they are called in most state will only allow you to use certain types of ID and to get that ID you have to have certified birth certificate which can cost over $100 dollars in some states to get.
            In my state you can’t use a picture work ID that includes law enforcement, and fire department personnel, a state college issued picture ID, picture IDs that the handicapped use to ride transit buses in the larger cities for a reduced can not be used, a state issued employee ID can’t be used and when the law was first passed the Military issued Picture IDs for present day and retired Military weren’t going to be allowed as ID to vote and that got corrected right quick. To vote you can show a state issued driver’s licenses if your picture is on it, a so called “free” state issued picture ID, that can cost a person over $ 200 to get if they have to take time off from work to get it, have to get a certified birth certificate to get and pay someone to take them to the place to get that “free” picture ID made, and these two ids that can be used show just how determined the Republicans are to make sure there isn’t any voter fraud in this state, you can use a pictured hunting and fishing license or a gun carrying picture permit issued in ANOTHER state to vote. Yes another state, 8 states surround my state, if you have a pictured hunting and license and a picture gun carrying permit, from each of these state you could vote 8 times in an election in this state.
            Picture IDs doesn’t voter fraud, a man is Georgia had his id borrowed by someone , who voted using the man’s ID . When he went to vote early, he wasn’t allowed to vote, according to the poll records he had voted in election a week earlier, the day his ID was used he was knocked out at the hospital having test done.Picture IDs doesn’t stop fraud but does people from voting in more ways than one.

            Reply
          18. aghostdancer October 10, 2013

            You show an ID to open a bank account, deposit/withdraw money, use a credit card, buy cigarettes, beer, sign a lease or mortgage, drive, get married. You HAVE an ID and if you don’t how do you live in todays world? My little credit union knows exactly who I am and greet me by name but federal law requires a photo ID to withdraw money, setup transfers to other savings investment vehicles.
            Jim crow laws have nothing to do with showing a photo ID UNLESS you want fraud like the lady in Ohio who voted six times in the same voting district at the same polling station. Things like that get prevented. Also in every state it passed they offered FREE rides to any needing a ride to get an ID and the voter ID was free as well. In Florida we even allowed a birth certificate and social security card or passport, state issued ID, military ID as valid forms of ID to vote.
            Jim Crow was also a democrat not a republican. The laws were passed along party lines and democrats making the vast majority approving these same laws. You point about crow is?
            As for a tax not a single voter ID state required payment of any sort to obtain an ID nor to vote. /shrug.

            Reply
          19. aghostdancer October 10, 2013

            One last thing then you MUST be against the democrat idea of electronic citizenship verification which passed the senate and became law two years ago? Now employers are require to not only the I9 which has been law since 1986 and requires a photo ID, and birth certificate or SSN card to be able to work. You can use a passport which also required those documents to get that.
            Now they don’t just observe the documents they have to everify you are legal just to work. You need to show a photo ID to get wic, foodstamps, welfare. You need a social security number to get unemployment which means you had a job that required oh no a photo ID.

            Reply
          20. Barbara Morgan October 11, 2013

            All things you mentioned, you can use all kinds of ID not just one specified ID. No where in my post did I say I was against IDs .What I said is that I am against only allowing certain IDs to be used to vote. If you read the post you would have seen where in my state, even state employees can not use their state issued employees picture ID but you can use a a hunting and fishing license with your picture on it or a gun carrying permit with permit with your picture on it issued in ANOTHER STATE.
            Your taxes do not pay for me to do any thing, my 44 plus years of working which earned me a pension, the Social Security I paid into for over 44 years and investment in a an invention pays for me to sit around when I want to and do what I want.
            When working I worked I didn’t cheat my employer out of his money by doing things like posting on the internet when I was suppose to be working, and so on.
            Also if you are being truthful about your husband being in the Military, my taxes are paying his salary because I have to pay taxes on the money I get from my retirement sources every year.

            Reply
          21. aghostdancer October 12, 2013

            Actually Reagan the worst president ever and the democrat control house and senate unfortunately raided the SSI fund so today it actually has a bunch of IOUs which means they pay your SSI with taxes I pay in now. It is actually part of the debt owed.
            So by technicality my taxes do indeed pay for you to stay home because if they didn’t you’d have zero of the amount promised to you. I pay SSI taxes to but I also know they won’t be able to pay me like they pay you. I will be living on my already substantial 401k and other retirement income I myself had to save for me.
            Believe it or not I would prefer to pay every dime back to SSI as the first debt to pay off as a people. I know my mom and dad saved in SSI all their lives as well. After decades you deserve to retire on the money promised. Just like my parents deserve it.

            Reply
      4. indycatur October 9, 2013

        The study you quote was published and funded in 2008 under Bush’s regime so how could it have been a part of the 2010 budget? http://www.popcouncil.org/pdfs/horizons/Brazil_MSMRiskFactors.pdf

        Reply
        1. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

          Read they were and ARE still multi-year grants for many of the things listed. This years budget includes money to those SAME studies. Also many of the line items are worse in 2013 like we now spend even more than 25 Billion on unused office buildings. 450M to eqypt that was 2012 budget so my numbers come from the 2012 budget not 2008. They are as wasteful now as in 2008…

          One more note since you love democrats so much (They controlled the house and senate in 2008 and passed that budget along party lines. All the inept bush did was sign it. So if you want to blame that budget on bush and this one on the house/senate then you sir have created a double standard and shown you are 100% political motivated and not policy and principals minded as you should be.

          I personally don’t care which party is right on an issue this week I just care about the issue itself and when democrats agree with the issues i support then great, when the GOP does amen great. Have a nice day sir

          Reply
      5. awakenaustin October 9, 2013

        You never went through the budget line by line, ever in your life or even in your dreams. I’m calling bullshit on that one. This gay Brazilian men claim is another of those stupid, made-up or misrepresented right-wing clown claims. These vignettes are offered by the right as a substitute for serious thought about budgets.

        A family budget is not like a government budget, and those who suggest it is, simply identify for others how limited their knowledge and understanding are. But lets stay with that idea awhile. The rest of your comments are standard right-wing talking points. (You left out Democrats being weak on national defense and being socialists out to destroy our American way of life.)
        What happens when you choose to pay some debts and not others or pay some now and others when you feel like it? Your credit goes to hell in a hand basket. You spend years, decades trying to reestablish your credit to put yourself back in a position so you can buy a home to replace the one you lost when you decided you didn’t need to pay all your debts. When you decide not to pay some debts, what happens to your creditor? He/she eats a loss. It screws up that business if happens on a large enough scale. That business isn’t paying its debts and so on. On the individual family basis a thriving economy can absorb these minor instabilities and dislocations. If, on a large scale, people default or pay some of their debts but not all then the economic system has a more difficult time absorbing the problem and if the economy isn’t robust then you may get a downturn in the economy, a recession or a depression. If the government does not pay its debts, then a lot of other people don’t get their money and they don’t pay their debts and so on and so on. If individual large corporations and or banks can default on their debts and send economies into tail spins (as we have seen in the recent past), then why do you think a government can default on its debt without similar consequences? (Oh, I forgot, just like global warming the default doesn’t exist. Which raises the obvious question, how do you breathe with your head buried so far into the sand?)
        Governments do things individual families don’t do and don’t have to do because the government does them. If you don’t live off the land eating squirrels and drinking from clear mountain streams then some government body somewhere makes it possible for you to turn on your faucet and get clean water to drink and wash your clothes in. When is the last time your family budgeted for a water treatment system and pumping station and the pipes to get it to your house. The stop lights and the firemen and the soldiers and disease control efforts and the food inspections and the drug safety regulation and the emergency rescue guys who risk their lives saving your derriere when you ignored the hurricane warnings and the ones who help you after the tornado tore through your town, the government organizes them and pays for it through the revenue it generates from the taxes you seem to think you are the only one paying and shouldn’t have to pay. When is the last time you budgeted for all those items in your family budget. You should try running a healthy economy without all of those things.

        The irony in all of this is that if your thinking wasn’t so dominated by magical thinking, you would realize after one minute of cogent thought that family responsibilities and budgets are not analogous to government responsibilities and budgets in any meaningful way.

        As I recall this vast increase in debt occurred because of some President (2000 to 2008) thought it a good idea to spend a lot of money fighting an unfunded, unnecessary war to find things which didn’t exist. The debt problem was further pushed along by tax cuts whose major accomplishment was to drive up our indebtedness mostly to the benefit of the already enormously wealthy.

        I don’t expect that you will consider facts or listen to reason, I expect you will do just what your leaders are doing – close your eyes, clench your fists, stomp your feet up and down and continue to yell nonsense in the hope that someone will respond to your tantrum and let you have your way, even if it is the wrong way.

        Reply
        1. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

          I posted them feel free to try an disprove them. Peace awakenaustin.

          Reply
          1. awakenaustin October 9, 2013

            It is impossible to disprove the existence of nothing.
            It would ordinarily be incumbent on the one making the outrageous claim to offer some proof in support of their “facts” other than “take my word for it.” It is the habit and the ploy of this type of posturing (aka FOX News journalism and GOP speechifying) that it never offers support for its “facts” it merely asserts them and then challenges you to prove otherwise.

            Oh, by the way, I have disproved them. Prove otherwise.
            Peace.

            Reply
          2. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

            And you have proven you can say nothing and believe it fact hell someone else already pointed to the exact study you claim doesn’t exist. It began in 2006 and is on going today.

            Good day to you sir.

            Reply
          3. awakenaustin October 9, 2013

            You disapprove of punctuation also?
            You asserted you did this work. Didn’t you say you read the budget and then imply the examples were the result of your hard work.
            “Your” debate rules work that way because you believe it advantages you.
            Debates – are structured so each side takes a position, which it supports by facts.
            Wow, two people point to the same non-existent study, that should settle it. Hold on, I just heard that three other people say it doesn’t exist. So I must be correct.

            You got nothing!

            I have proven you don’t have a response or support for your position.

            Reply
          4. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

            It’s called I have a life. Sorry you believe a few moments away from the internet means I have no reply. So far You’ve added nothing to reply to.

            Reply
          5. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

            As for the rules of debate it is the way it has always worked without it you have nothing but garbage which is all you’ve added.

            Reply
          6. kmkirb October 9, 2013

            The problem I see aghostdancer is that you chose what you would cut or not reinvest in. While you might be able to do that in a family of 1 or even 20 members, our government is a completely different matter since they have to factor in over 313 million people.

            What one may choose to endorse or cut, would be completely different from another’s view point or reasoning, hence the reason our elected’s should have compromise, (such as the 18 times the administration asked for a committee conference but were turned down by the right’s favorite word of NO, until the 11th hour), & not screaming conniption fits by hostage taking & we’ll have it our way or nothing at all.

            So of those cuts aghostdancer, that you would choose to make might make some sense, of others not so much. I’ll pick a few things from your list that you claim do not warrant expenditures on.

            1) The scientists who are claiming we need to keep our carbon foot print down due to contributions to global warming (be they true, real, or not), would include the money going to “study methane gas emissions from dairy cows.” That study is due to all of the GMO grains the cows are being fed instead of being grass fed. Gas in any way, shape or form could be only one factor in a huge mish maash of factors adding to global warming, (not to mention what the ingredients in the milk might be doing to humans, but that’s for another day).

            2) The fraud you claim due to a stripper claiming food stamps… There is less than 1% of fraud happening in the SNAP program. The fraud use to equal 4 cents per dollar, now it’s less that 1 cent per dollar. And yes, more people are on it due to stagnated wages, & or being under/unemployed, but most people who are on the program are vets (to the tune of 170,000 of them), seniors, disabled/sick, & children. I won’t go into depth, I’ll just provide all the links. So read them all at will. Most were produced within the last few months to two years. One is even from the conservative news site The Washington Times showing the complete breakdown of what one person spends in taxes if they make $50,000.00 per year, (for the SNAP program it equals 10 cents per day which equals a total of $36.82 total annually for that pay earner).

            “A person making $50,000 a year pays 10 cents a day in taxes for food stamps”… http://www.examiner.com/article/a-person-making-50-000-a-year-pays-10-cents-a-day-taxes-for-food-stamps

            “SNAP Is Effective and Efficient” in March 2013… http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3239

            FeedingAmerica.org – “SNAP (Food Stamps): Facts, Myths and Realities”…
            http://feedingamerica.org/how-we-fight-hunger/programs-and-services/public-assistance-programs/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program/snap-myths-realities.aspx#_edn6

            “Employment Situation Summary from the BLS” – #’s Under/unemployed as of Aug. 2013… http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

            “Wal-Mart’s low wages cost taxpayers” – Jun. 4, 2013…
            http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/04/news/companies/walmart-medicaid/index.html

            We subsidize Walmart to the tune of $1,000,000,000.00 a year (yes, 1 Billion dollars with a ‘B’ per year) & we should stop it…
            http://crooksandliars.com/tina-dupuy/taxpayers-should-stop-subsidizing-walma

            “SNAP – IRS says $450 billion was left uncollected because of non-compliance, in one year”…
            http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/4-19-12-Miller-Testimony.pdf

            “Welfare spending cut in half since reform, August 2012″… http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/09/news/economy/welfare-reform/index.htm

            One site I cannot provide is due to the govt. shutdown which is the USDA site showing “over 30 percent of SNAP households had earnings in 2011, and 41 percent of all SNAP participants lived in a household with earnings”… http://www.usda.gov/fundinglapse.htm

            3) “$123,050.00 On a Mother’s Day Shrine in Grafton, West Virginia. It turns out that Grafton only has a population of a little more than 5,000 people”…

            Anna Jarvis presented this idea & dedicated this memorial to her mother Ann who helped out on both sides of the conflict providing nursing & promoting better sanitation during the Civil War. Ann continued her work years after the war ended to bring an end to the pain & suffering of the wounds inflicted to all during those war years, bringing families & communities together. Thousands of people visit this memorial every year, & it is what brought us to our Nation recognizing Mother’s Day. Anna’s mother lived 4 miles south of Grafton in a little town known as Webster. Later when Anna & her mother had moved to PA, & her mother had died, she presented this idea & WV Gov. Glasscock issued the 1st Mother’s Day proclamation on 4/26/1910. In Minneapolis, MN in 1912 Anna was recognized as the founder of Mother’s Day at the General Methodist Conference, & President Woodrow Wilson approved the official resolution in 1914 after the joint resolution in Congress approved the 2nd Sunday in May as Mother’s Day. The historic building known as the Andrews Methodist Church is a national historic landmark & has held a Mother’s Day celebration there since 1908.

            While Grafton might be small, it has many outlying smaller towns, & a few large cities. Some of those smaller towns are Iron Town, Victoria, Wyatt, Hepsabah, Pruntytown, Nutter Fort, Lumber Port, Bridgeport, Adamston, Shinnston, Thronton, Hebron, Fairmont, & Oak Grove. A few of the larger ones are Parkersburg, Morgantown, & Clarksburg. Grafton is also home to the Grafton National Cemetery. It’s on a much smaller scale but has just as much importance as Arlington National Cemetery.

            So we should cut government funding for national shrines & monuments. NO! Same thing for the couple of items you mentioned about Kennedy.

            And while some of those expenses mentioned are keeping up empty buildings, it’s much better to keep them up, than to let them degrade, & if perchance the time comes & they’re needed, then it would be much more costly money & time wise to get them rebuilt. And if anyone questions how I know so much about the Mother’s Day shrine, that’s where most of my relatives were born & raised from my parents on back. So I have spent many years of my life visiting & staying in all of those areas & I’ve been to the Anna Jarvis’ Mother’s Day shrine many times to celebrate Mother’s Day with my kinfolk.

            Ans as for the “$520,000.00 To fix the Stevenson Road Covered Bridge in Green County, Ohio, which was last used in 2003.”, it’s not been used because it is dangerous & needs fixing. This is another historical site, & we don’t have many covered bridges left in the USA, they are a rarity these days. It’s stuff like this that is important for people who want to preserve & cherish some of our history for not only us who are here now to enjoy them, but for future generations as well.

            I’m not saying there shouldn’t be some cuts to some of what you listed aghostdancer, but as I said we would all choose differently, so our government is supposed to work for the betterment of us all & for our nation.

            Reply
          7. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

            PS one last thing of note. A debate works like so.

            Person A Makes a claim (That’s me by the way)
            Person B disputes the claim by presenting facts (You would be person B)

            Problem here is you presented nothing but conjecture. which sir is not the same as presenting opposing facts to challenge my statement. Anything shy of facts from you means you haven’t even entered the debate.

            /golfclap

            Reply
      6. omgamike October 9, 2013

        And you make all these ‘cuts’ and adjustments to program spending levels through regular order, not through holding us hostage over the CR and the debt ceiling. Regular order. Things get accomplished through regular order, not through a half-a**ed insurrection. Just like in November, 2014, through the process of regular order that we calling ‘voting’, we will finally vote all those nut jobs out of office, so that regular order can once again become the norm, the process that ran this country for over 200 years.

        Reply
        1. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

          And every republican will be reelected to the congress. They will hold the house because the people they represent want the budget cut and all that. It’s a game and no one will seriously fix it even though it’s well within our means to do so and do it now.

          Reply
      7. LotusJoan October 9, 2013

        You are both right and wrong. When I became unemployed
        I called to have my cable disconnected because it was the right thing to do. I paid for the service I had already received for the same reason.
        I would agree that we need a budget that is more reflective of our
        economic realities. Not paying bills already incurred does not get us any
        closer to that goal, in fact it gets us further away.

        You are absolutely wrong on climate change however. Even if
        it is not real – exploring mitigating technologies and being better stewards of our earth would be a good idea and economically cost effective in the long term. When you are doing your research pay attention to who is funding the research or scientific organization.

        Reply
        1. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

          I already found common ground with the OP on climate change and that is and I will quote since in the long messages you appear to have missed it. I agree humans are horrible stewards of our planet, we pollute and destroy so much. We NEED to find a way to stop the waste and pollution. But junk sciences from both sides bent of scaring the general public is NOT the way.

          Reply
        2. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

          NASA is funded by you and I and all their top people have retracted their statements and have said global warming is not a man made event.
          They were repaid with their funding being cut for going against the government viewpoint.

          Reply
          1. LotusJoan October 10, 2013

            Give me a name or a conference or someway to verify. “Top People” is that like Top Cat? “Not a man-made event” is not the same as an outright denial of existence, now is it?

            Reply
          2. aghostdancer October 10, 2013

            Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, Richard S. Lindzen
            Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
            Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
            Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
            Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
            David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester
            Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University
            William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
            William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University
            William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
            David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
            Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
            Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.
            Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.
            Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University
            Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo
            Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia
            Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
            Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
            Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center
            Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa

            All VERY VERY respected scientist.

            Other interesting facts..

            Rajendra Pachauri – head of the IPCC research lab in the UN admitted the was “no significant warming”
            he went on a rant about warming and when the interviewer asked about the periods of “significant cooling” Rajendra Pachauri said it did not meet the threshold for significant. The interviewer then asked since the cooling was more dramatic and higher significantly than the warming was the warming therefore also not significant. Rajendra Pachauri had to admit that was true and promptly ended the interview.

            lhe new IPCC reports backpeddle on the warming claims:
            http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/16/new-ipcc-report-to-retreat-on-global-warming-claims/

            Side note:
            The earth has been much warmer and much cooler than now several times in it’s life span. We have climate cycles. Man did not cause the dozen ice ages and mini ice ages since we didn’t exist yet, we also didn’t cause the times where the earth was a lush jungle. You do realize at least twice in the earths existence Antarctica was green with vegetation? Both long before humans were even thought of.

            Now you forced me into defending a position I don’t myself fully support. I just dislike the JUNK science being bantered around. Try and get the ORIGINAL data used to get to global warming. You can’t because it was destroyed. That sir is not the scientific method.

            “principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses through peer tested analysis of the data”
            This means you gather data about a problem,
            Using this data you demonstrate your work to arrive at a conclusion.
            Next you submit your work with the original data for peer review and testing of your conclusions.
            This was never done. The only thing ever released was the computer models and conclusions with no data nor demonstration of work.

            Reply
  6. Dominick Vila October 9, 2013

    The comments I read and hear from some relatives and friends indicate a total lack of familiarity with our governmental process and the issues that are being debated. Many of them interpret raising the debt ceiling as giving President Obama carte blanche to spend money we don’t have. They simply don’t understand – and refuse to hear – the fact that the need to raise the debt ceiling involves the ability to borrow to pay for the debts we have already incurred. In other words, we need more borrowed money to pay for money that was appropriated and spent in years past.
    The opposite is true for the Federal government budget process, which involves the appropriation of funds to pay for the services that most of us believe are critical to our national security and well being.
    Another item that many ignore is that Social Security is funded by FICA revenues, not general funds. Since SS remains solvent and fully solvent, it should not be a part of the ongoing debate. A separate discussion, unrelated to the Federal government budget and the debt ceiling exercise – which was not a concern when it was raised 18 times in the Reagan era – should be held to ensure SS remains solvent for many years to come by making adjustments such as raising the SS contribution cap. MEDICARE changes, such as allowing across state lines RX transactions, need to be discussed to reduce spending.

    Reply
    1. jnap October 10, 2013

      Social Security and Medicare should not be a part of any budget discussions.
      The Republicans have wanted to get rid of these programs since they were enacted and constantly inject these programs into any budget and debt limit agreements.
      I really do not understand the logic of constantly suggesting that taking away or greatly lowering the already small SS benefits of the elderly, retired and disabled is something that should be pursued. How rich does the rich need to be before they are satisfied?
      How much do you have to take away from those that have very little to begin with before you have take all that can be had?
      How much pain has to inflicted before people say enough?
      We are getting close to finding out aren’t we?

      Reply
      1. Dominick Vila October 11, 2013

        I agree. Since Social Security is not funded via general funds it should not be part of the budget process. The reason politicians highlight Social Security and MEDICARE when they debate the need to raise the debt ceiling is because the government is obligated to honor the benefits they promised in exchange for the taxes we paid throughout our professional lives. That obligation is a liability they have to account for.

        The debt is caused by a simple fact, the Federal government revenues are insufficient to cover outlays, and since we refuse to pay for the services we receive, the only choice is to reduce spending. Sen. Cruz and others say that the government is receiving enough money to cover outlays. Well, if that is the case why did we have to raise the debt ceiling 18 times when President Reagan was in office, 7 times when Bush II was in office, and twice since President Obama was inaugurated?

        The most important consideration when it comes to Social Security is that it is still operating in the black. Revenues are covering expenses. That may change in a few years if nothing is done to address the dwindling contributor-beneficiary ratio. The easiest way to solve this problem is to raise the contribution cap from $106K to $250K. .

        Reply
        1. dpaano October 11, 2013

          The BIG problem is that the Republicans in the House REFUSE to allow us to raise taxes. Anyone with a reasonably acute knowledge of accounting and economics know that ex-President Bush SHOULD have raised taxes to fund his illogical war….every “war” president before him has done this…..why, for some reason, he didn’t is what has caused the debt problems that we currently have and that our current president has worked hard to pay down! I think we ought to hang Norquist by his b…..lls!!

          Reply
          1. Dominick Vila October 12, 2013

            Instead of raising taxes to pay for his crusades, he lowered taxes. That decision resulted in the end of budget surpluses, the resumption of deficit spending, and accumulation of debt that the Tea Party now blames on President Obama.

            Reply
          2. dpaano October 14, 2013

            Dominick: I totally agree. But, I can’t understand why the GOP can’t understand this except for the fact that they don’t WANT to. They’d rather blame President Obama for everything despite the fact that he’s paid down that debt significantly since he has been in office. Lowering the debt limit isn’t going to fix the problem without raising revenues, and as much as it might hurt even some of the middle class, it’s something that HAS to be done. Closing some of the tax loopholes for the wealthy would help also, but the GOPTP won’t allow that (thank you, Mr. Norquist)! It’s a sad state of affairs. I’ve never in my 67 years seen such disrespect and hatred among politicians since President Obama was put into office. It’s astounding!

            Reply
    2. Bill October 11, 2013

      Why is it no one reminds the GOP who created the debt that they are so worried about. Reagan, Bush and Bush can be thanked for most of it, not Obama. If they got in power tomorrow they would start spending like they always have in the past. The only time the debt matters to the GOP is when they are out of power.

      Reply
    3. dpaano October 11, 2013

      Dominick: You can’t fight “stupid.” Unfortunately, I’ve tried, and I’ve found that it’s more stressful for me than for them. So, I just let them think what ridiculous thoughts they want to think until they are proven wrong and start diverting to something else to blame on the government. It’s a no-win situation arguing with a Republican.

      Reply
    4. RobertCHastings October 15, 2013

      By the folks you are implicating, FICA is considered a tax. After all, it IS levied on pretty much everyone’s income, up to a certain limit. The first Bush lost his second term by raising “taxes” (FICA). And, of course, the legendary Clinton budget surpluses were based upon FICA, a tax NOT paid by the wealthy on income above about 100K (at the time), yet returned to them as tax relief, much like what W did with CHIPs surpluses in Texas as governor.

      Reply
  7. Mary Ann Hoogeveen October 9, 2013

    They are the face of American Terrorists!

    Reply
    1. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

      Who are the T-Party, the republicans?

      Or do you mean OWS supported by the president and the demnocrats who tried to bomb buildings, violently took over shipping ports and parks, Raped people, Beat peaple and pushed little old ladies who disagreed with them?

      Man your definition of terrorist is whacky. Since Barack Obama voted 3 times NOT to raise the debt ceiling and called Bushes spending wreckless, unpatriotic, unamerican and the single biggest threat to america. The shoe is now on the other foot but I guess the democrats like John Karry, Barack Obama, Hilalry Clinton who ALL voted against raising the debt ceiling are by your definition americas terrorists.

      Reply
      1. Mary Ann Hoogeveen October 9, 2013

        I repeat the gop/teaparty are American Terrorists

        Reply
        1. aghostdancer October 10, 2013

          Then Obama, Kerry, Clinton and the democrats are too. OWS is as well. Nice try though repeating the same lie doesn’t make it true and I proved with your words that the other side is ever bit the same.

          Reply
          1. Mary Ann Hoogeveen October 11, 2013

            Smarten up stop being a sheep,you belong to the American Terrorist party.

            Reply
          2. aghostdancer October 11, 2013

            Thankyou being in the same category as President Obama, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton I will accept that any day of the week.
            Course we did lump OWS in there but hey there is some rif-raff in every group.

            Reply
      2. Barbara Morgan October 10, 2013

        Your employers must paying you well for you to be posting as many times as you are doing ? Do you get paid by the number of posts you post or the number of words you use or by number of thumbs down or thumbs up you get?.

        Reply
        1. aghostdancer October 10, 2013

          My taxes pay you to stay home. I answer these in seconds and can actually do multiple things at once. I guess not everyone can. I get thumbs down because people can’t refute facts. Neither can you.

          Reply
        2. aghostdancer October 10, 2013

          I work in computers. It is easy to answer your questions all day. I also have a smart phone and can answer you from that. My laptop has a wireless card I can use it anytime. But yes I am paid well for my job and I enjoy educating people in the process.

          Reply
  8. charleo1 October 9, 2013

    I don’t know about you. Me? I’m just worried sick about what the T-Party thinks
    of John Boehner. As the economy is being softened up, by the government
    shutdown. In preparation for the real T-Party haymaker, that will, “cut the size
    of government,” by cutting the size of middle income paychecks, and crashing the world economy. Just like the American people want! Then, soon after the
    impeachment, the American people are demanding. And America’s course
    and priorities, have been properly adjusted by the T-Party Administration of President DeMint, and VP Cruz. So the long and messy war with Iran can finally get underway. President DeMint vows we’ll pay for this war, the T-Party way. By, “liberating,” the funds once held hostage by the criminal Socialists regime, and their duel wealth redistributing schemes of Social Security, and Government healthcare. Secretary of Defense Louie Gomert said on Government T.V. earlier today. “Now we can put these funds to work, fighting for America’s Freedom, and Liberty. Killing Muslims for oil in
    the Middle East.” Just like old times! “Color me giddy,” Gomert chuckled.

    Reply
    1. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

      Having friends who are Tea Party and being a astute listener. The T Party hate Boehner plain and simple. He is a poor excuse for one willing to do the hard job. He has had 4 years to trim the debt and has done nothing and now holds us all hostage and then has the nerve to claim himself a T Party candidate. He will be beaten soon by a real Tea Party candidate I am sure.

      Reply
    2. kmkirb October 9, 2013

      Cheer up charleo1… Some of us said this would come back & bite them in the ass. They backed themselves into a corner by their whoremasters & can’t find a way out. It was proven that skank Ginni Thomas (SCOTUS Thomas’ wife) was part & parcel to this planned hostage with the group she & her cohorts launched earlier this year named Groundswell. That story was posted day before yesterday…

      “Ginni Thomas and Her Groundswell Gang Planned ACA Hostage Scenario”
      http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/ginni-thomas-and-her-groundswell-gang-plann

      Well, there might be a little light at the end of the tunnel, lol. This story broke today a little after 1pm…

      “Obamacare Fight Gets Too Hot for Kochs: We’re Not Backing GOP’s Shutdown Tactics”… http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/obamacare-fight-gets-too-hot-kochs-were-not-

      Reply
      1. charleo1 October 10, 2013

        Excellent! I feel better already. It’s a bit early, but, I’m just going
        to go ahead and say it. You made my day! Thanks!

        Reply
        1. kmkirb October 10, 2013

          Why thank you ever so much, & you’re very welcome. Glad to bring a smile to your face. Actually, I hope this bites them all so hard they bleed profusely for an extremely long time! I’m sorry, but being the SCOTUS’ wife, we should have laws where they can’t do this type of influencing anywhere in politics. Just IMHO.

          Reply
          1. charleo1 October 10, 2013

            I agree completely with your sentiments. But a formal law,
            would violate Mrs. Thomas’ Civil Rights. It is my impression
            there was a time, those holding positions of great responsibility,
            took care to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
            It has been an unfortunate fact, that Justice Thomas has seemed to have little, if any respect for the office he holds, or the institution he represents. So his wife dresses up in a Statue
            of Liberty costume, and receives several hundred thousand
            dollars, lobbing aganist a law her husband will be called upon
            to judge. Evidently, the Thomas’, could not care less. After
            all, his job is guaranteed for life. As long as he shows up, and
            grunts once in a while.

            Reply
          2. kmkirb October 11, 2013

            That’s it entirely charleo1. Conflict of interest. It is not allowed in any official statement, judicial office, et al. Crap, even when I was a security guard for years, all reports & evidence had to be based on pure facts, not conjectures, not opinions, not he said she said. If it cannot be based on pure unadulterated facts, then it is not allowed. If anyone has any outside influence in any way, it is considered a conflict of interest.

            That was my point, & that is not against anyone’s civil rights or the 1st Amendment rights of anyone. Mrs. Thomas is unduly influencing others with her rhetoric, speech, influence, money, & power. Bottom line she is inciting scheming, lying, pandering, etc. I don’t believe in violence, but I would take an exception this time if old hubby would stuff a sock in her mouth if nothing else than to preserve what minute reputation he might have left. They’re both sows that like the swill, let’s face it.

            Reply
          3. charleo1 October 11, 2013

            As far as the present Supreme Court, and outside influence, Judge Thomas’ sleeping with an anti-government zealot, is
            just the tip on the iceberg. Justice Scalia is a regular at the
            posh Colorado retreat of Charles, and David Koch. Maybe
            he just enjoys the weather. You will recall Robert Bork,
            Reagan’s first choice for the seat Thomas now occupies?
            A man so radical in his disdain for New Deal programs like
            Social Security, and certainly Medicare, the Civil Rights Act,
            or Affirmation Action, Democrats, and many moderate Republicans, threaten to bolt. So, Reagan dropped Bork
            and came up with Thomas. Different color on the outside.
            Same guy inside. For all the lionizing of Ronald Reagan,
            by an extreme right wing that wouldn’t count him among
            their ranks. (Too Liberal.) Reagan laid the groundwork, and
            set the course for the rise of the corporate, and demise of
            America’s once prosperous, and secure Middle Class we
            can see disappearing right before our eyes. And, although
            we didn’t know it at the time, Clarence Thomas was a bell
            weather to the current Court. Where corporations are people,
            and money is free speech. And the America that once held
            such opportunities for all, Has now become the slave of the mighty corporate dollar.

            Reply
          4. kmkirb October 12, 2013

            Too true, & too sad charleo1. I remember all too well, as I have lived it these many long decades. That was one of my main concerns when Romney was running for pres. He was using Bork as one of his judicial advisers. We know that we need a couple more progressives on the Bench & why we fought so hard for Obama. I don’t agree with all of President O’s policies, but if Romney had had his way we could all see that Reagan’s last dream coming true for completely decimating the middle class for all time would have come to fruition. Sorry to say, but I’m glad Bork (the SOB) is now deceased.

            The problem is there’s always another to take his place. Thomas, Scalia, & Alito are the worst. I don’t believe Roberts is all that fair minded either, but at least he has done a few things that are right, like ACA. The worst things they’ve done was decimate the voting rights act, & not that it’s really a comparison, but worse yet was Citizen’s United. We should have some sort of laws in place to stop justices of these types. Nothing should be written in stone that gets these people off the hook when they’ve done wrong. Hell, I think it was Scalia after the Aurora shooting last year that said he saw nothing in the Constitution’s 2nd Amendment that he believed said we should all be allowed hand-held rocket launchers, to which all I could say was, “HUH?”

            Corporations are not people. They do not eat food, breathe oxygen, bleed blood, don’t catch diseases, can’t get pregnant, nor can they be executed. Crap many of them don’t even pay the damn taxes. They hide their money, like Romney, & don’t even invest in our shores. They are strictly a legal fiction.

            And money is not speech, it is property. It will be way worse for us if they vote in favor of McCutcheon. Hopefully they’ll continue to uphold the law on these limits of money towards contributions. One can only hope, & pray, which I do every day!

            Reply
  9. JDavidS October 9, 2013

    Shit…they don’t believe in other facts…such as climate change and evolution. Why in hell would they believe this? In the RepubliCON/Tea Clown world, facts are whatever is convenient at the time. Whatever fits the ideology du jour.

    Reply
    1. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

      So considering near daily scientists are defecting to the other side saying global warming aka climate change (when they failed to prove warming at all they changed the name to climate change making it harder to disprove) is a fraud and is flawed science. The list includes many of the prominent scientists today in the field of climatology. See there is empirical data that proves the earth warms and cools in cycles. As a matter of fact there is now long standing research of the martian climate and guess what it mirrors the changes on earth nearly degree for degree. Mars has ice caps and the northern is shrinking just like on earth where the southern is expanding or getting denser just like on earth. Scientists from NASA formally firmly in the global warming camp have defected since.

      One even stated “The only thing in our universe which has the power to after earths climate as a whole is the fission reactor known as our sun.”

      PS remember the global cooling hoax of the 1970s and before that they also claimed global warming in the late 1970s. Both debunked with hard science as the frauds they were. This one though it has more teeth is slowly being debunked as well. So calling names when science doesn’t stand firmly on your side is kind of like those in the dark ages who believed with their whole hearts the world was indeed flat.

      I will sit back and watch the global warming science debate. The common ground we share I bet is that man is a horrible steward of our planet. We pollute and destroy in the name of progress. As for scaring little kids with a hoax I am not doing that. Notice they stopped talking about all the polar bears dying off and the northern ice sheets vanishing forever and the claims it never happened before. Why because it has happened before at least twice in documented history and the polar bears are still thriving today. Oh and the ice sheet bounced back pretty quickly.

      For now I’ll leave the junk science to others and I’ll focus on the real issue of cleaning up pollution and helping reduce my foot print day to day. I look for ways to be a part of the solution to mans destructive nature and not try and scare the masses with hysteria and false claims of global doom.

      Reply
      1. JDavidS October 9, 2013

        Yes, you can find scientists who refute climate change, and for every one you cite I will cite another that claims it as fact. If you’ll recall, back in the 60’s the tobacco industry also brought forward scientists who extolled the virtues of tobacco and smoking. I believe that viewpoint has been proven somewhat less than factual as well.
        Apparently the only thing we will agree on is your assertion that man is a horrible steward of this planet. About that there can be no denial.

        Reply
        1. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

          Agreed that is why I said the matter is not settled. I always like to start a debate with common ground. We found that. However neither of us are climatologists and the scientific community is deeply divided on this matter. So what research I have done points to the science itself being junk. They cut down more than 1000 trees to find the one that supported global warming and destroyed the rest. Things like that are not science it’s manipulation of facts. Now has the other side done the same yup by posting weather monitors in shaded areas to show the temps are not going up. While the other side did the opposite. For now it’s all as much junk science as the scientists who were paid to say tobaco was good for you.

          You know smoking was so big in the medical community that they actually had a device with a hand pump called a smoke enema. For real look it up and it’s the reason today we say don’t blow smoke up my (butt). 🙂

          Science and scientists often are paid to come to a conclusion and when we can get science back into what it does best compiling facts unbiased and deriving a theory from those known and provable facts we will be better off as a people and a community.

          All is good and a pleasure to have our debate. Pleasant day to you.

          Reply
          1. JDavidS October 9, 2013

            And you as well, sir! Cheers.

            Reply
          2. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

            Thank you though Ma’am based on gender is commonplace the military doesn’t recognize gender except as a courtesy. But I accept the generous wish of a pleasant day.

            Reply
      2. DennisRL October 9, 2013

        you’re the most dangerous kind of conservative because you sound intelligent and knowledgeable but you’re starting out with a premise that you believe and then backfill with so called facts and figures to support what you believe. But your logic is flawed. By saying that the debate on climate change is deeply divided is just not true unless you think that out for every 20 scientists who think that climate change is not only real but mak made, there is maybe 1 who doesn’t. And that one is usually hired and paid for by a conservative think tank. Everyone I’ve ever heard say that climate change was a hoax could always be linked back to one of these organizations. What you’re saying sounds suspiciously like conservative radio or fox news. I’m not saying that’s where you’re getting your info but it sounds very much like what I’ve heard them say. I used to vote republican all the time until I came to the realization that these people don’t care about anything but their ideology. You can blather on and on about President Obama and what he said or didn’t say, but I do know this: he cares about people. He maybe he hasn’t done the best job as president, but the alternative is nothing but lunacy and selfishness.

        Reply
        1. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

          Wow suddenly you think I am a conservative? Why because i favor a balanced budget like William Jefferson Clinton gave us? If that is the company you place me in so be it I consider that a compliment.

          Do i support gay marriage? yup. Do I support a womans right to choose? Yup Do I support our soldiers and the job they do? Yup Do I believe in helping others who are less fortunate? Yup Do I believe people should pay their fair share? Yup Am I religious and believe god will punish you? I am spiritual but not any organized religion and I don’t believe in a god who will punish you for living a good clean life. That does not mean straight ect like catholics. It means live your life honestly and enjoy all it has to offer and be respectful of others in the process.

          I believe most of those views are counter to your label though.

          I never made a claim that the president doesn’t care about people i said the Democrat and Republican parties do not care one bit about you. Does this mean every republican and every democrat is a bad person who doesn’t care? No I wouldn’t ever make such a claim by lumping all persons with a label as the same.

          I used hoax to begin a conversation both sides so far have presented junk science. The climate change side has presented their findings but ALL the data to obtain the findings was conveniently destroyed or lost. That is not close to science. REAL science would gather facts and present the evidence along with their finds to open the field for debate on the findings it’s called the scientific method and is taught to 3rd graders or used to be.

          The other side has used deceptive tactics as well to prove their point one of which is trapping “Global warming” and then saying ha now explain the cooling got you nah nah nah..

          See it is all junk science so far and perhaps in the future people will demonstrate the basic knowledge of the scientific method and we can enter true debate about facts not fiction. Until then I stand by my words of JUNK science.

          Reply
          1. DennisRL October 9, 2013

            I don’t need a paper on methodology and fact based proof to know that global warming is real. I’ve listened to enough doctors of climatology who are in the field and are studying this who say that global warming is real and only going to get worse unless we do something about it. Every ‘expert’ to the contrary was sitting in an office in Washington belching out their poo-pooing of climate change. You can call this junk science if you want, but you’re just side stepping the fact that common sense, anecdotal evidence as well as empirical evidence points to who is right. (and P.S., it’s not the deniers.)

            Reply
          2. DennisRL October 9, 2013

            One more thing I forgot to mention. Everytime I get into one of these arguments over climate change, I always say that the deniers can’t prove to a 100% certainty that they are right and neither can the people who say that climate change is a fact. But would you rather be on the side that denies and does nothing and later finds out when it’s too late that they were wrong or would you rather be on the side that says it’s real and we do something that later proves to be unnecessary. One side would only waste a lot of money while the other would destroy the world as we know it.

            Reply
          3. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

            Neither side can prove they are right without data. The claimers destroyed the data so they couldn’t be questioned. You can not prove oneside right or wrong when neither shares the data fully and unmodified for all to interpret.

            Reply
          4. DennisRL October 9, 2013

            If you want to believe that then there’s nothing more I can say except that if you really believe that both sides have equal numbers and valid arguments then all I can say is that you’re delusional and not looking for the truth. You’re really a denier pretending to be neutral. There’s no other explanation.

            Reply
          5. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

            Ahh out with the names and labels. Why? Because you’ve lost. The only evidence you introduced is you’ve seen and you’ve read. I can site the same on the other side equally as compelling. I also know that science is about debate and to me the “deniers” are the only ones willing to debate. This is not the board for it but I will gladly post both sides or I can post just the other side. I enjoy the debate but one fact remains. Scientific process works like this. You gather data (evidence) and postulate a theory based on the data. You publish your data with your conclusions for debate and scrutiny. The side saying the change is man made destroyed ALL the data used to come to a conclusion. This is not sound science.
            On the other side the deniers have place bad data in with good data to conclude some of their findings. Therefore both sides are JUNK science and in any real scientific debate would be laughed at if we were being intellectually honest.

            Reply
          6. Barbara Morgan October 10, 2013

            Dennis read some of her other posts.

            Reply
          7. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

            And for every doctor or climatologist that will lecture with numbers and figures and grpahs saying it’s real there is another who can show equally it’s false with the same set of tools. I have seen both sides of this and have rad on it as well. Many very reputable scientist on both sides and lots of money poured into both sides. The warmers are funded by the UN and governments and that is a fact the denyiers are funded by companies and private investors. Both have an agenda to meet.

            Reply
  10. charliebrown737 October 9, 2013

    What is stupid is to keep spending like no body ever has to pay. Voting for Dumacrats is stupid, Detroit, Calif. NYC, Chicago, all broke and dangerous places.

    At some point you got to stop, and now is the time.

    Impeach Barry NOW

    Reply
    1. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

      I do not agree with impeaching the president now. And I do believe he deserves enough respect to use his name correctly. Barack or Obama just like George W or Bush even though i despised him.

      You are correct though this spending leads to exactly what we see in Detroit, Chicago, NY, California and even Maryland is in serious trouble now. Democrat/Republican they all spend on their pet projects to buy votes. e need to stop the spending and neither political party will do it without direct pressure.

      And you do have to stop it and the longer we dump this on the younger generations the wore it will be when we have to end it because we are bankrupt…Greece anyone?

      Reply
  11. MarcSFried October 9, 2013

    These subversive clowns ( and economics deniers) should be strung up from the nearest Constitution Oak. Its called TREASON!!! Don’t make me spell it out for you!

    Reply
    1. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

      So you say nearly every member of the senate and house have to be strung up including the president and vice president both for voting against more spending? Nice we could start over all new government no dam incumbents.

      Brilliant bloody brilliant!

      Reply
      1. HistoRet October 9, 2013

        At some point along the way you stopped thinking. Shut up for a while. Get some sleep. And start over. Please.

        Reply
        1. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

          Then enter the debate and prove me wrong? Oh wait you can’t so instead you insult and attempt intimidation. Don’t work here. Where is the next competitor this one checked out and can’t debate.

          Reply
  12. paulyz October 9, 2013

    Even though we may need to raise the debt ceiling, there needs to be a corresponding cut in Government spending; the purpose of the Sequester. If we keep piling on more debt, soon just the interest on our National Debt will consume 100% of revenue, & then we will not be able to fund ANY programs, & creditor nations will be demanding payment.

    Reply
    1. charleo1 October 9, 2013

      What we need is to put the debt in it’s proper place.
      Of course, the best way to increase the debt is what
      the GOP is doing, and has been doing since day one.
      Using the debt as a political weapon, to stop an agenda
      they personally do not agree with. The debt, and deficits
      are due to many factors. Not the least of which was the
      recession. Cut spending fine. Then cut unnecessary
      subsidies. And, rebalance the tax code to reflect the
      greater share of the wealth going to the top. Understand
      that this structural change creates the need for additional
      funding for healthcare by the government. As the funds
      formerly provided by employers are drying up. Let’s
      be fair. If it’s time for the bottom to tighten their belts.
      Tell corporations like Walmart the free, and easy ride,
      of low taxes, while sending their workers down to get
      their food stamps, and section 8 housing is over.

      Reply
      1. aghostdancer October 9, 2013

        Both sides use spending as a tool to divide people and buy votes. Salindra, First energy were BOTH huge Obama and democrat supporters and both got 100s of millions that they repaid themselves with at your expense. Neither side is innocent here. But point well made they both do exactly this.

        Reply
  13. Pamela Thompson October 9, 2013

    Mostly cue-tips love the tea party many blindly because many lack education. But maybe they will begin to understand what this organization is doing to the rest of America and these cue-tips are next when they don’t get their government subsidies social security and medicare.

    Reply
  14. ObozoMustGo October 9, 2013

    You know it’s bad when the amount of idiocy in America has reached a fever pitch where even grown adults and “educated” people have discarded ALL common sense and are recommending, despite historical evidence and basic math, that the way to fix our debt problems is to incurr more debt and spend more. This is like telling your kid that’s gotten into credit card debt problems that the way to get out of those problems is to increase their credit limits.

    WHO ARE YOU LEFTIST MORONS KIDDING????? [shouting on purpose]

    Are you people stupid? Are you ALL on crack? You must be, including useful idiot du jour Jason Sattler.

    The fact is that default is defined as missing interest payments. Interest payments are about $20B per month. The Treasury takes in about $250B per month. There’s no problem making interest payments. All of this is just a big hoax, yet again, where they are taking advantage of how stupid you people are. The only way the interest on the debt would not be paid is if Obozo ORDERS moron Lew to NOT pay the bills. And I’m not sure that even Jake Lew would be stupid enough to follow that order, but it’s close. Such an event would be 100% Obozo’s doing. His choice.

    Further, lets set the blame right where blame for the debt crisis belongs: SQUARLY ON OBOZO’S SHOULDERS. I know he does not like taking responsibility, but it’s true. Here’s some little tidbits of facts for you leftist idiots to chew on:

    Obama’s Spending is Out of Control!!!

    Federal Receipts/Spending, Per the Office of Management & Budget website:

    Clinton era Avg Taxes Collected per year $1.55 trillion
    Clinton era Avg Spending per year $1.59 trillion
    Clinton Average deficit per year $40 billion

    Bush era Avg Taxes Collected per year $2.14 trillion
    Bush era Avg Spending per year $2.39 trillion
    Bush Average deficit per year $251 billion

    Obama era Avg Taxes Collected per year $2.35 trillion
    Obama era Avg Spending per year $3.56 trillion
    Obama Average deficit per year $1,213 billion (or $1.213 trillion)

    The Congressional Budget Office claims that Obama will add more to the National Debt in his two terms in office than all other previous presidents COMBINED!

    We don’t have a debt ceiling problem. We don’t have a revenue problem.

    WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM AND THAT PROBLEM ORIGNATES IN THE WHITE HOUSE WITH OBOZO!!!!!!

    Have a nice day, useful idiots!

    Sen. Barack Obama’s Floor Speech, March 20, 2006 — “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

    Reply
    1. mk4524 October 9, 2013

      Too bad you’re clueless on how the budget process works in the Federal Government. It’s the Congress that passes the appropriations bills that determines how much is spent. That’s in the Constitutution, maybe you should try reading it. If Congressional appropriations exceed the debt limit, who’s responsiblity is this? The reckless fiscal policies were passed by the Congress in their appropriations. You need to understand how the government works before you mouth off.

      Reply
      1. ObozoMustGo October 11, 2013

        So, Bush is NOT to blame for running up the debt, but instead the DemonRATs in Congress that he had to deal with? Is that what you are saying? I suppose it is. So, Clinton doesn’t really get the credit for having nearly balanced budgets, but instead the Republicans who controlled Congress during his term should. Is that correct as well?
        You can’t have it both ways, hammerhead!

        Reply
        1. mk4524 October 11, 2013

          Bush started a full blown war in Iraq while lowering the tax rates. Duh, you mean you cut your income while you’re spending an incredible amount to conduct a full blown war on the other side of the world?

          Your clever terms and name calling are a bit childish.

          Reply
          1. ObozoMustGo October 11, 2013

            I know this shocks you leftist freaks a great deal, but tax rate cuts have ALWAYS proven to result in higher revenue. The same was true following Congress’ tax reduction that Bush signed. Go look it up.

            I took your argument and turned it around on you. Perhaps that’s why you gave no response. Didn’t think you would, hammerhead!!!

            And what is it with you leftist freaks? You all constantly confuse revenue and spending. Perhaps the reason you’re leftist freaks in the first place is that you’re too stupid to understand basic math.

            Have a nice day!

            “The basic idea behind the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues is that changes in tax rates have two effects on
            revenues: the arithmetic effect and the economic effect. The arithmetic effect is simply that if tax rates are lowered, tax revenues (per dollar of tax base) will be lowered by the amount of the decrease in the rate. The reverse is true for an increase in tax rates. The economic effect, however, recognizes the
            positive impact that lower tax rates have on work, output, and employment–and thereby the tax base–by providing incentives to increase these activities. Raising tax rates has the opposite economic effect by penalizing participation in the taxed activities. The arithmetic effect always works in the opposite direction from the economic effect. Therefore, when the economic and the arithmetic effects of tax-rate changes are combined, the consequences of the change in tax rates on total tax revenues are no longer quite so obvious.” — Arthur Laffer explains the concept underlying the Laffer Curve

            Reply
          2. mk4524 October 11, 2013

            I’m not a leftist freak so I’m not sure where you base that assumption. But let’s listen to what David Stockman had to say about supply side ecnomics.

            You sound like someone who has nothing better to do with his time but sit around and troll all day. Maybe you should get a life instead of your somehwhat childish version of barking out your ideas with a little bit of name calling.

            Reply
          3. ObozoMustGo October 11, 2013

            David Stockman was a big government progressive just like GWHB was, even though they were in the Reagan Admin.

            Reply
  15. RobertCHastings October 9, 2013

    Do they really believe that we can exceed our statutory limit on borrowing, without incurring some dire consequences. Only Congress can raise the debt limit, and the debt limit will not automatically increase itself simply because we have exceeded it. It is simply amazing how stupid these people are, even for Republicans.

    Reply
  16. Bill October 11, 2013

    Where does the GOP find these people? This stupidity has to stop!!!!!!

    Reply
  17. Lisztman October 11, 2013

    Rep. Yoho says “the constituents at his town halls agree with him.” Says a lot for the average level of education out there, doesn’t it? 200 years ago, voters sent to Washington a local Representative who was typically wise, or educated, or both. Note the specific use of the word “representative“, not the word “lackey.” Says a lot for the judgment of Mr. Yoho, doesn’t it?

    Our legislatures are supposed to be composed of individuals who make judicious use of their power. Who understand the tremendous power they wield, and have, at the first, the welfare of the Nation on their minds, not politics. They are not supposed to be committing extortion because they’re afraid that the proletariat will not re-elect them come the following November.

    I do not know; but I suspect that, despite the last sentence of the 14th Amendment to our Constitution, President Obama will see that bills are paid as they come due. Since Congress has abrogated its responsibility to “enforce the provisions.” Of course, little things like voter picture ID and that NC tax on the parents of out-of-state students already demonstrate the GOP’s willingness to run roughshod over the 14th. The 2nd Amendment is obviously the only one they care about.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.