I usually don't start threads here but......


More Hypocrites in Washington:


WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan on Thursday denied for a second time that he ever lobbied the government for stimulus money, even though he sent letters —with his signature — to the Energy Department and Labor Department asking for millions of the program's dollars on behalf of two companies in Wisconsin.

Ryan's new denial in an interview with Cincinnati's WCPO-TV contradicts letters that Ryan wrote in 2009 to Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis seeking stimulus grant money for two Wisconsin energy conservation companies. One of them, the nonprofit Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corp., later received $20.3 million from the Energy Department to help homes and businesses improve energy efficiency, according to federal records.

The congressman's denial comes as new audio surfaced of Ryan telling Boston's WBZ Radio two years ago that he "did not ask for stimulus money," in response to a caller's question about the recovery program. "I'm not one who votes for something and then writes to the government to ask them to send us money," Ryan said. The exchange was first reported Thursday by The Boston Globe.

But a year earlier, Ryan asked Chu to set aside funds for the Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corp. Ryan said the stimulus cash would help his state create thousands of new jobs, save energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The apparent contradiction underscores Ryan's conflicts with his larger federal budget proposal as the House Budget Committee chairman. That plan would slash Energy Department programs aimed at creating green jobs and calls for "getting Washington out of the business of picking winners and losers in the economy — and that includes our energy sector."

Ryan's actions in Congress have been drawing fresh scrutiny since he was named last weekend as Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's running mate.

Ryan's campaign spokesman, Brendan Buck, told The Associated Press earlier this week that the congressman's lobbying for the stimulus funds was part of a "a legitimate constituent service." But he did not immediately respond to questions seeking comment on either Ryan's denial Thursday or on the newly surfaced audio.

The vice presidential contender is not alone among Republicans who criticized the stimulus plan only to seek money later. Georgia's Republican senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, for example, blasted the bill as a bloated government giveaway yet asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates to steer $50 million in stimulus money to a constituent's bio-energy project.

Ryan's views are also consistent with his running mate's long-held position that the stimulus was a flawed idea that did not create private sector jobs.

"That stimulus didn't work," Romney said at an Ohio speech in June. "That stimulus didn't put more private-sector people to work."

Yet in Ryan's letter to the Labor Department in October 2009, he backed the Energy Center of Wisconsin's grant application for stimulus money "to develop an industry-driven training and placement agenda that intends to place 1,000 workers in green jobs." The company did not win the Labor Department grant, federal records show.

I usually don't start threads here but......


More Hypocrites in Washington:


.

NEWSFLASH!!!!!! :humpty:

Ryan's hypocrisy has been well documented, no need to rub it in.

-spence

don't know if this was done knowingly and that he knowingly lied about it or if he was unaware but I'm curious....if you are a senator or congress person and you voice and even vote against federal money for one thing or another and then an individual or business in your district requests assistance or access to those available federal funds through your office....do you tell them to screw?

the story doesn't seem to have much traction for some reason

NEWSFLASH!!!!!! :humpty:

They're all the same.

If it was reported in The Globe then it must be the gospel truth, since the Globe has NEVER skewed their stories for political gain! :smash:

Yeah, and Clinton never unhakled!

Maybe if the story specified which stimilus money Ryan was talking about, it might shed a little light on the subject?

Was he talking about the Bank Loan (stimulus) bailout? The Auto Co (stimulus) bailout?
Maybe it was the unemploymeny stimulus package?

Like I said, since it was reported in the Globe, I believe that rag as much as I would if I read The Inquirer!

If it wasn't so volitile and enraging, I would really be looking forward to this upcoming election, but as it stands, we will have to vote for the lesser of two evils, and the current one hasn't shown any signs of improvement.

....if you are a senator or congress person and you voice and even vote against federal money for one thing or another and then an individual or business in your district requests assistance or access to those available federal funds through your office....do you tell them to screw?
Congresspeople vote for and against things they don't agree with all the time. It's part of the negotiation process, you suck up the funding for the program you don't agree with to get a cut you do or perhaps money into your district to benefit your constituents.

The difference now is that up until the 1990's this was accepted as the norm...you went in and got the best deal you could.

Today, the rhetoric is at the fringes leaving no room for our legislators to legislate in a manner to benefit the most people. Read the bills being passed and Congress is still getting a lot of work done, but it's detached from the public debate.

-spence

Congresspeople vote for and against things they don't agree with all the time. It's part of the negotiation process, you suck up the funding for the program you don't agree with to get a cut you do or perhaps money into your district to benefit your constituents.

The difference now is that up until the 1990's this was accepted as the norm...you went in and got the best deal you could.

Today, the rhetoric is at the fringes leaving no room for our legislators to legislate in a manner to benefit the most people. Read the bills being passed and Congress is still getting a lot of work done, but it's detached from the public debate.

-spence

so you are saying by congressional standards..he's not hypocrit:)

I am still waiting for the green job revolution promised 4 years ago that was going to save the american worker.

Hows that hope and change working for you?

Lets not talk about VP's because Biden is laughable quite frankly. Can you imagine if he ever became president if something happened to Obama?

I am still waiting for the green job revolution promised 4 years ago that was going to save the american worker.

Hows that hope and change working for you?

?
Actually, many Iowa republican farmers have come out against Romney because he wants to end the tax credit (raise taxes?) established to help put wind farms on ag lands. 18 perc of their energy is now wind generated. 7000 wind jobs in Iowa. It is the whole issue of only having government support for industry one likes, like coal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, many Iowa republican farmers have come out against Romney because he wants to end the tax credit (raise taxes?) established to help put wind farms on ag lands. 18 perc of their energy is now wind generated. 7000 wind jobs in Iowa. It is the whole issue of only having government support for industry one likes, like coal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Obama and Romney pandering to energy interests
August 16
The Washington Post Editorial Board
The Post’s View

LIGHTLY SETTLED by people but thickly planted with corn, Iowa wields outsize influence in national politics. Presidential contenders from both parties woo voters in Iowa’s first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses by promising everything from crop subsidies to ethanol mandates. The state’s more recent status as a swing state — President George W. Bush won in 2004, President Obama in 2008 — has added to its clout, even if the last census reduced its electoral votes from seven to six.

So there’s no surprise in Mr. Obama’s three-day bus tour of the state this week: He munched pork, downed beer and decried Congress’s failure to pass a new, five-year farm bill. According to Mr. Obama, the record drought ravaging corn farms in Iowa and elsewhere strengthens the case for the legislation. “Now, the best way to help these states is for Congress to act,” he said. “They need to pass a farm bill that not only helps farmers and ranchers respond to natural disasters but also makes necessary reforms and gives them some long-term certainty.”


.Actually, almost nothing in the farm bill would affect drought-stricken farms one way or the other. About 80 percent of the bill’s nearly $1 trillion price tag (over 10 years) reflects the cost of food stamps, an essential part of the safety net. The rest is largely a grab bag of subsidies for producers, with the biggest benefits for the largest farms, i.e., those least vulnerable to drought and other risks. Existing law already provides subsidized crop insurance for more than 80 percent of the nation’s farmland; many dairy farms, too, enjoy subsidized insurance against rising feed costs.

Mr. Obama is also promising Iowans an extended tax credit for wind-energy production, which expires at the end of this year but to date has helped Iowa generate 20 percent of its electricity from that source. Not incidentally, Iowa farmers get $11 million a year renting their land to windmill operators. Mr. Obama argues that this is job-creating clean energy, and he is hardly alone in that. Supposedly fiscally conservative, free-market Republicans such as Rep. Steve King of Iowa tout the tax credit, which costs the Treasury well over#^& $1 billion a year. Of course, that money might have created even more jobs elsewhere, or saved more carbon emissions, if the government did not steer it into Iowa wind farms.

"Republican challenger Mitt Romney deserves credit for opposing an extension to the wind subsidy, a position that could hurt him in Iowa and in Colorado, another windy swing state."

A Washington post editorial says Romney deserves credit for opposing it. Great. It also states that the bill would do almost nothing for draught stricken farmers, but gives no details.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A Washington post editorial says Romney deserves credit for opposing it. Great. It also states that the bill would do almost nothing for draught stricken farmers, but gives no details.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

well.....you got the part about it being from the Washington Post right....the rest...not so much...WaPo editorial board by the way
" The Post’s View"

Editorials represent the views of The Washington Post as an institution, as determined through debate among members of the editorial board. News reporters and editors never contribute to editorial board discussions, and editorial board members don’t have any role in news coverage.

IN OTHER WORDS, NOT SIMPLY SOME SLANTED OP-ED FROM A LEFT LEANING RAG...BUT RATHER A VIEW FROM THE BRAINTRUST ELITES OF A LEFT LEANING RAG

"draught stricken farmers"....does this mean they're drunk or something?

Actually, almost nothing in the farm bill would affect drought-stricken farms one way or the other. About 80 percent of the bill’s nearly $1 trillion price tag (over 10 years) reflects the cost of food stamps, an essential part of the safety net. The rest is largely a grab bag of subsidies for producers, with the biggest benefits for the largest farms, i.e., those least vulnerable to drought and other risks. Existing law already provides subsidized crop insurance for more than 80 percent of the nation’s farmland; many dairy farms, too, enjoy subsidized insurance against rising feed costs.

I get my information on ag. from Lancasterfarming.com, which is the website for electronic edition of The Farming News. For months, it has had articles about the dozens of programs that will end September if the new bill doesn't pass, including crop insurances. There seems to be substantial concern about very specific aspects of the bill, like the fact that without immediate enactment of a new bill the USDA is "unable to activate all of its disaster programs (from August 12 edition, p.A14). Based on all the information I have read over the past months, it is pretty clear that the statement that almost nothing in the farm bill would affect drought stricken farmers is patently false.

I get my information on ag. from Lancasterfarming.com, which is the website for electronic edition of The Farming News. For months, it has had articles about the dozens of programs that will end September if the new bill doesn't pass, including crop insurances. Existing law already provides subsidized crop insurance for more than 80 percent of the nation’s farmland; many dairy farms, too, enjoy subsidized insurance against rising feed costs.

There seems to be substantial concern about very specific aspects of the bill, like the fact that without immediate enactment of a new bill the USDA is "unable to activate all of its disaster programs (from August 12 edition, p.A14).
Ryan voted for, and the House passed, a narrow $383 million emergency relief measure and sent it to the Senate. But instead of quickly passing and signing it, President Obama and his Democratic allies are holding the Midwest hostage in the name of passing a $1 trillion big-government goodie bag laden with useless subsidies and unprecedented welfare spending.

Based on all the information I have read over the past months, it is pretty clear that the statement that almost nothing in the farm bill would affect drought stricken farmers is patently false.

I guess if the farmers are going to end up on food stamps like so much of Obama Nation...you may have a point:uhuh:
I thought we were SUPPOSED to be going through these things and eliminating waste and pork and unnecessary government subsidies ?

just another attempt to fund overbloated programs and create new ones wrapped around an emergency and demonization of anyone who gets in the way....just sad

I guess if the farmers are going to end up on food stamps like so much Obama Nation...you may have a point:uhuh:
I thought we were SUPPOSED to be going through these things and eliminating waste and pork and unnecessary government subsidies ?

You might know that the changes in the eligibility requirements in the 2002 and 2008 farm bills, combined with the recession, led to the growth in food stamp use. The bill Obama backs cuts something like $4 billion from food stamps. I know, everything was perfect until mid 2009 when some of Obamas policies started to take effect and wrecked the country.

By the way, you call it "unprecedented welfare spending." Your words? What are you basing it on?

You might know that the changes in the eligibility requirements in the 2002 and 2008 farm bills, combined with the recession, led to the growth in food stamp use. The bill Obama backs cuts something like $4 billion from food stamps. the Senate’s version of the farm bill contains just $4.5 billion in cuts to the program, and the House Agriculture Committee’s is not much better at $16.5 billion.
I know, everything was perfect until mid 2009 when some of Obamas policies started to take effect and wrecked the country.

By the way, you call it "unprecedented welfare spending." Your words? What are you basing it on?

"Food stamps are currently the nation’s second-largest welfare program, behind Medicaid, and account for fully two-thirds of the Department of Agriculture’s budget. The standard liberal line that the program’s rolls have expanded because of the recession doesn’t scan: They have expanded in good times and bad, from one in 50 Americans in the 1970s to one in seven today, including a surge from 30 million enrollees to 46 million under this administration unprecedented. A better explanation is so-called “categorical eligibility” standards, which state that individuals who receive other federal welfare benefits are presumptively eligible for food stamps, and which are so loosely interpreted that some states consider receiving a welfare brochure close enough for government dole. (Under the program as currently structured, a state that makes more people eligible can transfer federal dollars to its citizens at almost no cost to itself.) As if that wasn’t bad enough, President Obama’s stimulus further eroded the eligibility standards by suspending the work requirements for the able-bodied."

In fiscal 2011, the federal government spent more than $75 billion on food stamps, up from $34.6 billion at the end of fiscal 2008, according to the USDA.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- More than one in seven Americans are on food stamps, but the federal government wants even more people to sign up for the safety net program.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has been running radio ads for the past four months encouraging those eligible to enroll. The campaign is targeted at the elderly, working poor, the unemployed and Hispanics.

The department is spending between $2.5 million and $3 million on paid spots, and free public service announcements are also airing.

President Obama's stimulus act made it easier for childless, jobless adults to qualify for the program and increased the monthly benefit by about 15% through 2013.

About 80 percent of the bill’s nearly $1 trillion price tag (over 10 years) reflects the cost of food stamps...this doesn't soud like any kind of serious reduction from 75 billion in 2011

Ok, so can you at least agree that disaster aid to farmers will be impacted if the bill isn't passed? That is a contradiction to the first article you quoted. I will agree that there is a ton of money in food stamps. You prefer the Romney plan to lower taxes for millionaires and reduce food stamps. I believe the validity of economics that says food stamps are good stimulus in a recesion. "When Moody's Analytics assessed different forms of stimulus, it found that food stamps were the most effective, increasing economic activity by $1.73 for every dollar spent. Unemployment insurance came in second, at $1.62, whereas most tax cuts yielded a dollar or less." Food stamps: The struggle to eat | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/18958475) For comparison, the cost of food stamps over the next ten years is about the same amount of money as the Bush tax cuts.

Ok, so can you at least agree that disaster aid to farmers will be impacted if the bill isn't passed? I haven't seen anything that indicates that, the Senate should have passed and the President should have signed the Emergency Relief passed in the House if they really cared about the victims That is a contradiction to the first article you quoted. It didn't say there is none...80% Food Stamps and bunch of pork leaves " almost nothing in the farm bill " I will agree that there is a ton of money in food stamps. brilliant! You prefer the Romney plan to lower taxes for millionaires and reduce food stamps. I believe the validity of economics that says food stamps are good stimulus in a recesion.the best! "When Moody's Analytics assessed different forms of stimulus, it found that food stamps were the most effective, increasing economic activity by $1.73 for every dollar spent. Unemployment insurance came in second, at $1.62, whereas most tax cuts yielded a dollar or less."right, always cheaper to redistribute money through a massive bureaucracy than to let people keep it in the first place:) Food stamps: The struggle to eat | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/18958475) For comparison, the cost of food stamps over the next ten years is about the same amount of money as the Bush tax cuts.


I guess if we put every american on unemploment and food stamps the ecomomy would boom! :confused:

I know which VECTOR you choose:uhuh:

I guess if we put every american on unemploment and food stamps the ecomomy would boom! :confused:

I know which VECTOR you choose:uhuh:

Yeah, I'm sure you much prefer Mitch McConnel's $150 million tax break for race horses or the billions in subsidies that go to Monsanto and Cargill.

Yeah, I'm sure you much prefer Mitch McConnel's $150 million tax break for race horses or the billions in subsidies that go to Monsanto and Cargill.

good one :kewl:

Yeah, I'm sure you much prefer Mitch McConnel's $150 million tax break for race horses or the billions in subsidies that go to Monsanto and Cargill.

That would be the same VECTOR as unemployment benefits and food stamps. That would not be governance in the direction of individual freedom which requires individual responsibility. That would not be government OF, BY, and FOR the people. That would be government FROM government. That would be government picking winners. That would be dependence on government not self governance. That would be anti the founding VECTOR toward individual freedom garanteed by the Constitution, toward the VECTOR of collective groups dominating individuals by trashing that Constitution and giving the Federal government powers and responsibilities not granted in the Constitution which reserves those powers to the people. And by taking those powers and responsibilities from individuals, it makes them dependent on government, even Monsanto, Cargill, and race horse owners. Which is the VECTOR of progressive government.

I was curious as to what exactly this is....McConnel's $150 million tax break for race horses...

when I Googled it the first thing that popped up was Zimmy's comments here..the second was a THINKPROGRESS article where it is mentioned in passing..other than that some vague references I guess..."bluegrass boodoggle" or something...had to do a lot of digging to finally figure out what this massive and unfair tax break being enjoyed by race horses not only in Kentucky is...

"McConnell in 2008 took credit for authoring the tax break, which allows accelerated, three-year depreciation for racehorses. At the time, he called it an issue of fairness given the limited racing life of many horses."

also read this today and it seemed so accurate....



David Gelernter, a Yale professor writes in his new book America-Lite:

"Everyone agrees that President Obama is not only a man but a symbol. He is a symbol of America's decisive victory over bigotry. But he is also a symbol, a living embodiment, of the failure of American education and its ongoing replacement by political indoctrination. He is a symbol of the new American elite, the new establishment, where left-liberal politics is no longer a conviction, no longer a way of thinking: it is built-in mind-furniture you take for granted without needing to think."


I don't know whether the accelerated depriciation of a race horse is "fair' or not but if you can't see the difference between massive and yes Zimmy..."unprecedented" handouts funnelled through the bureauracies of the federal government occupying greater and greater portions of our overall spending and depreciation of an asset, property or equipment through what I would enthusiasticaly agree is far too complicated a tax code... please show me someone who disdains all of these "special breaks" and tax treatment,corporate welfare who is willing and supportive of major tax code overhaul and simplification...they never seem to live in the same mind....

please show me someone who disdains all of these "special breaks" and tax treatment,corporate welfare who is willing and supportive of major tax code overhaul and simplification...they never seem to live in the same mind....

I agree. Just like the side that claims they want limited government, less spending, and balanced budgets oversaw 8 years of increased spending, decreased taxes, and growing deficits. The whole limited government, for the people, etc is great, but it isn't anymore of a reality with one party or the other; it is just different priorities.

I agree. Just like the side that claims they want limited government, less spending, and balanced budgets some Americans still embrace the idea, some just sneer at the thought oversaw 8 years of increased spending, decreased taxes, and growing deficits. 1 out of 3 The whole limited government, for the people, etc is great, so you support this concept? great? but it isn't anymore of a reality with one party or the other; it is just different priorities. or you mock it because in your opinion it can never be reality?

these are the kinds of things that you'd say to a hostage...I know you want to leave but the door is locked and there is noone that can hear you no matter how loud you yell so just give up and accept what's going to happen to you....

sorry, I have more faith in this country and it's citizens and in the possibility that we can elect exceptional leaders that will nudge us back on the "whole limited government, for the people, etc " thingy..

Hope and Change.....:uhuh:

these are the kinds of things that you'd say to a hostage...I know you want to leave but the door is locked and there is noone that can hear you no matter how loud you yell so just give up and accept what's going to happen to you....

sorry, I have more faith in this country and it's citizens and in the possibility that we can elect exceptional leaders that will nudge us back on the "whole limited government, for the people, etc " thingy..

Hope and Change.....:uhuh:
mitt Romney of Romney care? Now that is funny. Or do you mean the Ryan plan that would raise the average middle class taxpayers bill by $2200? What Paul Ryan's Budget Plan Would Mean for an Average Family - DailyFinance (http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/08/16/paul-ryan-budget-plan-average-american-family/)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

mitt Romney of Romney care? Now that is funny. Or do you mean the Ryan plan that would raise the average middle class taxpayers bill by $2200? What Paul Ryan's Budget Plan Would Mean for an Average Family - DailyFinance (http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/08/16/paul-ryan-budget-plan-average-american-family/)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who is middle class? According to this article $70k married jointly is middle class. Who is rich and who is poor? Seems like everyone has a different answer to this question.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

mitt Romney of Romney care? Now that is funny. Or do you mean the Ryan plan that would raise the average middle class taxpayers bill by $2200? What Paul Ryan's Budget Plan Would Mean for an Average Family - DailyFinance (http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/08/16/paul-ryan-budget-plan-average-american-family/)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So we are reduced to a hopeless muddle of "plans" for how the federal government will run our lives. There is no escape. The planners and bureaucrats differ only in priorities. Ultimately, it must be class warfare. Marx was right.

Funny how raising the average middle class taxpayers bill by $2200 will mean that federal government services will have to be cut. And because those services will be cut, the middle class will have to pay more for education, car repairs, e.coli outbreaks and all the other services the federal gvt. provides. States actually pay most of their education costs, and most of the cost of road repairs. We could not possibly prevent e.coli without the federal gvt. And "all the other services the federal government provides" would better not be named. The massive list of agencies, subsidies, and programs included in those services might make us wonder what is left for the rest of us to do and how it got that way. Of course, it would explain what the author means when he says "In other words Ryan's tax cut is a great deal--if you don't actually rely on the federal government for anything."
Some might even wonder why we rely on the federal government to do so much for us. We expect a few things, like the military, you know, like what the Constitution delegates to the government. But "all the other services the federal government provides"--yeah, better not print a list.

On the other hand, we are so used to it . . . why not? Maybe the government can do even more. Life is such a terrible burden for the middle class and poor . . . the government has done such a wonderful job for us . . . look how much longer we live, and how it takes care of our health, and creates jobs for us, and gives us money and food stamps when it doesn't create enough jobs for all of us . . . yeah! And if making the 2% pay more for our stuff, so what? Somebody has to pay for it. They don't need it. They send our jobs overseas. The more they get, the less we do. What's fair is fair. Politicians like Ryan and Romney are not for us. They are for the rich.

So, the author talks about Ryan's budget plan, but how does that compare to the current congressional budget. Oh, right, there is no budget. Apparently, the federal government doesn't need a budget. Silly of Ryan to concoct one. That is so twentieth century. We have evolved. We have "progressed." Do it, whatever it costs. We will eventually figure a way to pay for it. And, by all means, do even more. A few trillion more could not possibley make a difference.

mitt Romney of Romney care?

"ROMNEYCARE"

In November 2004, political leaders began advocating major reforms of the Massachusetts health care insurance system to expand coverage. First, the Senate President Robert Travaglini called for a plan to reduce the number of uninsured by half. A few days later, the Governor, Mitt Romney, announced that he would propose a plan to cover virtually all of the uninsured.

At the same time, the ACT (Affordable Care Today) Coalition introduced a bill that expanded MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage and increased health coverage subsidy programs and required employers to either provide coverage or pay an assessment to the state. The coalition began gathering signatures to place their proposal on the ballot in November 2006 if the legislature did not enact comprehensive health care reform, resulting in the collection of over 75,000 signatures on the MassACT ballot proposal. The Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation also sponsored a study, "Roadmap to Coverage," to expand coverage to everyone in the Commonwealth.[17]

Attention focused on the House when then-Massachusetts House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, speaking at a Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation Roadmap To Coverage forum in October 2005, pledged to pass a bill through the House by the end of the session. At the forum, the Foundation issued a series of reports on reform options, all of which included an individual mandate. At the end of the month, the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing approved a reform proposal crafted by House Speaker DiMasi, Committee co-chair Patricia Walrath and other House members.[18]

Massachusetts also faced pressure from the federal government to make changes to the federal waiver that allows the state to operate an expanded Medicaid program. Under the existing waiver, the state was receiving $385 million in federal funds to reimburse hospitals for services provided to the uninsured. The free care pool had to be restructured so that individuals, rather than institutions, received the funding.[19]

In fall 2005 the House and Senate each passed health care insurance reform bills. The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney's original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide "fair and reasonable" health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who do and do not cover their workers.

On April 12, 2006, Governor Mitt Romney signed the health legislation.[20] Romney vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.[21] Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid.[22] The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.


the lesson of "ROMNEYCARE"

In 2012, the Blue Cross Foundation of Massachusetts funded and released in April research that showed that the 2006 law and its subsequent amendments – simply in terms of measuring the state-budget effect on the uncompensated care pool and funding subsidized insurance (see Background section above) had cost approximately $2 billion in fiscal year 2011 vs approximately $1 billion in fiscal year 2006. Some of this doubling in cost was funded by temporary grants and waivers from the United States federal government.

The Blue Cross funded research did not address the increased costs in premiums for employers and individuals or other market dynamics – such as increased providers' costs and increased co-pays/deductibles – necessary to meet minimum creditable coverage standards that were introduced in Massachusetts by other parts of the 2006 legislature and its resulting regulations. Separate research on Premiums and Expenditures released by the Massachusetts DHCFP in May 2012 found that fully adjusted premiums per member per month (PPMPM) for Massachusetts residents covered by comprehensive private insurance policies (approximately two thirds of the state population) increased approximately 9% in both 2009 and 2010 (latest data available) for subscribers in the "merged market," 7% in the midsized group market, and 5.4% in the large group market. These premium increase do not reflect actual resident experience particularly in the merged market because Massachusetts regulations allow age and other rating factors (e.g., even if premiums were held flat for 55 year olds living on Cape Cod in construction work from year to year, the 55 year old in 2009 would pay 10% more in 2010 for the same policy, possibly with lesser benefits).

Because of this combination of a larger than anticipated effect on the state budget (see 2012 Blue Cross research compared to Governor Romney's proposal to the Medicaid Commission in 2006) because of the 2006 Massachusetts health care reform and continued growth above inflation for private insurance (see DHCFP research), the legislature is considering strict provider price controls as of May 2012 with expected passage by July 2012.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/05/06/massachusetts-institutes-health-care-price-controls-is-america-next/

"Under Governor Deval Patrick, Massachusetts has tried a couple of methods for limiting the government’s exposure to rising health-care costs. First, Patrick forced insurers to stop raising premiums, which led to a predictable train wreck, as insurers started hemorrhaging cash. When a state appeals board overturned Patrick’s decree, he shifted gears, and began going after the prices charged by hospitals and doctors. On Friday, the Massachusetts House unveiled new legislation toward that end. And progressive health-care observers around the country are taking notes."

So we are reduced to a hopeless muddle of "plans" for how the federal government will run our lives. There is no escape. We have evolved. We have "progressed." Do it, whatever it costs. We will eventually figure a way to pay for it. And, by all means, do even more. A few trillion more could not possibley make a difference.


Yup, throw your hands in the air and say" nothin we can do about it", might as well
just go along with it. Forget the fact that we are broke,they have the sheeple convinced
down the road all will be well and we will all live in Govt. Nirvana.
Move on, nothing to see here.

So, the author talks about Ryan's budget plan, but how does that compare to the current congressional budget. Oh, right, there is no budget. Apparently, the federal government doesn't need a budget. Silly of Ryan to concoct one. That is so twentieth century. We have evolved. We have "progressed." Do it, whatever it costs. We will eventually figure a way to pay for it. And, by all means, do even more. A few trillion more could not possibley make a difference.
Well, that's not really true. Congress certainly has passed budgetary compromise bills to keep things running. Yes, the process could be much more constructive...

The lack of a formal budget has nothing to do with progressivism, Obama has submitted a budget every year he's been in office.

-spence

Obama has submitted a budget every year he's been in office.

-spence

One of which was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 99-0. What does that tell you, Spence? Remember, there are not 99 Republicans in the Senate.

One of which was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 99-0. What does that tell you, Spence? Remember, there are not 99 Republicans in the Senate.

It tells me is wasn't a serious vote. Obama's budget was put up by Republicans trying to embarrass the president. The budget they proposed didn't even have any policy language in it...

It was a stunt.

-spence

Yup, throw your hands in the air and say" nothin we can do about it", might as well
just go along with it. Forget the fact that we are broke,they have the sheeple convinced
down the road all will be well and we will all live in Govt. Nirvana.
Move on, nothing to see here.

You like that the majority of current tax payers would pay higher taxes under the Ryan plan? That is your idea of doing something about it? The doing something about it means raising taxes on everyone but those who have incomes over $200000, who would get dramatic cuts. People like Romney, Bill Gates, etc would pay about 1%. Great plan. Talk about sheeple, it is those who believe the garbage they are fed by clowns like Ryan :smash:

You like that the majority of current tax payers would pay higher taxes under the Ryan plan? That is your idea of doing something about it?

As I have said here many times before, to pull this country out of the fire it
will take sacrafice by EVERYONE. Not only tax increases but budget cuts.
How else are you going to pay down a $16 -17 Trillion dollar debt?
Obama is already gutting $716 billion out of Medicare to help pay for Obamacare.
So where does that leave Medicare?
What is Obama's plan for Medicare?

The "gutting" of 716 billion is favored by both sides and I am not sure it is accurate that it is to help pay for Obamacare. Adjustments in payments to insurers and providers is supposed to cover those costs. I agree, as I have said repeatedly on here over the years, that it is going to take tax increases and cuts in spending to deal with the deficit. What sacrifices are made is the question. Obama would moderately raise taxes on the top 1% to where they were prior to Bush 2. He would maintain middleclass rates. Romney likes the Ryan plan, which would astronomically lower taxes for the extremely wealthy and the middle class would pay more in taxes and more for health care/medicare. The Obama health law pays for itself and reduces the deficit and, as the CBO has pointed out, if Republicans overturn it it will add $100+ billion to the deficit. That is why I find the argument that Romney and Ryan will lower everyones taxes, get people off of food stamps, and "restore" the by the people, for the people to be a farse.

Well, that's not really true. Congress certainly has passed budgetary compromise bills to keep things running. Yes, the process could be much more constructive...

The lack of a formal budget has nothing to do with progressivism, Obama has submitted a budget every year he's been in office.

-spence

Well, yeah, the lack of a formal budget and the need for continuing resolutions have to do with differences on how federal money is spent, and, possibly, on not openly broadcasting how much is spent on what by publishing a budget. Since most of the money is spent on progressive reforms to the federal system, including the large array of executive and independent agencies, social security, medicare, etc. . . . the lack of a formal budget has quite a bit to do with progressivism. The massive size and continued growth of the central government is a direct result of progressivism, as well as is the trillions of dollars required to sustain it

The "gutting" of 716 billion is favored by both sides and I am not sure it is accurate that it is to help pay for Obamacare. Adjustments in payments to insurers and providers is supposed to cover those costs. I agree, as I have said repeatedly on here over the years, that it is going to take tax increases and cuts in spending to deal with the deficit. What sacrifices are made is the question. Obama would moderately raise taxes on the top 1% to where they were prior to Bush 2. He would maintain middleclass rates. Romney likes the Ryan plan, which would astronomically lower taxes for the extremely wealthy and the middle class would pay more in taxes and more for health care/medicare. The Obama health law pays for itself and reduces the deficit and, as the CBO has pointed out, if Republicans overturn it it will add $100+ billion to the deficit. That is why I find the argument that Romney and Ryan will lower everyones taxes, get people off of food stamps, and "restore" the by the people, for the people to be a farse.

Your beginning postulates "I am not sure," and "supposed to" are key to the rest of your argument in which you display confidence in various projections. Projections are not facts. They are often innacurate. And different agencies give different projections on plans. Obviously, Ryan and his supporters project outcomes differently. And deficit reductions are important but long term debt reduction by both Obama and Ryan "plans" may raise deficits in the short run to control rising debt in the long run. A problem with all the debt reduction plans is that they are all long term. Few, if any current politicians will be in office when the plans are scheduled to pay off. The "farse" is that those plans will not be changed, ammended, neutered, or discarded over the next twenty years by new administrations. As long as we maintain our expanding course of government of, by, and for government, instead of reversing, gradually, toward government of, by, and for the people, there are not only no garantees that any government "plan" will constantly reduce debt, it is more likely that debt will increase, and only fiscal disaster will force a change.

Yes, the Ryan plan is tweaking around the edges of progressive big government, and it is as likely to suffer degradations of future administrations, but it has a built in "trajectory" or "vector" or a "heading in the right direction" of returning a portion of responsibility and choice to the people. And though it may be unlikely that that direction can be maintained against the allure of the nanny state, if it could, and gradually infiltrate the rest of our big government structure, then true constitutional government, rather than bureaucratic administrative government, could be restored.

That it seems unlikely, does not make it a farse. That you and so manhy others consider it a farse, and even so many more have become dependent on government, makes it unlikely.

The "gutting" of 716 billion is favored by both sides and I am not sure it is accurate that it is to help pay for Obamacare. Adjustments in payments to insurers and providers is supposed to cover those costs. I agree, as I have said repeatedly on here over the years, that it is going to take tax increases and cuts in spending to deal with the deficit. What sacrifices are made is the question. Obama would moderately raise taxes on the top 1% to where they were prior to Bush 2. He would maintain middleclass rates. Romney likes the Ryan plan, which would astronomically lower taxes for the extremely wealthy and the middle class would pay more in taxes and more for health care/medicare. The Obama health law pays for itself and reduces the deficit and, as the CBO has pointed out, if Republicans overturn it it will add $100+ billion to the deficit. That is why I find the argument that Romney and Ryan will lower everyones taxes, get people off of food stamps, and "restore" the by the people, for the people to be a farse.

amazing that you can roll out so much hyperbole and then refer to anything as a "farce"

you would have been great fun during the Revolution, I suppose you would have deemed that whole "by the people, for the people"...thingy..."to be a farse" then as well...:uhuh:

CBO: Obamacare Will Spend More, Tax More, and Reduce the Deficit Less Than We Previously Thought - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/07/27/cbo-obamacare-will-spend-more-tax-more-and-reduce-the-deficit-less-than-we-previously-thought/)

http://washingtonexaminer.com/cbo-to-employers-obamacare-has-4b-more-in-taxes-than-expected/article/2503013



"The first impact of ObamaCare on the economy is its ever rising price tag. The revised cost estimates for the first full 10 years of ObamaCare is now $2.6 trillion***, almost three times the $900B President Obama had promised it would cost. This soaring cost, however, is only what government will be spending, not the additional costs of compliance borne by the private sector.

The second economic impact of ObamaCare is all the taxes that will need to be raised to pay for this rising cost. There's a list of these new taxes at The Daily Ticker, along with an informative 4 ½-minute video interview of Henry Blodget explaining them (which actually has a bit of humor in it). But it's not only businesses and the investor class that will pay ObamaCare's new taxes; the middle class will also get hit.

The third impact on the economy from ObamaCare is regulation. Bureaucrats have already written 13,000 pages of new regulations, and they're just getting started. This has business in a state of paralysis: what are these unelected, unaccountable regulators going to dump on me next? There's also the issue of whether the regulators know what they're doing.

At Reason, Peter Suderman writes:

As part of a multipart study of the law's regulations, Christopher Conover, a health policy researcher at Duke University's Center for Health Policy and Inequalities Research, and Jerry Ellig, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center, looked at eight of ObamaCare's major regulations and found that "that the regulatory impact analyses (RIAs) for these regulations were seriously incomplete, often omitting significant benefits, costs, or regulatory alternatives." ... The authors also conclude that the analyses were also "more likely to understate the magnitude of costs than to overstate them. All eight regulations appear to have understated the costs. In some cases, costs are understated by billions of dollars. The net effect of this pattern is to further contribute to the bias favoring regulation." Regulators who've decided to pursue certain rules have probably already decided that those rules are a good idea, and end up using the required analyses mostly to justify what they're already planning to do."


****I don't know if this is more or less accurate than any of the other numbers out there but based on the "vector"...it will be accurate at some point at least briefly:)

The massive size and continued growth of the central government is a direct result of progressivism, as well as is the trillions of dollars required to sustain it

which is exactly the point and the clear difference in this election....

the Obama Program(vector) is one of massive, permanent and expanding federal power, which happens to be the antithesis of the farcical , but great? .....intent of our founding....this much we know:uhuh:

I agree, as I have said repeatedly on here over the years, that it is going to take tax increases and cuts in spending to deal with the deficit. What sacrifices are made is the question. Obama would moderately raise taxes on the top 1% to where they were prior to Bush 2. He would maintain middleclass rates.

The kind of sacrifices we need to mend this country have to come from everyone.

You need a strong leader that can lay out the true facts of where we are,what the consquences are, what we need to do, and then unite all our people to be willing to do their share of sacrificing.

It can't be on the backs of one group, it has to be shared by everyone.
This class warfare stuff will never work, except to divide the country and
bring in votes for the party that promotes it.
It's estimated that the increase in taxing the 1% will bring in 80-90 billion,
which would do very little to pay down the trillions we have in debt.

It will take a concerted effort on every citizen's part and a dynamic leader
that can unite the people for the sake of America. While Obama promoted himself
in his campaighn to be such a leader, he has failed.

I pay enough in taxes.....should not have to suffer for miss guided politicians that sit at their desk bouncing a pencil contriving to take my hard earned money.....making policies that exclude them

wow this republican cool-aid tasted great....oh wait so doesn't the democrats.. Must keep head down, keep working, keep paying for corporate handouts, keep paying for mortage handouts, keep paying for welfare and medicaid handouts, there may not be a social security hand out for me at the end, but thats ok it only hurts when I think.

you would have been great fun during the Revolution, I suppose you would have deemed that whole "by the people, for the people"...thingy..."to be a farse" then as well...:uhuh:



Reading comp. an issue Scott? I didn't say it is "for the people" that is a farce, it is the idea that Ryan and Romney raising taxes on the middle class and and cutting nearly all taxes for the super rich is somehow what was envisioned by the founders. Guess that is why the "sheeple" would fall for the Ryan scam.

And for buchie: you don't postulate on anything, because everything you say out is put out as fact, even when it is bs. I guess that is better :rotf2:

Reading comp. an issue Scott? I didn't say it is "for the people" that is a farce, it is the idea that Ryan and Romney raising taxes on the middle class and and cutting nearly all taxes for the super rich is somehow what was envisioned by the founders. Guess that is why the "sheeple" would fall for the Ryan scam.

The founders did not envision a federal income tax--neither on the middle class nor the super rich. They did not envision a divided nation, made even more so by divisive taxes. Their vision of "We the People" was one People made up of free individuals pursuing their personal happiness, not a class structure which had to be regulated by a central government. That is my OPINION. I don't claim it to be a fact. And it is my opinion, based on evidence and facts which I have presented before in this forum, that progressivism is responsible for those taxes, their massive slice of the nations wealth which allowed the massive growth of the central government.

And for buchie: you don't postulate on anything, because everything you say out is put out as fact, even when it is bs. I guess that is better :rotf2:

Where have I said that I don't? Where have I said that YOU shouldn't? Pointing out your postulation in relation to the rest of your post is not a scolding that you postulate. All of my posts, except when I quote or link to other opinions or facts, ARE OPINIONS. I assume that is obvious, and it doesn't require me to say "in my opinion" before every sentence I write.

wow this republican cool-aid tasted great....oh wait so doesn't the democrats.. Must keep head down, keep working, keep paying for corporate handouts, keep paying for mortage handouts, keep paying for welfare and medicaid handouts, there may not be a social security hand out for me at the end, but thats ok it only hurts when I think.

You have hit on the obvious (in my opinion). What, apparently, is not obvious even though it stares us in the face (in my opinion), is that the same entity which pays for or enforces the corparate "handouts" and mortage handouts, is the entity that keeps paying for welfare and medicaid handouts--regardless of Republican or Democrat cool aids (in my opinion). That you have so little to say about it is, IMHO (do I have to constantly say that?--I think not) because the power to make those handouts or decide which handouts will be given, was unconsitutionally taken from your local or State government by Progressive politicians and judges. It is those local governments, as constitutionally intended, in which you will have a more direct say and those governments that will be more responsive to you than the central government is.

I pay enough in taxes.....should not have to suffer for miss guided politicians that sit at their desk bouncing a pencil contriving to take my hard earned money.....making policies that exclude them

Agree,but you think it's bad now, wait till the Bush Tax Cuts expire and all of us who pay taxes will pay around 50% of our income between Fed, State, County, Local Sales, etc.
We will be working for the Govt from Jan-July before we see our own dime.
That's why all Govt programs need to be cut to help stop the bleeding,none excluded.

These guys use many of these programs to pay back contributors and to buy votes for their own agenda and are scared to death to do what's really needed.

We need a President that will get out there explain his plan every week if need be, motivate and inspire us to get out of this quick sand. Holding a news conference every 2 months and appearing on Entretainment Tonight to talk about himself,his hobbies etc. is a dis-service to the country.
We all know he's a nice guy,but let's hear how he's really going to bring the Govt back to fiscal responsibility.

It is those local governments, as constitutionally intended, in which you will have a more direct say and those governments that will be more responsive to you than the central government is.


Absolutely. Nothing better than attending a local or county meeting to have your say, have it heard and answered. It's the power of the individual.

My Representative holds monthly teleconference meetings where you can state your opinions and ask questions. Can't beat it for finding out what is really going
on with legislation in Washington.

Guess that is why the "sheeple" would fall for the Ryan scam.:

So I guess the sheeple are now the ones that don't fall lock step in with almost every major news network?

The ones who when asked why they are voting for "hope and change" have no good answer. Not saying you are one of them. You may have very valid reasons for voting D. If you want to call every American who votes Romney Ryan sheeple it may be time to look at why people vote Obama Biden as well?

I will vote Romney Ryan and it is simple for me. I work harder than I ever have for far less money than ever before. I am going to be looking at a tax increase in January due to legislation I didn't want. I fear if this administration is given a term without needing to campaign to keep their jobs we will be seeing far more legislation we don't want

I and my business will not survive another four years of the current regime. I kill myself daily to provide for my family I have gone months with out pay to make sure employees get taken care of before me. I pay my bills I have paid my dues. And I get to see people live and die through entitlement our current leadership included. I am middle class and my quality of living is rapidly decreasing. I don't live lavishly. I haven't taken a vacation for three years my customers are happy with me there just is not enough work for everyone. It is what it is. I just know if this regime gets another 4 years it will get worse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sheeple wasn't my word. Obviously it is subjective. Very little has changed for small business under Obama. Many people who speak out against voting for him talk about the fear of what he Will do. The nra is big on that. Makes me want to get their sticker off my truck. Scare tactics. But concern for your business is an understandable reason. I fear for a country where billionaires change the tax system so the middle class gets hammered harder while they pay a tiny percent.how that helps the deficit is beyond me.i also don't get how that makes a better country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I feel your pain JB. A family member has been a bank manager for many years and
was able to approve most small business loans under certain criteria on her own.
Now with the new Banking Regulations all small business loans must be sent to a Loan Officer at Headquarters. No matter what the loan history is with the local bank, the business needs to put up %60 colatteral in some form, even their homes, to get a loan.
Not a favorable enviornment to grow a small business or hire additional employees,
and these are many of the people they want to increase taxes on.
Doesn't make sense for economic growth.

:)Sheeple wasn't my word. Obviously it is subjective. Very little has changed for small business under Obama. this would be a "sheeple" statement:uhuh:
Many people who speak out against voting for him talk about the fear of what he Will do. will do, won't do, has done, hasn't done...pretty normal I think
The nra is big on that. Makes me want to get their sticker off my truck. maybe the gun racks and rebel flag should go too?
Scare tactics. like an ad showing your opponent pushing a woman in a wheelchair off a cliff or a commercial where a guy claims his wife's death was the direct result of your opponent
But concern for your business is an understandable reason.brilliant!....but wait, if nothing has changed, as you say, then the concern is unfounded and the reason illegitimate just like the NRA...no? better scrape the NSBA/NFIB bumper stickers off as well .....we could call it "subjective sheeple fear"
I fear for a country where billionaires change the tax system so the middle class gets hammered harder while they pay a tiny percent. according to Forbes there are 403 US billionaires and about 30 in double digits, do the math and see that even collection of all of their wealth combined wouldn't put a dent in the massive SPENDING PROBLEM
how that helps the deficit is beyond me.i also don't get how that makes a better country.perhaps it's a perception problem:uhuh:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you are so caught up in straw dogs and talking points that you dismiss, ignore or denounce anything that doesn't jive with your story line....what would "makes a better country" would be getting back on a fiscally responsible path by reducing the burden of government and reviving the principles that made us "better" in the first place.......one of the "sides' that you often speak of has absolutely no intention of doing either:)

noone wants to "work" for an entity that is so bloated and irresponsible with what is already being provided them.... giving them even more would be an exercise in futility and enablement....see California below...

I am simply tired of this notion that Obama and Biden give 2 s@&ts about the American middle
Class. They care about one group of people those they can convince to vote for them. They care about
Middle class to the extent that they want the unions to back them period. Then they care about the poor (American non working families, which is becoming generational) . And they also care about big corporate America. Because that is where they get their campaign money.

Divide and conquer. We are being divided, look at the arguments on a fishing forum for crying out loud, next will come the conquering. I am not talking about enslavement or any Indiana jones type crap. But making people live to their will. Doing as they think we need it has already happened it will again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“The period which immediately precedes an election, and that during which the election is taking place, must always be considered as a national crisis. ... As the election draws near, the activity of intrigue and the agitation of the populace increase; the citizens are divided into hostile camps, each of which assumes the name of its favorite candidate; the whole nation glows with feverish excitement.” -- Alexis de Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” 1835

I like Ramesh

I’m Right, You’re Wrong and Other Political Truths
By Ramesh Ponnuru Aug 20, 2012

I can’t stand the people on your side. Not you, particularly. You’re fine. It’s your side that’s ruining everything great about this country.

Your side lies shamelessly. Your leaders just make things up. And you just follow them blindly, like sheep -- like blind sheep. You hang out with people who think just like you, and listen only to shows where you’ll hear your own views repeated. It’s an echo chamber of lies!

That’s how your side wins elections. It whips gullible people into a frenzy about supposed threats to their freedoms and livelihoods, and it deceives everyone else into thinking it’s more moderate than it really is. Once the election is over, though, your side starts pushing its extreme agenda behind the scenes.

When your side wins an election, you make out the president to be some sort of messenger from God. Nothing he does can be wrong. It doesn’t matter how big a hypocrite he is. He can campaign on bringing us together and then do nothing but divide us when he gets in -- but you don’t mind. When our side wins, on the other hand, the president has to be personally trashed and accused of the most monstrous crimes.

Your side stirs up hate against the people on my side. The horrible signs your people hold up at their protests, the venom your spokesmen spew on television: It’s scary. I wonder how you can go through life with all that anger inside you.

Your side is simplistic. You never stop and think things through. That’s how you end up with your ridiculously inconsistent positions on abortion and the death penalty. You even fight against legislation that would make your own life better! How crazy is that?

Honestly, I don’t know whether to be sorry for you or mad. Sometimes I wish we could just free you from these awful leaders and their dumb ideas. Sometimes I wish all the people on your side would just secede and form your own country.

I don’t know if your side even believes in democracy. Your people are willing to do whatever it takes to win. That’s all they care about. They don’t care about how much damage their incivility does to the tone of our national life. It makes me sad.

Your side is willing to exploit tragedies for political gain. When your side’s rhetoric leads to political violence, on the other hand, you start saying how we shouldn’t politicize senseless crimes. Awfully convenient, isn’t it?

Your side’s extremism just grows and grows. Back in the day, people on your side had some sensible views and were willing to work with people on my side. Now your side purges anyone who would dare to do that.

The people on your side constantly whine about how unfairly they are treated. You’re always stoking phony outrage against the political leaders you hate. They are shameless liars, you say. But why should we take demands for honesty seriously when they come from your side? Frankly, anything your side gets is justified payback for all the things you’ve done.

I’m not saying that my side is perfect. Not at all. I complain about the people on my side all the time. They’re wimps. They’re too polite. They let your side get away with murder. And the press lets it happen, too. The people on my side always bring knives to the gunfight.

Maybe the most infuriating thing your side does is pretend that we’re morally equivalent. That’s not true: Your side is full of much worse people. I can’t even stand seeing them on television. No way could I ever watch that supposed news network of yours.

It’s nothing personal. I just hate people like you.

//////////////////////////////////

spending related....and funny...unless you live in Cali.


August 21, 2012
Funding Failure
Aaron Gee

Jerry Brown has a problem. His state continues to spend billions more than it collects in taxes. Outlays for pensioners are starting to bite into day to day government functions. Unable to get higher taxes through his state's legislature Brown is turning to the voters with proposition 30, asking the voters to raise their own taxes. Proposition 30 is being sold to the public as a way to balance the budget and prevent cuts to schools and public safety.

Brown parades around the state preaching that his citizens must accept the tax "for the children". Already the most tax burdened state in the union according to a Pacific Research Institute study, more taxes just continues the status quo. The revenue generated will not do much to fill this years 16 billion dollar deficit, nor go to schools, or public safety. That money will be used to shore up a broken retirement system that is underfunded by hundreds of billions of dollars.

The other sad truth is that much of the income promised by this new tax will never be collected. With nearly 2,000 upper income Californians leaving the state every week the amount of money garnered from Brown's latest "tax the rich" scheme is sure to be much, much, less than forecast. California already has the worst business climate in the United States which makes raising taxes that much more damning. Businesses are leaving the state and with them taxpaying workers.

Obama's budget was put up by Republicans trying to embarrass the president. It was a stunt.

-spence

if the budget was not embarassing...it wouldn't have been much of a stunt:) wasn't it a 3.6 Trillion dollar budget?

and

President Obama’s economists are nothing if not optimistic. In the fiscal year 2013 presidential budget request, they’ve once again forecast higher future growth than their private-sector peers – about a half-point of gross domestic product growth more, per year, than the 45 economists included in the Philadelphia Fed’s Survey of Professional Forecasters.

The Obama budget, released Monday, forecasts 2.7 percent real GDP growth this year and 3.0 percent next year. Growth increases to 3.6 percent in 2014 and 4.1 percent in 2015. The highest the Philadelphia Fed consensus projections peg growth at 2.3 percent this year and slowly rising to 3.1 percent in 2015

........................................
Jul. 27, 2012, 8:30 AM | 3,842 | 24

UPDATE:

The U.S. economy expanded by 1.5 percent during the second quarter, topping expecations( well, not Obama expectations) for a 1.4 percent gain, new data out of the Bureau of Economic Analysis shows.

Nonetheless, the government figures continued show that the nation's economy is on uneven footing and losing momentum.

During the first three months of the year, the country's gross domestic product expanded by a revised 2.0 percent, moderately faster than the pace seen today.

Nonetheless, the government figures continued show that the nation's economy is on uneven footing and losing momentum.


Yes and the CBO just forecast an added 1.1 Trillion to our debt for 2012.
Peanuts, what's another Trillion +. :rollem:

And that's with 2 wars winding down.

Hello America, are you awake?

No scott, i dont have a confederate flag on my truck. I do know some tea party guys who do and one has it tattooed on his shoulder.
You also seem to point out as justplugit does that everyone needs to pay more taxes.that doesn't follow your party line.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You also seem to point out as justplugit does that everyone needs to pay more taxes.that doesn't follow your party line.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

huh?????


Originally Posted by zimmy
"You like that the majority of current tax payers would pay higher taxes under the Ryan plan?"

The other sad truth is that much of the income promised by this new tax will never be collected. With nearly 2,000 upper income Californians leaving the state every week the amount of money garnered from Brown's latest "tax the rich" scheme is sure to be much, much, less than forecast. California already has the worst business climate in the United States which makes raising taxes that much more damning. Businesses are leaving the state and with them taxpaying workers.

and coming to TX where I pay state tax of, whats that number again, oh yeah, ZERO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Justplug correctly stated it will take tax raises and spending cuts to cut the deficit. You point out that taxing the rich wont fix it, which points to tax raises on everyone. Ryan plan looks like it lowers taxes on everyone, but actually raises taxes, but only on the middle class. So are people tricked by Ryan or just don't know enough about his plan?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The other sad truth is that much of the income promised by this new tax will never be collected. With nearly 2,000 upper income Californians leaving the state every week the amount of money garnered from Brown's latest "tax the rich" scheme is sure to be much, much, less than forecast. California already has the worst business climate in the United States which makes raising taxes that much more damning. Businesses are leaving the state and with them taxpaying workers.

and coming to TX where I pay state tax of, whats that number again, oh yeah, ZERO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah but it is filled with people from Texas.;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Justplug correctly stated it will take tax raises and spending cuts to cut the deficit. You point out that taxing the rich wont fix it, which points to tax raises on everyone. Ryan plan looks like it lowers taxes on everyone, but actually raises taxes, but only on the middle class. So are people tricked by Ryan or just don't know enough about his plan?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

when I do my families finances I look first to trim our expenses before I ask for a raise or find a new job. Its it too much to ask the same of our government?

when I do my families finances I look first to trim our expenses before I ask for a raise or find a new job. Its it too much to ask the same of our government?
Yes. Yes it is. Because cutting expenses means less money to buy votes.

it's what happens when you throw money at something without fixing the probem(s):)

General Motors Is Headed For Bankruptcy -- Again - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/08/15/general-motors-is-headed-for-bankruptcy-again/)

“So now I want to say that what we did with the auto industry, we can do in manufacturing across America. Let’s make sure advanced, high-tech manufacturing jobs take root here, not in China. Let’s have them here in Colorado. And that means supporting investment here.”
OBAMA

"GM has been selling cars in the U.S. at deep discount, and while it’s making money in China — and is outsourcing operations there and elsewhere — it’s bleeding losses in Europe. It’s spending billions to ditch its Opel brand there in favor of Chevrolet, including $559 million to put the Chevy logo on Manchester United soccer-team uniforms — and it just fired the marketing exec who cut that deal.

It botched the launch of its new Chevrolet Malibu by starting with the green-friendly Eco version, which pleased its government shareholders even though the car got lousy reviews. And it’s selling only about 10,000 electric-powered Chevy Volts a year, a puny contribution toward Obama’s goal of one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.

“GM is going from bad to worse,” reads the headline on the analysis of Automotive News’s editor in chief, Keith Crain. That’s certainly true of its stock price.
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120813/OEM01/308139978/1193

The government still owns 500 million shares of GM, 26 percent of the total. It needs to sell them for $53 a share to recover its $49.5 billion bailout. But the stock price is around $20 a share, and the Treasury now estimates that the government will lose more than $25 billion if and when it sells.

That’s in addition to the revenue lost when the Obama administration permitted GM to continue to deduct previous losses from current profits, even though such deductions are ordinarily wiped out in bankruptcy proceedings.

It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that GM is bleeding money because of decisions made by a management eager to please its political masters — and by the terms of the bankruptcy arranged by Obama car czars Ron Bloom and Steven Rattner.

Rattner himself admitted late last year, in a speech to the Detroit Economic Club: “We should have asked the UAW [United Auto Workers union] to do a bit more. We did not ask any UAW member to take a cut in their pay.” Non-union employees of GM spin-off Delphi lost their pensions. UAW members didn’t."


Automotive News: ?GM is going from bad to worse? | WashingtonExaminer.com (http://washingtonexaminer.com/automotive-news-gm-is-going-from-bad-to-worse/article/2504756)

Maybe this time the government will let it go bankrupt so they can re write the union contracts. What a joke.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I like how the Forbes link Scott posted contains a link to another Forbes article posted the day after that rips apart the first one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Justplug correctly stated it will take tax raises and spending cuts to cut the deficit. You point out that taxing the rich wont fix it, which points to tax raises on everyone. Ryan plan looks like it lowers taxes on everyone, but actually raises taxes, but only on the middle class. So are people tricked by Ryan or just don't know enough about his plan?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Reality check.Let's face it, there are 300 million people in the US with a total debt of 16-17 Trillion and there is only one way to fix it. In order to pay it down, EVERYONE needs to have a horse in the race.
The %50 of us who pay taxes will need to pay more and the other %50, who don't
will have to do with less from Govt. programs.

This picking, choosing,and dividing by politicians to get the most amount of votes for themselves is nonsense and dishonest. As I've said before, we need a leader who will stick his face into the wind lead, and make the unpopular choices.

Ryan at the very least has a plan, I'm still waiting to hear Obama's, besides putting
it all on the back of the so called rich.

Yes, Ryan has a plan.the problem is that most of the people who are excited by his plan have no idea what is in the plan. They just think he is going to magically cut everyone's taxes and erase the deficit
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and coming to TX where I pay state tax of, whats that number again, oh yeah, ZERO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You live anywhere near Lubbock?

(CNN) -- An elected county judge in Texas is warning that the nation could descend into civil war if President Barack Obama is re-elected, and is calling for a trained, well-equipped force to battle the United Nations troops he says Obama would bring in.

The comments by Lubbock County Judge Tom Head, who oversees emergency planning efforts, were broadcast by CNN affiliate KJTV. He made similar remarks on radio station FOX Talk 950.

Saying that as the county's emergency management coordinator he has to "think about the very worst thing that can happen and prepare for that and hope and pray for the best," Head told radio host Jeff Klotzman that he believes "in this political climate and financial climate, what is the very worst thing that could happen right now? Obama gets back in the White House. No. God forbid."

Why are tax hikes politically radioactive?

Referring to unexplained "executive orders" and other documents that Obama and "his minions have filed," Head said, "regardless of whether the Republicans take over the Senate, which I hope they do, he is going to make the United States Congress and he's going to make the Constitution irrelevant. He's got his czars in place that don't answer to anybody."

Obama, Head said, will "try to give the sovereignty of the United States away to the United Nations. What do you think the public's going to do when that happens? We are talking civil unrest, civil disobedience, possibly, possibly civil war ... I'm not talking just talking riots here and there. I'm talking Lexington, Concord, take up arms, get rid of the dictator. OK, what do you think he is going to do when that happens? He is going to call in the U.N. troops, personnel carriers, tanks and whatever."

Head vowed to personally stand "in front of their personnel carriers and say, 'You're not coming in here.' And I've asked the sheriff. I said, 'Are you going to back me on this?' And he said, 'Yeah, I'm going to back you.' Well, I don't want a bunch of rookies back there who have no training and little equipment. I want seasoned veteran people who are trained that have got equipment. And even then, you know we may have two or three hundred deputies facing maybe a thousand U.N. troops. We may have to call out the militia."

Sheriff Kelly Rowe told KJTV there had been no conversation about such a civil war scenario. The two have discussed contingencies for emergency management, he said.

KJTV reported that the warning was linked to taxes. Head "indicates a tax increase is needed to shore up law enforcement to protect us," the station reported, adding that a tax increase is under consideration that "would largely benefit the district attorney and sheriff's offices. But the emphasis is more on salary competitiveness than doomsday scenarios."

Head made his controversial remarks Tuesday.

On Wednesday at a county commissioner meeting, he emphasized that his remarks were about "worst case scenario in my opinion," and added, "Do I think those are going to happen? Probably not."

County Commissioner Gilbert Flores told KJTV he was "ashamed" of Head's remarks, and told the judge, "I think you better plan to go fishing pretty soon."

Attorney Rod Hobson jokingly put up U.N. flags outside his Lubbock office, KJTV reported. "When I saw the story I thought, once again, Lubbock is going to be the laughingstock of the entire nation," said Hobson. "What makes it so sad is he is our elected county judge, who is in charge of a multi-million dollar budget. That is scary. It's like the light's on, but no one is home... I'd just like to think he's off his meds."

But video from the Wednesday meeting showed at least one citizen supporting him. "Judge Head, thank you, and God bless," one citizen said.

Head did not immediately respond to an e-mail or phone call to his office Thursday morning.

KJTV reported that an aide to Head said the judge will not be commenting for one or two days.

Yes, Ryan has a plan.the problem is that most of the people who are excited by his plan have no idea what is in the plan. [/i][/size]

Zim, where did you get that info from?

Zim, where did you get that info from?

Most cons and tea party supporters are opposed to any tax raises (well except income tax for the poor). The Ryan plan is a huge tax raise on most taxpayers. On top of that, they would have to seek out the details beyond con sound bites. The mantra of those people is not raise my taxes but cut spending and taxes on the wealthy. It is the tea party after all. You might very well know what the details are and like the plan. That is how it should work.
I anticipate similar remorse to a Ryan plan as people had to bush term two.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The WSJ broke the Ryan Plan down like this:

Spending-- 40.1 Trillion vs Obama 46.9 Trillion over 10 years

Tax Revenue--37 Trillion vs 40 Trillion

Lower tax rates and tax brackets

Medicare will stay the same for those over 55 and an additional
Choice-Medicare Type Program privatly run with additional Medicare type
plan to offer additional assistance for the poor.

Medicade made into a Federal Block Grant Program freeing States to tailor their
Prorgrams.

Individual Taxes- two tax rates %10 and %25 and includes removing loop holes

Corporate Taxes- lower top corporation from %35 to %25 while gutting exemptions

Reduce Defecit to %3 of GDP by 2014. Currently is %7.8 of GDP

Tax revenues would lag behind spending during a 10 year window.

I like how the Forbes link Scott posted contains a link to another Forbes article posted the day after that rips apart the first one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there are a few opinion pcs linked to the article on the subject...the one to which you refer is a very brief, smarmy retort which is long on arrogance and insults and short on specifics......:) the other linked pcs support the idea that GM is not "fixed" despite all of the government guidance and financial assistance and looming losses that the taxpayers will incur as a result of the direction that was chosed to "save" GM(unions interests) ....stock price doesn't look so hot if you are at all concerned about the tax payers

I guess if you consider that "rips apart"

General Motor's Restructuring Plan Won't Work - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/general-motors-restructuring-plan-wont-work-2012-8)

General Motors' executive shake-up points to struggles at carmaker - latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-autos-gm-marketing-20120731-1,0,2916946.story)
treason?...this one is great...hate it when they make it tough to fudge the numbers

As GM struggles to boost sales, image is everything (http://www.dailygazette.net/standard/ShowStoryTemplate.asp?Path=SCH/2012/08/01&ID=Ar00503&Section=Business)

as you read through these you notice many similarities between Government Motors and the Current Admin.....lots of hype and rhetoric, contrived numbers to claim that things are better than they really are, dependence on government(s), dissaray and a lot of failure deflected in one way or another...not so big on openess and transparency.....and on

probably time for a new, very expensive campaign :uhuh:

You live anywhere near Lubbock?

(CNN) -- An elected county judge in Texas is warning that the nation could descend into civil war if President Barack Obama is re-elected, and is calling for a trained, well-equipped force to battle the United Nations troops he says Obama would bring in.

Try the "elected county judge" for treason against the United States.
And for being a kook.

Yeah but it is filled with people from Texas.;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not so much it is filled with a Ton of people who have left their home states in search of reasonable cost of living reduced taxes and good jobs also.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

how come we never heard about this?



Ex-GM workers in Colombia sew mouths shut in hunger strike [w/video] (http://www.autoblog.com/2012/08/20/ex-gm-workers-in-colombia-sew-mouths-shut-in-hunger-strike-w-vi/)

how come we never heard about this?



Ex-GM workers in Colombia sew mouths shut in hunger strike [w/video] (http://www.autoblog.com/2012/08/20/ex-gm-workers-in-colombia-sew-mouths-shut-in-hunger-strike-w-vi/)

3rd world problems.

The WSJ broke the Ryan Plan down like this:

Spending-- 40.1 Trillion vs Obama 46.9 Trillion over 10 years

Tax Revenue--37 Trillion vs 40 Trillion

Lower tax rates and tax brackets

Medicare will stay the same for those over 55 and an additional
Choice-Medicare Type Program privatly run with additional Medicare type
plan to offer additional assistance for the poor.

Medicade made into a Federal Block Grant Program freeing States to tailor their
Prorgrams.

Individual Taxes- two tax rates %10 and %25 and includes removing loop holes

Corporate Taxes- lower top corporation from %35 to %25 while gutting exemptions

Reduce Defecit to %3 of GDP by 2014. Currently is %7.8 of GDP

Tax revenues would lag behind spending during a 10 year window.


So what is the critiszism for this plan?

The WSJ broke the Ryan Plan down like this:

Spending-- 40.1 Trillion vs Obama 46.9 Trillion over 10 years

Tax Revenue--37 Trillion vs 40 Trillion

Lower tax rates and tax brackets

Medicare will stay the same for those over 55 and an additional
Choice-Medicare Type Program privatly run with additional Medicare type
plan to offer additional assistance for the poor.

Medicade made into a Federal Block Grant Program freeing States to tailor their
Prorgrams.

Individual Taxes- two tax rates %10 and %25 and includes removing loop holes

Corporate Taxes- lower top corporation from %35 to %25 while gutting exemptions

Reduce Defecit to %3 of GDP by 2014. Currently is %7.8 of GDP

Tax revenues would lag behind spending during a 10 year window.

Two critical points: to balance the budget and reduce the deficit, all deductions and exemptions would go away, so those who are in that 10% bracket get a substantial tax raise; taxes on interest, dividends and long term capital gains would reduce Romney's taxes and those with income primarily from investments to between 0-1%.

So the plan is to substantially raise taxes on people with moderate incomes (roughly $200,000 and less) and probably those in the next group who have relatively limited investment income, but end taxes for those very wealthy who get most of their income from dividends and capital gains.

Also, for many corporations it would be an enormous tax increase, if exemptions are gutted. The effective tax rate is only 27.1%, so it would be a small decrease in the effective tax rate. I agree with this part of his plan, but for those who are of the limited taxation, get government out of business crowd, this part of the plan does not actual lower taxes by 10%. It is a tax cut for some businesses and an enormous tax increase for others.

So what is the critiszism for this plan?

My point is not to criticize the plan. My point is that if the great majority of Ryan supporters could have been asked about some annonymous plan that was going to give 90% of them an income tax increase in the range of 10-20%, most would not be too excited by it. Most Republican congresspeople have agreed to Norquist's pledge to not raise taxes. Ryan's plan raises taxes on most Americans and many businesses. The tax raises are hidden in the details, but they are tax raises none the less.

My point is not to criticize the plan. .

you are hilarious.......


ALL Originally Posted by zimmy

Ryan plan looks like it lowers taxes on everyone, but actually raises taxes, but only on the middle class. So are people tricked by Ryan or just don't know enough about his plan?

Yes, Ryan has a plan.the problem is that most of the people who are excited by his plan have no idea what is in the plan. They just think he is going to magically cut everyone's taxes and erase the deficit

Most cons and tea party supporters are opposed to any tax raises (well except income tax for the poor). The Ryan plan is a huge tax raise on most taxpayers. On top of that, they would have to seek out the details beyond con sound bites. The mantra of those people is not raise my taxes but cut spending and taxes on the wealthy. It is the tea party after all. You might very well know what the details are and like the plan. That is how it should work.
I anticipate similar remorse to a Ryan plan as people had to bush term two.

You like that the majority of current tax payers would pay higher taxes under the Ryan plan? That is your idea of doing something about it? The doing something about it means raising taxes on everyone but those who have incomes over $200000, who would get dramatic cuts. People like Romney, Bill Gates, etc would pay about 1%. Great plan. Talk about sheeple, it is those who believe the garbage they are fed by clowns like Ryan .

That is why I find the argument that Romney and Ryan will lower everyones taxes, get people off of food stamps, and "restore" the by the people, for the people to be a farse.

it is the idea that Ryan and Romney raising taxes on the middle class and and cutting nearly all taxes for the super rich is somehow what was envisioned by the founders. Guess that is why the "sheeple" would fall for the Ryan scam.

you are hilarious.......
criticize the plan game!

ALL Originally Posted by zimmy

Ryan plan looks like it lowers taxes on everyone, but actually raises taxes, but only on the middle class. So are people tricked by Ryan or just don't know enough about his plan?
Not here!


Yes, Ryan has a plan.the problem is that most of the people who are excited by his plan have no idea what is in the plan. They just think he is going to magically cut everyone's taxes and erase the deficit
Not here!


Most cons and tea party supporters are opposed to any tax raises (well except income tax for the poor). The Ryan plan is a huge tax raise on most taxpayers. On top of that, they would have to seek out the details beyond con sound bites. The mantra of those people is not raise my taxes but cut spending and taxes on the wealthy. It is the tea party after all. You might very well know what the details are and like the plan. That is how it should work.
I anticipate similar remorse to a Ryan plan as people had to bush term two.
Not here!

You like that the majority of current tax payers would pay higher taxes under the Ryan plan? That is your idea of doing something about it? The doing something about it means raising taxes on everyone but those who have incomes over $200000, who would get dramatic cuts. People like Romney, Bill Gates, etc would pay about 1%. Great plan. Talk about sheeple, it is those who believe the garbage they are fed by clowns like Ryan .
Ok, I sorta did there.

That is why I find the argument that Romney and Ryan will lower everyones taxes, get people off of food stamps, and "restore" the by the people, for the people to be a farse.
Not a criticism of the plan, just the distortion of it.


it is the idea that Ryan and Romney raising taxes on the middle class and and cutting nearly all taxes for the super rich is somehow what was envisioned by the founders. Guess that is why the "sheeple" would fall for the Ryan scam.
Again, more about the distortion than the plan


Good job Scott. Thanks for pointing out that pretty much everything I said was not about whether I thought the plan itself was good or bad, but I DID say that it was not what its supporters think it is and the way it is presented is a distortion of what the plan would actually do. I guess once in all those posts I said great plan sarcastically. I think three pages is enough. Time to move on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

mitt Romney of Romney care? Now that is funny. Or do you mean the Ryan plan that would raise the average middle class taxpayers bill by $2200? What Paul Ryan's Budget Plan Would Mean for an Average Family - DailyFinance (http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/08/16/paul-ryan-budget-plan-average-american-family/)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The article projects that Ryan's plan would raise the average taxpayers bill by $2160 IF ALL THE DEDUCTIONS for the average taxpayer were eliminated, which the author says "admittedly, this is an extreme scenario."

Instead, he says, if that were not done to make the plan revenue neutral, cuts would have to be made from federal discretionary spending such as transportation (25%), assistance to poor (16%), education and social services (33%), and all the other government services except protected expenditures. This would not be a tax hike, but a "jump in the amount of money taxpayers would have to spend to educate their children, fix their cars, deal with e.coli outbreaks, and handle all of the other services that the federal government would no longer provide"(which is a strange jump from cutting services to no longer providing them). Most of these "services" are not granted in the Constitution for the central government to provide. Constitutionally, they are State, local, and individual responsibilites.

The author talks about how Ryan's plan projected to current level of medicare coverage would have cost the average person an extra $64 per month in premiums. Except that under Ryan's plan, there would be bidding for insurance coverage which he projects would lower cost of coverage compared to today's cost, so would actually save money, not raise premiums.

The article is typical static scoring that projects on the basis of the status quo. Costs remaining the same and the Federal Government maintaining the responsibility of "all those government services." It doesn't account for the shrinking costs for such "services" being provided by local treasuries rather than the big federal pockets, and the ensuing necessity to tighten cost controls (or loosen them in States like California which prefers to spend as wildly as the feds).

In effect, Ryan-like plans, which cut federal services, devolve power from central government to local government, which is the real, ultimate goal (vector).

Bye scuzzball :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bye scuzzball :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ignore list :kewl: