To answer my question it will be after they loose badly in 2012 election.

If they manage to cheat and lie and steal their way into the White House and take both houses I hope they are ready for the entourage of torches and pitchforks!

@xxx ooo,

Great minds think alike.

• Romney Meets Peasants With Pitch Forks

It never fails to amaze me how many people who claim to be Christians have NO concept of what Christ's teachings were. Or, then again, maybe they DO know what Christ's teachings were and they just don't give a damn because these teachings don't coincide with their own greed and malice.

all these repunlicons need to go away. if the american people are smart they will vote them out. OBAMA 2012

I don't know what Catholic Church Ryan grew up in, but it definitely is not the same Catholic Church I grew up in. The Catholic Church I belong to is very active in feeding the hungry in our own country. We have volunteers who work in food shelf centers, soup kitchens, etc. Why do we need these programs? We need them because food stamps alone cannot feed low income working families. Ryan is one of the most selfish SOBs I have ever heard speak. He twists the Catholic Church teachings to fit his selfish wants. He is a liar and con man. I am ashamed to say that he belongs to the Catholic Church. The way I see it is that he is a Catholic in name only.

Most "Christian" churches are actually Paulist churches. Consider the fact that the New Testament has thirteen books from Paul and only four dealing directly with the life of Christ. It's well known that Paul hated women, but I think he hated everybody - including himself.

I watched Ryan defending his radical budget today and it sickened me. Why this extremist is given ANY air time is beyond my understanding. Anyone with moral a compass recognizes the direct attack on not just the poor but anyone not in the top 1% in America. Paul Ryan’s continued pursuit of this radical agenda only highlights the fact that he is completely devoid of conscience. The only moral compass this man has is the one that points to the money given to him by his wealthy patrons……….

Even according the Catholic Bishops... Paul Ryan's budget is immoral. Not that I usually put a lot of stock in what the Catholic Bishops say or think (they can sometimes be a bit "out of touch" like the Robmes are).

I am more inclined to put more stock in what the Catholic Nuns think... (like the one on Chris Matthew's show earlier) as they are more in-tuned to what ordinary people and families need... and more on target.

Valerie, No need to worry about Ryan and the Catholic Church. It should not take too much longer for the Pope to let him know he is out of line with the teachings of Christ. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he was very good at telling the faithful how to live or to get out of the Church!

xxx ooo, Crackhead Awards, great minds DO think alike!

It is sad but true. During this presidency the GOP has really shown its true colors. I wrote the following in 2010.

"for the poor will always be with you" So the Bible says. They are the words of a lowly preacher who said was the son of God. Not only did He said it but He acted like the son of God. For those who believed Him then, they saw the eyes of the blind open, and the lame walking. They even saw Him resurrect the dead. Even to this day, to be a Christian is to follow in His footsteps. He did not talk about abortion, He did not talk about homosexuality but He talked a lot about the poor.

This is so important that to despise the poor would mean our losing His approval and our everlasting life. And He specifically indicated this at Mathew 25: 31 thru 46.

What do people now a days think of the poor. Well, for the GOP they are free loaders, lazy and unworthy. Some get accused of things they did not do, and some get mistreated just because they are poor. The GOP want to strip them even of the right to vote. Being poor does not mean they do not work or pay taxes, it means that their income, (due to the abundance of low wage paying jobs) falls below the poverty line and because they may have one or two children. Which of course the GOP want to take that joy from them also.

And who are the GOP, they are the ones who put this country's economy in jeopardy because they want to see its president fail. They are saboteurs. And they mislead and brainwash their base. And now they are the ones who are trying to mock God by telling people they are good worshipers and believers of Jesus while telling lies about God.

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker,but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.
Proverbs 14:31

"Leadership gains authority and respect when the voiceless poor are treated fairly." Proverbs 29:14

(Proverbs 29:27) ²⁷ A man of injustice is something detestable to the righteous ones, and one who is upright in his way is something detestable to a wicked one.

Now think for a moment:
If hard work pre-empts wealth: Do you think that waitresses, nurses, housekeepers, janitors, civil servants, domestic help, factory workers, teachers, designers, computer data entry worker, customer service reps, bank tellers, store clerks and so on would be on the bottom sharing only 7% of the wealth? And that is why President Obama is fighting to raise the minimum wage and to lower the taxes of the 80% and to raise the taxes of those who have benefited the most for the last 30 years from the policies.

I wonder what the people in the audience were thinking as they listened to him? It can't be anything good! Everyday the Reps just drive another nail in their coffin. Keep up the good work guys!

D.SCULLY - If not the Catholic Nuns,then the Franciscan Monks ( i would trust them more than any Bishop ).

@Crackhead & xxx ooo

Good article! ;}

If Robme wins/buys the WH.... get the guillotine ready... for the "let them eat cake" Robmes.

Carol, thank you. I agree with your point. Any practicing Catholic should be offended by the way Ryan is twisting the teachings of our church. Shameful, he thinks we are all stupid and just because he "says" he is a Catholic, he sure does not follow the teachings of our church. If the American voters vote for Romney and he does become president, then we have learned nothing from past mistakes voters made. It shows that we are not very intelligent people, we are selfish, and care nothing about the poor, middle class and seniors. I will seriously consider moving to another country. By the way, Romney will most likely to pick Ryan as his VP. Now that is a nightmare waiting to happen.

Carol, thank you. I agree with your point. Any practicing Catholic should be offended by the way Ryan is twisting the teachings of our church. Shameful, he thinks we are all stupid and just because he "says" he is a Catholic, he sure does not follow the teachings of our church. If the American voters vote for Romney and he does become president, then we have learned nothing from past mistakes voters made. It shows that we are not very intelligent people, we are selfish, and care nothing about the poor, middle class and seniors. I will seriously consider moving to another country.

Mistake.. Post meant for eksewhere...

David H. Billie, Valerie & BigAl

You got that right!

@Carol

That's what I was thinking or wondering about myself. Would the Catholic church consider excommunication of someone who so rampantly altered church teachings to their own ideological views and for their own political benefit?

Eric Blair...

I have mentioned here before how Republicans ignore Jesus and praise Paul... Whenever someone uses the Bible to excuse bad behaviour, they are usually quoting Paul...

Quoth Paul...

Corinthians 6:9-10 -

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Timothy 1:9-10 -

"the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching..."

1 Timothy 2:11-15 -

"A woman should learn [from men] in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."

1 Corinthians 11:9-10 -

"For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head."

Ephesians 5:22-24 -

"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

1 Corinthians 7:29 -

"What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none;"
[NOTE: This obviously means no sex for married men!]

Romans 1:21-22 -

"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools"

Romans 1:26-27, 32 -

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. ... Who knowing the judgment of
God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the
same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Colossians 3:22-24 -

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving."

Titus 2:9-10 -

"Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive."

1 Timothy 6:1-2 -

"Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them."

Romans 1:29-32 -

Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

2 Thessalonians 1:6-9 -

God deems it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you…when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction.

1 Corinthians 1:10 -

"I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought."

1 Corinthians 11:4-6

"Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head — it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head."

Romans 13:1-7 -

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

1 Timothy 1:8-10 -

We know that the Law is good, if it is used in the right way. We also understand that it wasn't given to control people who please God, but to control lawbreakers, criminals, godless people, and sinners. It is for wicked and evil people, and for murderers, who would even kill their own parents. The Law was written for people who are sexual perverts or who live as homosexuals or are kidnappers or liars or won't tell the truth in court.

2 Corinthians 6:14-15 -

"Believers must not commune with unbelievers. What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness, light with darkness, believers with infidels?"

Ted

Yep... that's also true.

@afrommi

Exactly... Jesus Christ was all about taking care of the poor, the needy and the sick, "the lest of these", etc. He also did a good amount of pointing out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees (who were supposed to be the moral leaders) at the time.

I have a feeling if Jesus returned at this moment... he would be raking the Repugs (who CLAIM TO BE THE MORAL LEADERS, BUT FALL VERY SHORT) over the coals and emphasizing their atrocious hypocrisy.

Dave: Best post ever.

Hi David!

It would seem that the r/tp's have left out Romans 13:1-7 when it comes to the vitrole heaped upon our current President.

David/others: Much like Dick Cheney they seem to miss the target and just blast away!

David,

Wonderful posted.

Thank you!

PS

Thanks. The cards are lovely however I am more of a "Three Dog Night" kinda girl.

"If I was King (Queen) of the World....

It is Paul Ryan and Republicans (especially Romney, Boehner, and McConnell) who are waging a War on Religion and a War on the Principles of Christianity particularly.

David!

your post #1.21; GREAT!

Why is the left so anxious to preach the Catholic and Christian beliefs when there is supposed to be a separation of church and state? it is rather hypocritical for the left to use this as an attack method when it is convenient for you but then shout that nativity scenes need to be removed from governmental grounds or the word God needs to be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance or that the phrase "in God we trust" needs to be removed from our currency.

Stop trying to have it both ways when it is convenient for you.

Storm , you sound like you are referring to the republiteas when you say "hypocritical", when you see all the so called Christians NOT WANTING to help the less fortunate, YES it is true, NOT ALL less fortunate choose to be there but your party tells you otherwise, the right party of me, myself and I! "Let them eat cake" I say

Stormguy, The left is pointing out the hypocrisy of those that do act toward inserting some religious doctrine into laws, yet show disdain for social programs that are to help poor and elderly people and do not want treat everyone equally. It's a bit hard for many to grasp that hypocrisy that is now taking place.

To pick and choose which doctrine they enact through elections in religious their faith. It is spoken by Christian Christ to treat others as you would be treated, and also give them your coat, if they ask for your shirt.

It is likewise in the Bill of Rights to treat everyone equally, using only due process (legislation AND court) to do otherwise. The Bible also says to pay taxes, yet the Christians are drawn into the fight to cut taxes by ending programs that most Christians would say, I want to help them and participate in that which shows compassion. The wars and spending are throttled up while taxes were cut. What Christian can say I want my tax money to kill children but not to feed them? I know they probably rationalize which child is good and which child is bad to soothe their conscience. There are folks trying to insert doctrine into law that flies in the face of both the doctrine of Christ and the doctrine of the Bill of Rights to treat all people equally.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

means to me… there is a goal to improve things for now and future generations (our posterity), which is not creating a class of wealthy lording over others to trickle down upon and blocking access to the blessings of liberty… which is less liberty for poor and more liberty for wealthy. Or whomever folks deem worthy and unworthy of liberty.

Also, there is hypocrisy for religious freedom being one thing for this church and another for other religions or no religion.

Tax cuts for the wealthy, while the poor have support removed. Make sure the women are not allowed to decide for themselves, block access to the things one church decides are immoral (yet poor are left aside) but another church/institution decides is acceptable. Behavior such as adultery is not brought to the voting booth, but the marriages must be protected by playing keep-away from those and these people.

I think it's pretty clear that the desire to be viewed as victims, when you have some part that you disagree with, yet is for the coexistence and more liberty for those with whom you may disagree.

I try to stop things I disagree with (like wars, taking away democracy and having corporations be considered a person), too. I don't always get exactly what I want. But all in all, I still enjoy a pretty good life and I'd like to see more people, not less enjoying a pretty good life. I was given opportunities, worked for decades and I do not mind paying taxes, but the droning about I or low income do not pay taxes is just not true. I see the wealthy do not want to pay taxes and have struggling people suffer more and pay more taxes, so they can avoid them. Hmmpphh…

Your words reflect back on Christians, "stop trying to have it both ways, when it's convenient for you". It's very hard to stand by every tenet that Christians are supposed to stand by. There has been a significant push to appeal to people of faith by elected officials, but they pick and choose which doctrine to highlight, while ignoring the other doctrine.

This is a circular argument, so good luck to us all.

The point is, the hypocrisy is all around, but when it comes to government, we are supposed to be equal and some want to use their religion, which is not the religion of all to create laws for all, even non religious. Then, we have to show where there are conflicting doctrines. It's sad, we are always on defense with this. The religious right says they are defending their beliefs and freedom, while the rest of us must bow to theirs, leaving some more free than others.

@Scromy

You have that a bit confused. We are simply pointing out the Repug HYPOCRISY... as they claim to be the REAL AMERICANS, THE REAL CHRISTIANS.... yet in reality they seem to have NO HUMANITY, NO MORALITY.

The only individuals they care about are those who can line their pockets with $$$$. They aren't concerned about the students whose interest rates will rise soon. They don't care about women who need preventative care and can't afford the outrageous prices the health insurance companies are charging.

Which is why the GOP/TEAbags in the House just voted to replace funding for one for the funding for the other. Because the poor oil companies can't possibly survive without their millions in tax cuts. The GOP's war on women continues at will... and WOMEN REMEMBER EVERYTHING! We will remember in November in the voting booths.

By the way, I've never screamed for God to be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, our currency or for Nativity scenes to be removed. You are thinking about Atheists I believe, but that doesn't apply to all liberals.

Storm so let me get this straight you would contend that because the left doesn't want religion to be the base of our law and policy making that people on the left can't say anything remotely religious in nature

The GOP likes to talk about how their ideas are inspired by the bible so some are point out so of the inconsistencies of that. You don't have to be a dominionist to be a christian. Supporting theocracy is not a requirement for having religion.

Are sure you thought this through?

Have you considered that it is odd that the people who want not separation of church and state and claim all their legislating is based on their faith when their legislating contradicts the teaching of the faith they claim has inspired it.

Separation of Church and state is not the stalinist attack on all religion everywhere to destroy it for all time as the right likes to chant. Those who do not see this can look at Iran and other Mid east government which have no separation do you think that the cause of liberty and freedom is doing well in those places? The separation of church and state allows religious freedom because there is not a single example in human history where a government adopts a stance to one faith and does not at some point turn to persecute those not of that faith the government has adopted.

This whole matter you've brought up is not only poorly thought out but is also irrelavent to what this is about. The GOP opens themselves up to this attack since they are the ones who have brought up the religion aspect.

and exactly where does the Bible say anything about it being okay to kill an unborn child? The hypocrisy from the left to pick and choose its talking points is laughable.

CC

as usual you had me for about 50% of your post. You do that to me all the time why not try for 100% lol. I have to disagree with your use of the term 'separation of Church and state" that is Not a CONSTITUTIONAL" directive. nowhere in the constitution are those words used. What is said is that that there will be no laws establishing a state religion. many left England because of the demands of the Church of England which was in fact a state religion. Many of the signers of the Constitution were Deists who believed in a Creator but they were not necessarily Christians in the theological sense. It is OK in the US for an elected official to consult his creator as that is who endowed our right to us. Rights in the US by the constitution come from the Creator they are not granted by the government as many believe.we already had them. That being said any religion including the religion of not having one is lawful and should be accepted by all as a legitimate belief.I hope our leaders are guided by pragmatism coupled with human compassion not necessarily Christian compassion. as that is what gives us the best results. I totally agree with your statement about state run religion always ending in persecution of non believers.

as usual you had me for about 50% of your post. You do that to me all the time why not try for 100% lol. I have to disagree with your use of the term 'separation of Church and state" that is Not a CONSTITUTIONAL" directive

Yes but if the state isn't establishing a state religion that is effectvely a separation of the two. No one has argued that lawmakers can not be religious. What is on display in the case of some of these republican lawmakers is their claim that a particular religion is what inspires them and it would seem that this particular religion has messages which are different than what they deliver.

No one is saying religion can't inspire them just that their claim in this case is BS.

It's like Romney and his wealth. I have no problem with his existence as an extremely wealthly person it is the fact that he seems to try to deny it that I have a problem with. It's about the false narrative.

Storm you continue to not address the fact that this is not about following anything from the bible this is about the claim that from some that they are doing so in their legislating and the document seems to point to that not being the case. The left is not claiming anything in relation to itself and the bible or that it is in any way inspired by it that is the right wing side mostly. So the claim that they are so inspired by it based on these verses which contradicts their legislative agenda means that is a false statement on the part of some of those on right.

Address that don't pivot or deflect. This is about the veracity of their claim not anything else.

CC

No one is saying religion can't inspire them just that their claim in this case is BS.

It's like Romney and his wealth. I have no problem with his existence as an extremely wealthly person it is the fact that he seems to try to deny it that I have a problem with. It's about the false narrative.

BS according to YOUR reading of the bible. There is a reason there are Methodists, Lutheran (ELCA <me> and LCMS). Church of Christ, Pentecostal, Southern Baptists, Baptists, Episcopal, Assembly of God, Mormon,Catholic,7day Adventist Mennonite,Quaker, Christian Scientist etc. They each interpret the Bible differently than the other. . Your reading may differ from one of theirs but that does not make your or their bull@!$%#, just different some o the religeous right are fundamentalists and we (republicns )need them to win. They are not going to vote for Obama but they might vote for nobody if they feel they are not being heard. I question policy but not peoples motives. They probably think your reading is Bull@!$%#. Neither one is true just different.

regarding Romney and wealth. Because of the life I have lived i have known many very rich people. The great majority of them have been pretty good people that would lend you the shirt off their back. People that don't know them hate them because with all the trapping that wealth brings they think those people are evil. The fact is because they have more money than we do they can buy @!$%# we can't . Some of them were aholes. but my experience at 70 is aholes are aholes period rich or poor and I have known a lot of poor aholes. Romney is trying to win he knows some people( like the haters that write here and the people he has reading this stuff report to him ) who don't know him hate him just because he is wealthy. I keep reading that he has no heart and morality hates the poor. Nobody has any proof of that and I doubt it because it makes no sense. He is just tying (poorly in my opinion) to show that he is a regular guy which i believe he is. (remember Ducacus riding in a tank wearing a helmet after being said to be soft on defense. ????)Obama is out telling college kids he is just like them. I guess he is trying to alienate them so they won't vote for him lol I'm sure you are experienced enough in life to understand that. In college When i was going to pick up a girl for a date I was a different person to her dad than would later appear. I bet you did that too.

Let me be clear I make no interpretation of the bible, I'm aware of its history but I do not read it and thus could careless what is written in it. That is my personal not the group necessarily but that does not factor into my other posts, it's irrelavent what I think.

I'm saying at the core that most of the gop faith fanatics are not as inspired by religion as they claim. It would seem the common teachings on the bible are different than many others interpretation so if you are of that category then it should be no surprise that you'd be against some of the far right righties.

My purpose was to respond to stormguy who foolishly attempted to argue that separation of church and state some how meant no one on the left couldn't be religious. I am pointing out that not supporting a state religion means all faith is under attack.

I don't care who they vote for, that's there choice. I don't care whether they vote for or against obama that is not what this is about. I made no claims as to who they would vote for.

On Romney I very clearly said I have a problem with his narrative to try and appear like an average person not his wealth. If Romney didn't say things he'd be fine his comment on pink slips is a perfect example. Why would he say that if as we don't all know that what he said wasn't true. Romney has never been middle class no matter what he claims. The Romney's have never lived on the edge as they like to think

CC

to be cler also my issues are economic and foriegn policy. I have no interest in social crap but that being said they vote also and are needed to win . I amagine there are some looney lefits that are kept in the fold for the same reason. Tea Party is very active as i live in a rural environment and know virtualy everybody in the twon. those that are on the Christian kick here are honest in their beiefs . Here in the bible belt fundementalist teachings rule. I am a Outheren for what it is worth. we tend to keep our religion out of our politics . Our Pastors do not give sermons on politics. But at some churches they do and when those people use religious reasons they are using the beliefs and theology they adhere to. You may think it varies from the bible and they are making it up but they really do believe the way they say it is not against the teachings of their Church. For example in my Church we make no judgement on Mormons but we do not believe what they do. The Southern Baptist head said it was a cult . See what i mean. you think they are going against the bible but they do not.

regarding Romney poor mouthing

you are right he should just embrace his success not apologize for it an try to be joe sixpack. Kennedy never poor mouthed he made us really want to go to harvard and be as smart and successful as he was. nobody faulted him for his wealth as he used his wife in designer gowns to show of people loved it and thought of them as royalty. The had pictures of him on his Yacht , playing foot ball at the family mansion on Martha,s vineyard etc If Romney is smart he will learn to do the same.

You we're getting away from the topic I was trying to get at but you're right it's for votes but my point is that it's not necessarily sincere on the part of the politicians.

C H you are correct with your summation about Willard the willy Romney. He and the republican part are playing real dirty games. When I say dirty, Richard Nixon comes to mind. Well, he finally went to heaven. When he asked St. Peter" why did you change your mind?", St. Peter told hime that " compared to Willard, Eric Can'ter, Mccarthy, etc. you are an Angel, so now you can come in". Oh, I forgot to include Paul Ryan. These paople are starting to play real rough games, and just they did for George Bush (Who won by crooked politics), they will be doing same against Obama.

You know ... the things that Bain / Romney did are a crime ... in Mexico.

I don't understand why he isn't in jail.

I do understand why he moved large amounts of money to Switzerland and the Cayman Islands.

Gotta grease the skids when the feds come knocking.

@Crackhead

Some claim the Mormon faith is a cult and not a religion because members are required to donate 15% of their income as "tithing" and the names of former members can never be removed from the records.

• How to Leave The Mormon Faith

This is like a multi-level marketing organization.

Mormons have utter disdain for poor and unfortunate people.

Unlike a religion, Mormon tithings are not used to help needy families.

The Mormon faith allows for IRS tax evasion schemes.

Mormon elders actually operate a for-profit organization because Bishops, like Mitt Romney, use "tithing" donations for personal profit instead of social support like a religious organization.

I'm sorry to say... but this is all crap. I don't know where you got this information, but it's most likely from a ANTI-MORMON group. And of course, DETRACTORS are NEVER a good source for THE TRUTH about the group they are trying to DISPARAGE. We only have to look to the Fox propaganda network and what they report about President Obama as an example. You are not going to get the truth about the Mormon church, by going to it's detractors. Let me correct at least a 2 or 3 of the most glaring falsehoods that I see here.

Firstly... a tithe is 10%, not 15%, and it is used for the general support of the church and it's missionary activities, the up keep of the local church buildings of worship, etc. None of the local leadership in the church wards and congregations are paid for their work... it is all done on a voluntary basis by a lay leadership/membership. All leaders including Bishops, etc. and other church jobs such as Sunday school teachers, etc. hold down jobs outside of the church. I was certainly never paid for any of my jobs in the church and I had quite a few over the course of about 25 years I was active in the church.

Also... Mormons do not disdain the poor or needy and indeed, there are many in the church that even fit that category. The LDS church actually has it's own welfare program which takes care of the poor and needy within the church. They take care of their own. They also are often first to respond in charitable ways to the needs of those outside the church... and to offer help when natural disasters strike within the US and around the world.

Members of the LDS church or Mormons take seriously Christ's teaching of helping the poor and the needy, the sick and destitute because.... YES... THEY ARE A CHRISTIAN RELIGION... despite what First Baptist Church pastor Robert Jeffress. This hypocrite endorses Mutt Robme for President, despite his belief that Mormonism is a cult. So what does that say about Jeffress' integrity or opinion.... and since he is a detractor of Mormonism... his knowledge isn't worth anything either?

I don't know what exactly you are getting at about the tax evasion accusations, as nothing of the kind is part of the church doctrine, etc. I also don't know what the "How to Leave The Mormon Faith" is about, as I haven't had time to look at it. But as one who has actually left the church... there hasn't been much to it, except simply stopping attending meetings, and not participating in church activity any longer. Nothing difficult, complicated or sinister which seems to be inferred by your link.

Honestly people... as I've said before... if you or anyone wants to know the TRUTH about the LDS church, please ask me instead of going to these stupid sources who are only interested in spreading utter lies. I enjoy participating in the political discussions with all of you on this blog.... but I keep encountering these attempts by some to spread complete lies about the LDS church just because Mutt Robme is a member.

There are certainly plenty of problems Robme has in the way of his policies, etc. for us all to discuss, without having to try to run down his religion. Knowing what his religion actually believes which is all about the teachings and example of Jesus Christ, I can say... he is a totally hypocritical example of a follower of Jesus Christ. But that is all part and parcel of the conservative GOP positions and nothing else.

I have to say again, I am utterly disappointed everytime I see lies about Mormons being told here in the blog.... because I thought that most of the people here are interested in THE TRUTH about the issues we discuss... not just LIES AND HEARSAY. That sort of thing is what we all expect from the right-wingnut trolls who come here to spread their lies and crap from Fox and Flunkies. Though I don't consider myself a member of the LDS church any longer, and certainly am not an active member... I still am bothered when I see utter lies being told about it.

I was disappointed when I heard Lawrence O'Donnell report utter lies about the LDS church on his show as if it was the truth, and as far as that goes, it put him in the same category as Sean Hannity in reporting in a completely biased manner without regard to facts or proof. I have facts... and my proof is that I lived in this religion and church for 25 years. I know more about it than anyone else here in the blog, save anyone else who are or have been LDS members also.

@DScully,

Apologize if I offended you.

With all due respect, I disagree. There are links that substantiate the information in the post. Nothing is fake.

My stepmother was an excommunicated Mormon. I've spent time in Salt Lake City.

LDS is most definitely a Christian religion.

My concern is with LDS elders / bishops and not the members.

This site is intersting.

• http://www.salamandersociety.com/

LDS considers this to be blasphemous. Their sense of humor has been surgically removed.

The site has lots of things like this.

UFO community hopeful that Mitt Romney will disclose the truth

by Ian - 12/22/2007

An article published on www.ufoarea.com entitled "Mitt Romney, the best Candidate for UFO disclosure?" outlines a case that Mormonism is the only religion capable of surviving the earth shattering effects of extraterrestrial contact.

Although Romney has not made any campaign promises to disclose classified alien files, UFO believers hope that his theological perspective will lead to more government cooperation and acknowledgement.

Will this new help or hurt Mitt?

(making fun of Planet Kolob)

@Crackhead

I accept your apology, but I still question the validity of your information. None of this has ever been my experience in the church, and I have to ask... have you actually been a member of the church or been involved in the church yourself? If not, then your info is not based on personal experience. It is not like knowing the church from the inside, like I do.

I also have to suspect that information you might have gotten from your step-mother, if she was excommunicated, might be at least slightly tainted with some negative feelings in that case. Another factor in her information and knowledge would be how long she was a member and how active. There are people who join the church, yet never really learn much about the doctrine or beliefs.... which doesn't really make them a valid source of info, so I don't know how much knowledge your stepmother really has regarding the church... without more information.

On the other hand, I have no axe to grind with the church that would cause negative feelings, but nor do I feel any particular affiliation with it that would cause me to defend it beyond what is actually true belief and practice in the church. I was an extremely active member for about 25 years and was very knowledgeable in the doctrines, beliefs, practices, etc. I will tell the truth about the beliefs and practices of the church as far as my experience as a former member goes, but I won't lie to defend it nor make things up to criticize it. Which is why I offered to answer any questions anyone might have regarding the church.

Knowing that in this Presidential campaign, one or more candidates were LDS, and that it is a religion that there have always been wild rumors and stories circulated about... I figured there might be some people here with questions regarding the religion. Which is why I offered to answer any of those honest questions. But instead, I have encountered a number of postings of things regarding the church that I know are not true, and are typical fabrications of detractors of the church. And this was even before I encountered yours earlier.

All I am suggesting is that with all of the numerous problems that Romney offers for discussion here with his flawed economic policy, tax policy, social policy, foreign policy, etc, etc.... why does any discussion of his religion or the LDS church have to come into the discussion here on this blog at all?

After all... there is no religious test for the Presidency of the United States... according to the Constitution... and most of us are annoyed when the GOP, TEAbaggers and Fox trolls come in here making accusations about President Obama's religion. Whether a candidate is a Christian, Muslim, Atheist or anything else is not supposed to matter or be part of the discussion for a candidate's eligibility for the office of POTUS.

So aren't those in here who are trying to make Mormonism and Romney's religion part of the discussion being a bit hypocritical or falling into the same categories as the religious rightwing nuts who keep calling Obama a Muslim, or belonging to a radical black church? Frankly... I'm offended by both examples of this bigotry.

I've said this on a previous occasion... that I expected to be hearing lies and falsehoods being spread about the Mormons during this campaign by the evangelicals and other religious bigots on the right who think the church is just a non-Christian cult. I didn't expect the same sort of discussions in here from the open-minded progressives that I usually have good and valid discussions with on political issues, etc.

It's just rather disconcerting, as well as disappointing.

@Crackhead

Something I forgot to mention... you said that your concern is with the LDS elders/bishops and not the members. I'm not sure what that concern is exactly.

But the elders and bishops are part of the members, that is where they come from. All of the male members of the church hold the priesthood as Elders from the time they are 18/19 years of age, just before they go on their missions for the church.

And it is from the lay membership in the church that men are called to be Bishops in their congregations... usually only for a few years at a time. It's not a lifetime calling like being a Priest or Minister/Pastor in another church.

Also... I'm assuming the website you mentioned above regarding UFOs, etc. is just a spoof or joke site. Which is probably all in good fun. So is the Broadway play, Book of Mormon, and from what I've heard many LDS members go to see it. Mormons can laugh at themselves... but I think it is also understandable that they can be offended when things that they consider sacred are ridiculed by those who have no understanding of those sacred things.

All religions have certain things involving their doctrines or beliefs that they consider sacred and which they prefer not to have ridiculed or made a joke of. Is that so difficult to understand by anyone?

@Mac

I agree with your estimation of Robme and the GOP playing dirty. Since the time of Tricky Dick Nixon, the GOP have gotten more corrupt and were at their ultimate corruption during the Bush/Cheney administration. Not even the GOP Justices on the Supreme Court can be expected to play fair at this point, with their biased, partisan decisions in placing GW in office or the passage of Citizen's United.. and that's pretty bad when Judges can't be trusted to abide the laws and the Constitution.

We also know that the GOP have been playing dirty with President Obama's administration since he took office. Now we even have proof that it has literally been "a right-wing conspiracy" to obstruct and interfere with President Obama's ability to pass any legislation or carry out his policies to fix the country's economic problems, employment problems, fiscal and deficit problems, etc. Of course, most of us have recognized their orchestrated obstruction conspiracy from the beginning.

DScully, I agree with most of what you said here. I do not like to bring out someone's faith to be the thing to examine or disparage. It is of interest to some people of faith, that might disparage the beliefs that conflict with their own beliefs.

BUT like Crackhead, my issue is with the leadership, specifically for the LDS Elders (or whomever they were) to sit down with the member and say, "I know your tithing is less than we require, so I am asking for your money to fight against Prop 8 to undo same sex marriage in CA". I know this happened, as I was told by an LDS member. It happened to them and they refused to comply due to having close friendship with 2 gay men. They were very conflicted and upset by that.

This is my problem with LDS, and Catholic leadership, not the members in general. The attempts to undermine equality and assert their beliefs as superior and made into law. Specifically, they coerce their members to vote and give money by the authority of their church to be in good standing, or implications of being cast out.

I know there are many people that do not agree with the official church stances on a variety of topics. They are conflicted, due to the readings of treating others as themselves and not judging others, etc.

I just don't know who is in charge of the political stances such as opposing Prop 8 and assigning where donations of the LDS church are given. I know who it is in the Catholic church.

This is where my problem lies, those that wield authority over members and decide where the church steps into government lawmaking that conflicts with other churches and synagogues, etc..

@sandyc

I appreciate your comments, but I have to insist that no one is ever forced to pay anything to the church. The contributions of tithing, fast offerings or any other donations are strictly on a voluntary basis. It is a matter between each individual and God. So I just have a hard time believing that really happened.

First of all... members "voluntarily" pay a tithe, which is always a 10th or 10% of a person's income. It is never 15%, 20% or any other amount. And there is no way for the Bishop to know whether a person is paying a tenth of their income or not, unless they know the person's salary or income. But unless the Bishop is the person's boss, there is no way for them to know that.

Members are not asked to report or tell how much they earn to the church leaders.... so paying tithing is all done on an honor basis and is strictly a matter of conscience for each individual member. It is strictly between the individual and Heavenly Father... no one else in the church would have any idea who is paying an honest tithe and who isn't.

I have a friend who never paid tithing to the church as far as I know, because she just didn't feel she could. But the only way I know that is that she told me herself, but she was never stopped and shaken down by the Bishopric or Elders for her tithing money. The idea is just ridiculous.

So I don't know what this supposed LDS member told you or why. I don't know if there was a misunderstanding of what they said or meant... or if they had an axe to grind with the church, and decided to spread some lies. I don't have enough information to know what was really happening there.

But it doesn't sound like anything that would ever happen with regard to voluntary church donations such as tithing... it's outrageous. I wish I could talk to this person myself and find out what they were really talking about and why. What their motivation was for saying this, or if it was about something else all together. But now I'm curious about what that was all about.

In the 25 years I was an active member... no church leader ever asked me to pay more money or even had a discussion about how much I was paying. The only time anything like that might be discussed or asked is when a person is being interviewed for a temple recommend. One question the Bishop asks the individual is if they are paying an honest tithe... and the person simply answers yes or no, according to their own conscience.

It might be compared to a Catholic in confession... whatever they tell the Priest is a matter of conscience between them and God. The Priest has no way of knowing if the person is confessing all of their sins, etc. And an LDS Bishop has no way of knowing if the person is paying their honest tithe.... they have to take the person at their word.

You mentioned also having a problem with Catholic leadership... is that also in regards to church donations? I actually was Catholic before converting to the LDS church. But my only experience with making donations to the Catholic church was when they passed the basket around during Mass, so I don't know much else about it.

As far as the church's fight against Prop 8 in CA, I was disturbed and angered by that myself as I live in CA. I had already stopped my activity in the church for the most part by that time, but I have to say that I didn't like the lies that were told in the ad campaign put out by the church. I felt that if they had to lie or give misinformation to win votes against gay marriage, then they definitely were not on the side of right and I was definitely finished with the church for good.

And when I had discussions with friends who are still members, I pointed out the misinformation that the church was putting in the ads and expressed my disappointment in the church for that. And now I see the same kind of lies and misinformation that Mitt Robme is constantly telling regarding President Obama's record in his speeches. It has lowered both Robme and the church in my estimation.

@sandyc

I went back and reread your post, and noticed you had given more information about what your concerns were regarding the LDS and Catholic churches. I'll try to give you what answers or information I can regarding those.

This is my problem with LDS, and Catholic leadership, not the members in general. The attempts to undermine equality and assert their beliefs as superior and made into law. Specifically, they coerce their members to vote and give money by the authority of their church to be in good standing, or implications of being cast out.

I have never seen or experienced any sort of coercion to vote a certain way on any issue or for any candidate.... though the LDS membership do generally support Repugs and conservative issues. But I was a Democrat when I joined the church and I have always voted that way without repercussions of any kind. I even told the missionaries who taught me that I would not be changing my political views or affiliations if I joined the church, and they assured me that was fine. In fact.... I don't know if you are aware that the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed is also LDS and a Democrat also.

I know there are many people that do not agree with the official church stances on a variety of topics. They are conflicted, due to the readings of treating others as themselves and not judging others, etc.

It has been my experience that I was free to whatever political opinions I held. Though knowing I was not of the same political affiliation as the majority... I generally didn't have many political discussions with others in the church, except my close friends. If I had still been involved in the church during the Prop 8 fiasco... that might have definitely raised some ire however. I'm more out-spoken now than I used to be as a younger adult.

I just don't know who is in charge of the political stances such as opposing Prop 8 and assigning where donations of the LDS church are given. I know who it is in the Catholic church.

I assume the Pope is in charge of decisions like that in the Catholic church. The President of the LDS church would be the comparable man in charge, and that was Gordon B. Hinkley when I was last involved in the church. Now I don't know if he has since passed away and someone else has taken his place yet, but I heard something about him having ill health sometime back. The President of the church is a life position, as is the Pope for the Catholics. But I would assume that any final decisions about political stances of the LDS church would come from the Presidency of the church.

This is where my problem lies, those that wield authority over members and decide where the church steps into government lawmaking that conflicts with other churches and synagogues, etc..

I can understand your problem with churches involving themselves in political issues. I believe in a separation of church and state... and don't think churches should involve themselves with politics. With social issues such as sexuality and gay rights, I suppose most churches take the stance that these issues involve morality in their opinion and so they feel they need to get involved in making their views known. So I don't mind them expressing their honest views on those issued. But as I mentioned in my previous post... I do have a problem with them lying and spreading misinformation to stop legislation they don't like. That is definitely unethical and unbecoming of their station as a supposed moral organization.

Thanks for the info, I appreciate having more than I knew before.

I can only say the person is a house cleaner at age 70 and has very little money. She told me of her being asked for money and that they knew about her tithing habits. Maybe it was the person that was talking to her, or maybe she felt they were wrong to ask for this cause. She seemed very put off by it, but I do not know the wording of what was said to her, only her relaying to me. I know she felt like Prop 8 was not something she supported. We are also from CA.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15marriage.html?pagewanted=all

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/17/nation/na-mormons17

I attended a funeral in a Catholic Church where a bright yellow Yes on 8 flyer hung in the foyer. I also read about the Priest/Reverend in WA talking about Obama being compared to Hitler and the other Churches there that were NOT going to comply with circulating petitions to reverse same sex marriage laws.

I can only deduce that the person from LDS told me her perception of what happened. Maybe since you've left, the LDS has gone a bit toward political "guidance". I was shown that the major funding of Yes on 8 was from LDS and Catholic Churches.

The L.A. Times article says the Catholic Church asked the LDS Church to act, and they asked people to give time and money to fight the battle to protect marriage. I believe people desperately want to think they are not anti-gay with their "protect marriage" stance, but I know this was rationalization, because many folks are not anti gay, but their leaders tell them to act, with the conscience soothing caveat they are not anti gay.

I am very much aware of many supportive people in all these churches, so I am thinking it falls under the leadership decision making. All that effort put forth will not change the fact that people are out of the closet, being more committed to families and having children. People know that is the situation and will have a very hard time to convince people they are not anti gay, when what they do causes LGBTQ people to be continually left out of society and marginalized.

It wasn't just the LDS Church, but an alliance, but I know for a fact that some churches and some Mormons loudly opposed Prop 8. The following article validates your statement that the LDS advocates to vote your conscience. The first half describes the LDS involvement by leadership to advocate for Prop 8, then about halfway through, talks about some very prominent LDS members loudly against Prop 8.

http://caribou.cc.trincoll.edu/depts_csrpl/RINVol11No3/Mormon%20Proposition.htm

My concern with LDS elders and bishops that they would use tithings to build a church that looks like this.

Mar 2012 The Mormon Church's City Creek Mall and related development now at an astonishing $5 Billion Dollars!! Five Billion Dollars An organization that spends 15-20 times more on real estate to develop malls than on helping the poor is, by any definition, a corporation, not a religion.

• Flame Shooting Fountains At Mormon Cassino
• LDS Hotel and Casino Finally Opens

Is it just me, or am I the only person that thinks this is wrong?

Wow! I wouldn't go there, but seems like the money is infinite to create such an extravagant mall and a casino just seems way off base, both things for a religious institution just seem off kilter! I guess they are in it for profit now, so I hope they are not tax exempt.

Some people are beginning to realize how Romney and Ryan think.

Romney makes most of his money by extracting it from poor people.

Right!! And he also admitted it!! During an live interview!! go figure

Yes . . . sometimes Ryan's type of people accidentally tell the truth !

The truth will set them free.......free from their so called being a servant of the PEOPLE!

You know what else xxx ooo ? I heard the most perfect explaination today about the difference between Romney and Obama and their Presidential aspirations :

Romney wants the highest job in the land because of what he will BE if he gets the job of President. He wants the job for what it will do for his life.

Obama wants the highest job in the land because of what he can DO when he becomes President again ! He wants the job for what it help him do for America and Americans !

How could even a republican trust him? Shock collar?

??? I was making the point of the difference in their values and motivation for being President. Not sure where the shock collar comes in to that point. But interesting that you bring it up.

If Mitt was prez. it would be to keep him in line!

Well thank you for celebrating the positive point of my comments that President Obama is on the high road to being re-elected.

@Crackhead

Some people are beginning to realize how Romney and Ryan think.

That is exactly right, they do think alike, as do all of the GOP in any political office that I'm aware of. I think it's important to point out (based on prior conversation) that Robme is LDS, and Ryan is Catholic... so evidently, it's not their religion or faith that is influencing their thinking. In fact in both cases, it seems to be more a matter of their NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO THE TENETS OF THEIR CHRISTIAN FAITHS that is the real problem.

So the only other thing both Robme and Ryan, (and the rest of the GOP) have in common that could be influencing their selfish, greedy thought processes of unfairness and inequity is their POLITICAL PHILOSOPHIES, and their religious affiliations have nothing to do with it. Is there agreement on that?

@Hope

Oh yes... I appreciated that same explanation myself of the differences between Robme and Obama. Robme is only interested in the prestige he expects the Presidency to bring him. I think he dreams of going down in history as the first LDS/Mormon President. A title his father was unsuccessful at achieving.

Exactly DScully.

Obama = Working For America As The True President To Help Make Things Better For ALL Americans.

Gumbie Rombie = Working For Himself To Be Seen Seen As President To Make Things Better For Himself And His Robber Baron Cronies.

STARK difference.

Hope

Most definitely! We need to keep Robme out of the White House.

Obama/Biden 2012

Democratic controlled House of Reps 2012

Democratic Super majority in Senate 2012.... unfortunately, that will be hardest of all

Exactly !

Indeed, And then praise themselves for give us a warm drink!

Viewer, you are 100% correct and couldn't have been said better.

Viewer,

You Nailed IT!!!!

Hi India, lets hope that all middle class, poor, and senior Republican voters get the message by November.

Valerie

Not all senior citizens will vote for Obama. I have in-laws that are Tbaggers and won't vote for that "black sob for anything". I've known them for many years and never heard a racial remark until Obama was elected. They finally desided not to talk politics with me after I ask them to get out of my house. Not good for family relations. But I won't be trampled on either.

You can pick your friends but not your relatives...You pick wisely! Do what is best for them even if they don't agree.

You have got to love bigots, they go to church, yet they ignore all of God's teachings. God created all people, they are all of His children and He loves them all, even those "black sobs."

I can relate a story, My mother was a good person for the most part, BUT she had one big blind spot....So I thought about it for awhile and one day she was watching football which she loved to watch and was praising a player. I pointed out to her that he WAS BLACK just like Redd Foxx of which she did not! I didn't say anything more, and she fell silent.....

We all probably have a few Archie Bunker's on our family trees.

Dee, unfortunately you are correct. I have had a couple Archies hidden in my family too.

Hi India and Valerie

Most definitely.. I agree with both of your comments to the utmost. How are you both doing? I have my parents visiting again this week. Aaaaahhhhh!!! That was a primal scream to release tension.

@xxx ooo

Boy... that's the truth! You can't pick your relatives. You can pick your in-laws to some degree though... depending on who you choose to marry.

It get TWO Pinocchios...... I'm trying to read it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checking-the-ryan-budget-plan/2011/04/05/AFIaZpnC_blog.html

Don't trust anything this tea brain writes.....relies on dubious assertions.

xxx ooo - What do you expect out of REICHPUBLICANS anyway ? That's all they know how to do.

Ted, Did you just her big head Romney on Ed? Romney is so full of himself i am surprised he can get his head through a door. He brags about putting people out of work and lavishing himself with all the luxury's available.

Hi Pam, it just proves that Romney has no idea how much middle class Americans are struggling. He also said he does not worry about senior and the poor because there are safety nets for them. Yet, he and his party are trying to take all of the safety nets away and let them free fall from 20,000 feet without a parachute.

But he and his buddies all have golden ones...

@Valerie

Actually... I think what Robme said was that "I'm not worried about the very wealthy because they are doing just fine, or the poor because there's a safety net there..."

But if Robme's not worried about the very wealthy, then why is he planning to quadruple their DAMN TAX CUTS?!

Skully

just as you dislike misinformation about the LDS I dislike made up policy. thinking republicans agree that it is necessary to eliminate loopholes but not for revenue enhancement but for the basic inequities that picks winners that means altho the highest marginal tax rate is 35% the EFFECTIVE (the rate actually paid ) is much less due to the loopholes . The idea is to eliminate the loopholes and then broaden and lower the marginal rate to that which is actually being paid. There will NOT be a cut in revenue(the amount actually paid) there is agreement among republicans on that. In other word the idea is to simplify and get rid of unfair deductions but to keep revenue the same by making the actual rate the same as is being paid.

Sorry tc,... but that just doesn't make any sense to me and I can't see how that would work in actually bringing more revenue into the treasury. And that is what we need.

The country is running a huge deficit, and that isn't going to be paid off by simply cutting out the loopholes and then lowering taxes. So the amount of revenue that would come in from the closed loopholes, will then be lost from lowered tax rates. It's like taking in more tax money with your left hand and handing it back with the right.

The country still ends up without the revenue it needs, and just keeps the same limited amount of revenue coming in, which isn't anywhere near enough to pay the bills. Much less for the country to invest in education, scientific research, renewable energy sources... and all of those other things that are important for the citizens like the safety nets programs and for the growth of the economy.

loophole by their nature give things to some that others do not get. Further they make the tax code impossible to read. I did say that the program agreed to and signed onto by Republicans would not bring in Revenue it would be what is called revenue neutral I was responding to your post that they want to lower REVENUE and that is not correct they do not want to increase it either. They do want the tax code to be understandable and eliminate the giveaways to special interest and keep all on the same page but without INCREASING revenue. I understand you want to increase revenue. I know for a fact that as the economy recovers revenue will automatically increase due to more people working and paying taxes.I am OK with you wanting to actually increase tax on the highest end but please do not say I want to lower it I do not. . The actual number now is 35% marginal the CBO says that if the rate went back to Clinton era of 39% it would generate 5 billion a year or 50 billion over 10 years . I would be OK with that also since it has no negative effect as long as it does not go above 40%. 5 billion however wont make much of a dent in 1.2 trillion deficit. Still I understand your desire for what you think is fair.

Hi TC

Yes... loopholes do give tax cuts to some, usually the already privileged, that the ordinary Joe citizen doesn't get and that is unfair. I assume you agreed, but I'm not sure.

Yes.... I know that the budget the Repugs agreed to is revenue neutral... which doesn't make any sense considering the fact that the country has huge deficit it has to start paying off. A revenue neutral budget is an absurd answer to that situation, since in that case, the only way for money to be found to pay off the debt is making further huge cuts to programs for the poor and middle class.

This still leaves the poor and middle class paying more than their fair share for the debts run up by GW Bush and the Wall Street fiasco... while the rich and corporate interests get off without paying their fair share. It does nothing than to further the inequity between the top 1% and the remaining 99%. Robbing from the poor (whether in actual $ or in cuts to programs the poor need to survive) to give tax cuts to the rich.... the usual GOP status quo. Do you agree with that? Is that what is best for this country?

But it wasn't the recent budget the Repugs approved that I was referring to in my previous post. What I was referring to is the tax plan that Mutt Robme plans to enact when he gets into office, which I guess follows the Ryan Plan fairly closely as he seems to have latched onto that one as well. But of course, Mutt is famous for going along with the crowd and telling whoever he's talking to what they want to hear when it comes to policy decisions.

Either way... it is a huge payoff to the richest in the country as well as the corporations (which isn't surprising since Mutt is a corporate guy)... and another huge step toward the destruction of the middle class. If Mutt Robme and the GOP have their way, this country will be left with only an upper class and a lower class scratching to survive. The USA will become a third world country, with no middle class to grow the economy.

Also... let me clarify, I wasn't saying that you per say, or other Rep citizens want to lower tax rates. In fact, I think most polls show that Dems and Rep and Ind all want the richest to pay more of their fair share. I was only referring to the GOP/TEAbag politicians in government and that can't be denied as we have seen that in both Fed and State government. If they talk about being willing to get rid of tax loopholes, it's only with the idea that tax rates would also be lowered to 25% or more... which pretty much defeats the purpose of getting rid of the tax loopholes. Since either way... no extra revenue will be raised to pay of the debt.

We don't need a CEO in the White House, making favorable decisions for the corporate interests. We need a President making decisions to benefit the citizenry as a whole. President Obama is working for the majority's interests in the country, not just for the wealthiest's interests.

A closed mind is a waste! The color of his skin is just one thing,if Hillary would have won it would have been the same BS.

@xxx ooo

Yeah... but I'll bet the war on women would have started a hell of a lot earlier... like right after Hillary took office.

I dis-agree I supported Hillary she and bill are centrists and she would not have made many of the moves Obama has. Clinton was business friendly.

tc

I was a Hillary supporter before Obama got the nomination.... but as I recall, Hillary's platform wasn't that different from Obama's during the primary campaign.

What's more... President Obama has probably been a lot more centrist and moderate than Hillary would have been in office. He's had to adopt and promote mostly GOP ideas and policies, in an attempt to get some bi-partisan agreement. Not that it's done much good, as the GOP have refused to support even their own ideas. Talk about a stubborn pig-headed group!

It's simply resulted in a lot of watered down legislation that wasn't as effective as it would have been, had Obama pushed harder for the more progressive ideas.... like the public option or single-payer system in the healthcare reform as one example.

Of course, we can't know exactly how Hillary would have reacted in the same position had she won the Presidency, but I would hope she wouldn't have been quite so willing to compromise and sell out her policies for the sake of bi-partisanship. Instead of kissing GOP ass, I hope she would have done more GOP butt-kicking... and maybe some NUT-CRACKING ALSO!

Chris Matthews thinks Bill is helping Hillary get ready for a 2016 run.

run, Hillary, run!

Skully

I know that you disagree but it is not the big legislative stuff that i think Hillery would have been involved with I do not think she would have allowed the strangling regulations that have been going on quietly. Those things don't make headlines but i hear it at the barbershop from small business owners around here many are ready to hang it up due to the cost of compliance. Bill did not allow that to go on under him he stuck with the big stuff like Superfund not the nit picking that is going on. The very people writing this crap are down in Vegas blowing our money in the meantime. Here is an article written locally by a farme who tells how new regs will eliminate the FFA program tah all rural kids depend on to learn.

http://www.american.com/archive/2012/january/an-imaginary-dustup-the-incalculable-harm-of-regulation

Deregulate is right wing rhetoric for regulating the rights of blue collar workers.

@suzette

That would definitely be wonderful... I would love to see Hillary as the first woman President! I hope Bill can convince her to run again by then.

Oh give me a huge break TC! Now you got my dander up!

There have been no "STRANGLING REGULATIONS" enacted, other than the ones by the GOP both Federally and on the state level... attempting to REGULATE WOMEN'S UTERUSES.

In fact, the only regulations otherwise that I am aware of are the ones in the Dodd/Frank bill (which was needed to prevent the vulture capitalists on Wall Street from continuing their greedy behaviors that destroyed the housing and mortgage industry and took the economy along with it).

What's more... that Dodd/Frank bill was watered down so much by the Repugs that it's nearly useless as doing the job it was intended. Not to mention that the GOP prevented it from being implemented at all until just recently when President Obama was finally able to appoint a director over the agency to implement it.

Then there are a few regulations in the ACA that prevent private health insurance companies from continuing to cheat citizens, which are also sorely needed. And the insurance companies are already trying to find ways around those.

So any mention of "strangling regulations" is just a bunch of crapola! Sorry TC.... not buying it. We need more regulations in this country that will prevent the type of irresponsible and greedy behaviors that led to the first Great Depression and then to this last economic collapse that President Obama successfully led the country out of.

An the recovery wouldn't have been so slow if it hadn't been for the conspiracy of obstruction that the GOP have carried out to prevent the country from recovering. Talk about patriotism and wanting what is best for the majority of citizens in this country... the GOP leadership are sorely lacking in both! I'm disgusted with them.

Ryan's and Romney's immorality
Don't take into account the reality -
They think they can poke
Money out of the broke;
Somehow, that will bring them immortality...

They think Obama's policies have failed...
They can't see the Rich tax breaks derailed
What Bill Clinton accomplished,
They would both see demolished -
Well, I'm sorry, but that ship has sailed,,,

The Right want big breaks for Job Makers -
They won't see that the Rich are Job Fakers...
The Poor should be leery -
Their Trickle-Down Theory
Is pissing all over the Job Takers...

Ayn Rand, whom Ryan worships, was a strange little Russian atheist! What an odd choice for a Catholic. Why do these people use her as their favourite philosopher? It's bizarre. Her idea of utopia is my worst nightmare!

David, awesome as usual.

David

I love your stuff!

India

I know... it is bizarre for those commie fearing/hating GOPers to cling so strongly to one of their philosophies. Of course, Ron Paul worships Ayn Rand so much, he named his son after her.

just curious Skully have you actually read the Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged. I know you are a big reader. She was anti-Utopian in fact that was part of her philosophy.

skully

I was cut off before I could change the last sentence.I meant to say she was anti dependency and thought all people were rational and able to act in their own self interest thus becoming independent. The flaw I think was the idea that all were rational and we know that there is always around 5 to 10% who are incapable of caring for themselves or learning high tech skill and society must provide some sort of safety net for those that are unfortunate due to illness, age,or some other form of incapacity. Her philosophy by the way does not determine success as money but self fulfillment by being good at your job and taking pride in that. The hero of the Fountainhead was an architect but he was unable to build the way he wanted so he became a quarry worker but a good one. She grew up In a communist country and hated the way they stifled originality and wanted to make everybody think and act the same. She was reacting to the world she left.

David,

clearly the most gifted blogger here...

TC

Both titles sound familar, but I can't remember if I've read them. Maybe years ago. But I'm not the one who suggested her philosophy was Utopian... someone else made that comparison.

Nothing I've ever heard or read about Ayn Rand's philosophies sound Utopian to me. But in my opinion, they would only work in a Utopian society.... one without prejudice, inequality and class differences. But they certainly aren't realistic for this mortal world as imperfect as it is.

TC

Yeah... I agree with that flaw you mentioned, and that is included in the reasons I feel Ayn Rand's philosophies aren't realistic. Whether there are those in society who can't take care of themselves because of illness, handicap or some other malady... or whether there are those who are handicapped in their ability to succeed due to the prejudice and racism they face from others who won't allow them to succeed... as was the case in the Jim Crow south.... the result is the same.

There will be a need for some sort of safety net, and ways to make opportunities equal for everyone to be allowed to accomplish all they are able to. That was the reason why civil right laws were necessary, why suffrage was necessary, why gay rights are necessary, etc. In an imperfect society as ours... there will be some who will need the protection and support of the government if they are ever able to attain the same privileges we all desire and have a right to via the Constitution.

As far as Ayn Rand's communist upbringing limiting self expression, that same thing can happen in a democratic society also, and especially in a Republican one. You don't have to look any farther than the Congress, and the entire lot of Repugs/TEApugs falling into line and spouting the exact same taking points. It's like none of them have a single original thought or a mind of their own... and certainly no "self expression" of their own.

You are right

there was something else I failed to mention in economics it is called the Fallacy of composition. What that means is that a sentence can be right for one but when extended to all it becomes wrong. the one usually used it athis sentence. " It is good for a family to save every penny , live below its means and be ready for a rainy day and it would be good if everybody did so. The fallacy comes in that it would actually be good for a specific family to do they would be safer. But an economy depends on demand and people out spending money which keeps everybody working and if every body live close to the bone on purpose it would keep a economy from prospering. in rands philosophy it actually works for a person or family but NOT for an entire country. That is the part that many miss . She was not talking about a country acting on her philosophy just how a individual person can obtain their highest ability. Also she was against prejudice and immorality but on a personal level. She would have and did hate racists etc.

DScully, #9.12 Good insight. Rand has any number of videos on the internet that you can watch.

Hi, TC, cute avatar. I like the red as I do not have real good eyes and it stands out. I agree and will concede that Ayn was no racist and did hate that.

Other than that.....huh uh. Not a fan.

and wasn't she also a big taker of welfare as well. think she lived off it.

not hardly she was wealthy from her books.

I keep getting cut off sorry.to be truthful she paid into medicare and social security because she had to and because she paid for it she did use medicare.

thoughtfulc: don't you think it's hypocritcal of Rand to use Medicare? Or maybe she learned that the ravages of old age and illness will conquer any Randian super-entrepreneur and she needed all the help she could get!

TC

Yes... I agree that the idea of an individual or family living within it's means is not necessarily a valid strategy to be applied to a country. But then how do you explain that most of the GOP candidates and the GOP reps in Congress all seem to think that is a valid strategy to apply to running the country?

Do you agree with those GOP reps and candidates who use this same philosophy of living within one's means to justify the cuts in the budget, without feeling the need to raise revenue via tax increases? Or do you realize that they are not being realistic nor sensible?

It's fine that Ayn Rand wasn't racist or bigoted, but unfortunately many of her followers do. Ron Paul and son, Rand are the first examples that come to mind, who seem to have some of those exact feelings toward certain groups of the population. Yet they can't seem to see or accept how those attitudes would make their ideological views unrealistic for equal progress of all people. It is an obvious block in their thinking and most likely because they don't want everyone to have the same opportunities due to those racist attitudes.

@dslsca & TC

Good point... I wonder if Ayn had any change of heart or change in her views, from when she wrote her books as a young woman (I'm assuming she was fairly young, though don't know exactly what age she was at the time).

But did she have a different opinion of the need for safety nets and survival of the fittest when she had gotten older, with more health problems and was less able to care for herself? Was she more able to see the benefits and even necessities for programs such as Medicare, Social Security, etc.

Ayn was appalled at the excess of Stalin communism she saw first hand what collectivism could and did result in. Therefore from her prospective the only restraint on the monolithic central communist government was individualism. She was a philosopher not a economist. She did not try to equate her philosophical structure to government or an economic system government from her prospective was the enemy. Like her i also know what the natural tendency of power is regardless of underlying philosophy. To the man on the street there is no difference between living under communism or Fascism both require loyalty to the state over family or religion and the man on the street Must comply or else. When she got a taste of freedom what she saw was individual people creating society and its products. Her philosophy then was the idea that each person had greatness in them and would be happiest when allowed to function so as to maximize their own skills. She saw no difference between say a great Doctor working to the best of his ability and a gardener working to the best of their ability. The process of self actualization was what she was after. She would not have been for one person trying to force another into her philosophy in fact that would be completely against what she believed about individualism. Many who claim to follow her really have missed her whole idea.

Knowing what I do about how economics workd I can't endores something I know to be counter towht would be the best economic policy. The poor and disadvantaged are always going to be here. Nothing can change it. To an extent they need a net no doubt about it. But that being said there also is a marginal person who could take care of themselves but would be just as happy being dependent and will take advantage of any system. i have no sympathy for them . Think about this you want people taken care of that is noble but what about those that can work but just do not have many skills but enough to get by.You may deny it but I know you know people like that. Wouldn't you be upset at having an able bodied person take advantage of your good will just because they could not do much better on their own. There is a limit to what people will allow to have taken away from them and given to someone like that . Republicans are generous on a personal level i know this from first hand experience but they resent being taken advantage of and they fear the power of the state. Remember and government that is powerful enough to promise you anything is capable of taking everything. i do not believe he meant it but Obama said in his state of the union speech that he did not want government to do anything that a person could do for themselves. Different people have different skill and different people have different work ethics. And those who invest in themselves through long hours and continuing to learn should be rewarded for their excellence not punished. My son is a Marine he works 7 days a week long hours form 5am until sometimes 10pm or later. He does not have a boss as he is in charge of his area and feels he MUSt out work everybody below him to justify his position. The disagreement is how much is enough? There are lots of things that would be nice but when does the cost of them get beyond reasonable taxation. Right now when state tax, federal tax property tax excise tax, gas tax phone tax are combined with a federal tax rate of 35% it means about half of an upper income person wage. Is half enough? too much? too little? how much more can be taken before they just say screw it it isn't worth it to take a chance on expanding my business because if i'm successful i will lose 50 cents on the dollar and if I fail i lose my investment? I do not know but it is getting pretty close to that point.

The Ryan budget includes 18.5% of the entire output of the country to be taken in by the government in the form of taxes. How it is spent is open to debate. the average for the last 50 yers has been 17% so he is taking in a higher percentage than the average. Forget for a moment how he is proposing it be spent and lets focus on how much is enough. 20% 25%? for the government to control of our economy. Once that is settled then we can talk about which programs should be protected and which can we do without. we just saw an example of how serious the Government workers takes spending our hard earned dollars on Vegas getaways. i suspect that is just the tip of the iceberg.

And to be truthful I am on social security and have taken unemployment but that is not the issue the issue is how much of my grankids work will be taken away from them, not what I get. I think we as a country need to get away from the minor squabbles and details and decide just what slice out of the total pie the government should take then pay for what ever social programs we have money for . So you asked me a question now i will ask you one you keep mentioning fair share. OK first what is the Fair Share of the government to take of EVERYTHING and what is a fair share as a percent of income that the upper bracket should pay. that will tell me if we are close or not. I will go first. 20% max which is 3 points above the 50 year average and 40% from a person.

Skully' In case you are interest here is a little blurb written by her explaining her philosophy. Note there is nothing in there about policy she was more interested in philosophy and how it affects each person. I am not a follower but did read her when young and i can't say i was not influenced but i was influenced by a lot of the books I read them. Kind of like you and the LDS Church. You don't resent the experience but have moved on for whatever reason but you don't evidently hate them like others here

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro

thoughtfulc: I don't need a mini-lesson on Rand's ideas or life story. I read those books probably before you were born and, like most people who read them, pretty much left their half-baked ideas behind once puberty ended.

You've written so much that, in the interests of saving my time, I'll respond to a handful of things. You write, "what she saw was individual people creating society and its products"; except perhaps for artists, no individual creates products. Producers are dependent on a huge range of systems, benefits, and services created by society. If you're interested in a broader discussion of this issue than is possible in a newsvine post, I recommend the book "The Self-Made Myth" to you.

Of Rand, you write "She saw no difference between say a great Doctor working to the best of his ability and a gardener working to the best of their ability." I wholly agree. That's why they should receive the same pay (and don't talk to me about how much med school costs, as I think education should be free).

You seem to be unaware (or at least pretend not to know) that Ryan's budget represents an increase in taxation for poor people and (yet another) massive cut in taxation for the rich.

You ask, "So you asked me a question now i will ask you one you keep mentioning fair share. OK first what is the Fair Share of the government to take of EVERYTHING and what is a fair share as a percent of income that the upper bracket should pay. that will tell me if we are close or not. I will go first. 20% max which is 3 points above the 50 year average and 40% from a person." I'm not empowered to decide what a "fair share" would be; we elect representatives to do that for us. I don't think it's fair that typically rich people pay a lower percentage of their total income in tax than working people like I do and that many enormously profitable corporations pay no federal corporate income tax at all.

You write, "Remember and government that is powerful enough to promise you anything is capable of taking everything." So I should be afraid that the government will take the Army away from us?? You don't worry about the government taking away from us the things that you approve of the govt doing, and the conservatives are the only ones talking about taking away such things as Medicare and Social Security. And, just fyi, corporations can and do "take away" from us the promises they've made: just ask anyone with non-employer provided private insurance what happens when they start having huge medical bills.

dslca

I was not writing to you but being a public forum you are welcome to barge in. Since I'm 70 with a masters in economics I would be surprised if you have read anything before me not that it matters. I wrote my masters thesis on the differences between Communism and Capitalism in the relative efficiency of the distribution of scarce resources. your comment about the relative pay between a Dr and a gardener is the same old labor theory of value from 1890 that completely ignores the role of utility in valuation. But you evidently persist in that belief and I know from experience in dealing with zelots that I can't make a dent in yur beliefs so I won't try.

Regarding your dodge of my fair share question by leaving it to the representatives is OK with me. My Representative is a tea party republican I am down with letting her decide as you apparently are also.

Producers are dependent on a huge range of systems, benefits, and services created by society.

They are no more dependent on the roads than other users but pay a much larger share of the cost of producing them. Society produces nothing people do and I know you will not acknowledge that so i won't build an argument. Yes bill gates had employees but they would not have built Microsoft without his selfish desire to win. Each employee did their job not out of a desire to be helpful and thus sacrifice at his feeet but out of a desire to obtain the best wage they could to support their family. Thus each individual employee was working in their own self interest. Each employees wage was calculated based on the relative utility of their contribution to the whole. The entire concept of relative utility is overlooked in theories such as your but has been the driving natural force since the beginning of time.

I am worn out for now but i commend you on at least reading what you have rejected. I'm not by the way a advocate or Rand but I understand her philosophy evidently in a way you do not. She was a philosopher not an economist and money issues were not her cup of tea. Self actualization was.

regarding ryans budget it is at least a start. It should be put into committee and torn apart but we both know that wont happen in the senate. I mentioned in my post that the relative share of the governments take is the first question. Once thlt has been decided then the sources of revenue nd their use can be allocated fairly. So far however nobody has answered the basic question I asked only aphorisms regarding fairness have been used nothing of substance. All budgets of any kind answer three questions. 1 how much do we have to spend 2 where do we get it from 3 how are we going to spend it. 2 and 3 cannot be answered until number 1 is. that is MY point.

ThoughtfulC: I apologize for thinking your statements about Rand were in response to my directly questioning you on the matter two posts above what you wrote; how silly of me to think you might actually answer a question asked of you.

If you really want to get into a pissing contest here, I have a PhD, was for 29 years before my retirement a college professor and then Dean of an Honors College. I'm not a "zealot." I do have a problem with your Tea Party representative deciding tax rates, but do not have a problem with all our representatives together doing it; that's their job. I certainly will and do acknowlegde that people (not society) produce things; show me where I said society produces things. What you don't seem to acknowledge is what you wrote yourself: "people produce things"--i.e, PEOPLE and not the Randian uber-entrepreneur acting in some kind of splendid isolation.

You write:

I'm not by the way a advocate or Rand but I understand her philosophy evidently in a way you do not.

Perhaps so, as I don't consider her a philosopher, but rather a sociopath [that bit in Atlas Shrugged where she argues that the folks who die in a train accident deserved to die because perhaps they were good to their children or helped people out is pure, unadulterated evil.]

You also write:

All budgets of any kind answer three questions. 1 how much do we have to spend 2 where do we get it from 3 how are we going to spend it. 2 and 3 cannot be answered until number 1 is.

I've never made a budget in that manner in my whole life and I don't think the govt should either. I've always done my budgeting: 1 what do I need to do, 2 how can I fund that, 3 what do I want to do, 4 is what I want to do worth (in terms of the time it would take me to earn the money to do it) what I'd have to sacrifice in order to do it. When I write "in terms of the time," I mean that explicitly in the terms capitalism forces us to live under: time spent working where I'm not paid the full value of my labor so that someone else can make a profit from it.

For someone with a Master's degree, you seem unaware that the proper possessive pronoun for the antecedent "each individual employee" is "his or her" and not "their."

my masters is in Economics not English I stand corrected. I would take the time to explain the role of profit in growth but it would be a waste of my arthritic hands. You have been paid what your labor was worth to the person signing your check if you think you are worth more then you need to become a check signer. With a Phd you certainly have the ability if not the work ethic. Your budget process is typical of those that depend on others to provide the funds. Most have to learn to live within their means unless they are government employees. But we all know Marx said from each according to means to each according to needs. Too bad that failed every time it has been put in place. I had college professors that thought like you when i was in school. Fortunately there were a few rational Phd's that I was able to learn from.

ThoughtfulC: can you please stop with the ad hominem attacks? They don't advance the discussion.

You write: "Your budget process is typical of those that depend on others to provide the funds." Except for birthday/Christmas presents when I was a kid, my work has supplied all the money I've hever had in my whole life. Since I left home to go to college at age 17, I've never depended on others even once to "provide the funds" for my budget. You may disparage my budget process all you want, but doing it that way enabled me to buy my home and pay off the mortgage note in 2/3 the time of the life of the loan, to make close to a hundred foreign trips in my life, to retire at 50 with absolutely not a debt in the world (I don't owe even a single penny to anyone), to pay cash for every car I've ever bought except the first one I bought when I was in college, to be (at least in my opinion) financially generous to the charities I have long supported, and to do all the usual things (keep the power turned on, keep food on the table, keep gas in the car, etc.).

You keep implying that you somehow "know" the answers to these issues, but you never provide them because "I know from experience in dealing with zelots that I can't make a dent in yur beliefs so I won't try" or "I am worn out for now" or "I would take the time to explain the role of profit in growth but it would be a waste of my arthritic hands"; if you REALLY have the answers, take a damn Advil and tell us. If you don't have the answers, stop pretending that you do and that some outside factors prevent you from providing them.

You also write, "You have been paid what your labor was worth to the person signing your check." That's flatly contradictory to the way capitalism explicitly states that it works. In capitalism, employers MUST pay workers less than the value the capitalists realize from their work or they won't turn a profit. I'm not really interested in the "role of profit in growth" because I want to achieve a sustainable economy and not a growth one: we're seeing the limits of "growth" in every direction we look these days and it isn't pretty.

You also write [of Socialism]: "Too bad that failed every time it has been put in place." I don't see Socialism as having failed in places like Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Canada, Israel, South Africa, New Zealand, etc. I also don't see the socialized aspects of the US economy (the fire department, the interstate highway system, the US military, the National Parks system, etc.) as having failed.

Though your final statement above is yet another ad hominem attack (implying that I was somehow not a "rational PhD" when you know absolutely nothing about my teaching career), I'd point out that who, whom, or whose--not that--is the proper relative pronoun for a person or for people. You also make a snide remark implying I don't have a good work ethic; I think every boss I've ever had in my entire life (and I always had a job starting from when I was 15 until I retired) would tell you otherwise.

Ok Fair enough I am not known here for personal attacks if you take what I wrote as such I apologize for any personal offense. I was speaking of BUSINESS and INSTITUTIONAL budgets. Personal finance is just that a personal matter. I believed you were talking about your budget as a Dean preparing the operating budget for your department.The process I alluded to is the generally accepted one and is taught in business schools. Resources are finite and revenue cannot be increased by a business or agency due to need or wants. I have taught Commercial Real Estate at the college level but did so for free in cooperation with the local Real Estate board that wanted the University to create a degree program in Real Estate . As a board member I volunteered. I did get an insight into that one schools budget process in helping set up the program. I found that department heads ALWAYS demanded more money for their particular department. The CFO doled out limited funds based on the amount they thought would be available from tuition and gifts. Both the Board and the University wanted to go forward with the degree program but we were told the the University had no funds available to start the program. We all volunteered to be instructors at no pay. They knew at the beginning of the budget process before school opened what the expected revenue would be and budgeted from that knowledge. That is they way business also budgets. There are usually two budgets one on the expected case and one on the worst case in the event revenue does not come in as expected.

I have no interest in explaining the economic role of profits as you would not listen based on the portions of your political philosophy you have revealed so far. I will stand by my comment regarding pay however at least in our system. Different companies/employers will offer different pay structures for the same job depending on the owner or mangers view of the utility of that persons services to the business. Primarily wage is based on relative productivity. If you and I were trying for the same job the employer after researching our relative productivity will make an offer based on that calculation. A different employer most likely would reach a different conclusion. True that calculation includes the opportunity for profit but the does not carry with it the obligation to chip in for losses or less than expected profit that could drastically effect the owners income. I doubt that you would be wiling to enter into a contract that included you sharing the risk. . That is however only one side of the equation. You have an obligation to yourself to place a value on your services. That would not only include wages, but benefits, working conditions, the work group you would be dealing with daily. If your assessment of your value is less than the offer, you are in no way obligated to accept.Profit may or may not result but I know of no business model where one business owner has one employee doing all the work and simply charging extra for owning the telephone. Each persons labor is combined in a productive manner with each other person efforts along with capital, land, utilities, and entrepreneurship to create a product or service of some sort. My only comment on profit is that there would be no reason for anyone to organize such an activity and put their own capital at risk and expend their own labor for free. In the case of the business all an employee can lose is their job the employer can lose everything. By the way I did just that and ended up living in my car for three months. No safety net for me. Profit is the wage that an employer hopes to receive for being at risk and working daily. If you place a specific value on your labor and you receive it you have no gripe.If you do not you can move to the next employer or reassess your value. If you are selling a house and set a price and nobody bids my guess is that you priced it above the market. An employer pays for your time and productivity as long as it is legal he has no further obligation to you. He/she has purchased your output at a price you agreed to, what he does with it is up to him/her. A simple example would be if you wanted a house built for yourself and asked contractors to bid on the plans. You then choose one on whatever criteria you want to use and he performs as contracted for isn't that what you owe him? Do you owe him more for just doing what you and he agreed on and no more? Do you owe him less because during construction and the market value drops through no fault of your contractor? Suppose you move in and six months later somebody else falls in love with it and offers you double what you paid your contractor. Should you lower the price to what you paid less 6 months use? Do you call your contractor and give him every dime over what you paid him in the first place? After all under your theory of value all profit is owed to him. What ever your answer is it is OK with me you are a free agent to do and think whatever you wish.

That being said there is no restriction that prevents you from taking the business risk yourself. You however want a wage that includes the return to capital and entrepreneurship. Your are free to receive both by starting your own company. Your post implies that you have accepted the Marxist labor theory of value. The fatal flaw in that theory the lack of understanding the role of utility in pricing. That is your choice but it does not work. None of the countries that you mentioned are socialist they are mixed economies that have a little of both. There are rich and well compensated business owners in all the countries you identified. Profits are welcomed and obtained. The socialist part comes in the government taking a larger share of profits than I would settle for and in return performs services to residents with the revenue. My personal view is that I want the services I desire not the ones a central government planner thinks I need and would want my own money to purchase which services I want and not purchase those I do not want. But that is just greedy me.

I wonder did the grammatical errors of mine that you pointed out distract from your ability to understand the meaning of my post? I would be the first to admit that my skills are logic and mathematics not English. My writing stye is a kind of stream of consciousness that favors speed over grammar and punctuation. Sorry if it offends your sensibilities but as long as you get the drift I have accomplished what I set out to do.

by the way for what it is worth I make no value judgement on your beliefs I served in the military and my son is currently serving so that you and others can think, write, and act, onwhatever you want without censorship or judgement.

Your apology is accepted. I thank you and your son for your service and sacrifice.

I did indeed think you were talking about my personal finances. As Dean, I was notorious for squeezing every penny, but I also successfully argued for a seven-fold increase in my college's budget (I told them at my interview that I was going to do that and such an increase was what it would take to do what they told me they wanted me to do and at the interview the President looked me straight in the eye and said "Money will not be the problem" and he kept his word).

I do indeed accept the labor theory of value: labor is the sole thing applied to raw materials (in manufacturing) or to people (in service) that changes their value. I'd quibble with you when you write, "I want the services I desire not the ones a central government planner thinks I need"; in the nations I listed I'm under the impression that the services provided by the government in exchange for taxes are those services the citizenry has indicated it desires by means of voting on the matter. I'd also quibble with you when you write, "In the case of the business all an employee can lose is their job the employer can lose everything." For someone without capital (i.e., a worker), losing his job IS losing everything, as your experience of living in your car might have taught you. Indeed there are rich and well-compensated business owners in the countries I identify; that's why I can't understand for the life of me why the Tea Party types scream bloody murder about Socialism as though it'll mean plundering the homes of the rich and reducing everyone to poverty.

I'll give you one local example of the kind of economy I'd like to have here in the US. I live in a VERY rural area (there's not even mail delivery here by the USPS). Back in the day (before my time), the telephone company wouldn't bring service to the handful of homes/farms around here, so the local residents set up a "local telephone cooperative": the telephone users own the company and the only way to have shares in the company is to live here and use their services--NO outside investment allowed. Nowadays, we have the latest fiber-optic stuff, ultra-fast internet connections, a zillion cable choices, etc. Executives from other communication companies and administrators from big cities come here to look at our system and copy it. My total bill for cable, telephone (unlimited long distance), and very fast internet is under $100 a month AND every fall I get a "capital fund overage" check from them that has been as much as $600 and has never been less than $350. But in a "capitalist" system, the money that paid for that fiber optic would have come out of my pocket because that money plus the annual capital fund overage would have gone into the pockets of investors who had never lifted a finger to build the service. Imagine if huge sections of our economy worked like that: if assembly line workers owned the factory; if sales clerks and customers owned the stores; etc. I think we could have a very vibrant, active economy with much of the "good stuff" we have now, but could do it while working less (maybe only three days a week?), consuming and polluting less, and having more time for ourselves and our families and our churchs and our hobbies and so on. That sounds to me like a vast improvement over the current system.

The money you demanded as a need from your University came from somewhere. Your needs were the result of your desire to accomplish something of value with your talent but they were not needs. food ,clothing , shelter are needs I'm a sure with your education you are familiar with Mazlows hierarchy.Money was not your worry but it was someones.Most likely a greedy alum who had enough coin to finance your work. Without his greed he would not have the geld to finance a university ( I am of course referring to no specific alum.) You may not recognize it but your desire to receive benefit from the co-op is operating in your own self interest. You apparently hold a grudge against others profiting from your work and want to keep it all for yourself. I share that impulse that is why i have been an employer rather than a worker. I hope you think about that for a minute. I would bet that there is somewhere a telephone exchange for profit that your t-1 is linked into. Anybody with a t-1 or greater bandwidth can have their own phone and internet system on the other side of it . you have to pay millage back to the POP server. one side is utility owned for a profit they charge for the connection and don,t care how it is split on the other side.Whoevr did the distribution on your sid of the POP must be a wonderful person. there must have been someone with an engineering background on your side of the fence that had that knowledge maybe it is you. . The utility company providing the POP is making a profit from your entire rural service network since they price to the pop and rent the t-1 array they don't care much how you split it up they have theirs. Technically the co-op is making a profit and splitting that profit among the share holders in the form of the internet and phone service at a lower price than i would provide it to you for The difference between what you would have paid and what you do pay is virtual profit to you and the same with the other share holders. holders. . You take it in the form of a lower cost I also live in a rural area that is a resort for 3 months out of the year. The side of the lake i live on has electricity provided by the owner of the dam. The other side of the lake is a regional electrical co-op. my brother in law and I live on opposite sides of of the lake. we compare bills and even though he is a member of a co-op my electric bill is lower priced than his Why don't know but it really pisses him off.

The labor theory is flawed in its basic concept the example used in most econ 101 courses it that of the stone tire. Under that theory several laborers working with a chisel on a large rock can whittle it down to the size that would fit on a car while somewhere else oil is chemically processed with polymers into rubber usually untouched by human hands is combined with nylon and rayon cord woven by a machine into a belt both are pumped into a mold which is super heated placing a tread into the surface and bonding the elements into a modern tire. This process is done over and over again hundreds and thousands of units per hour and the only labor involved is stacking the end result of the process done with the assistance of capital like a fork lift. . Side by side the cost in labor units of producing the stone tire is many times the value in labor of the rubber one even more so if the price of the stone cutter is the same is the same as the engineer that designed the tire production line as he only does that once.the stone one will not work on your axle so therefore has no utilitarian value to a car owner regardless of the effort to produce it as the utility is non existent. The rubber tire has a capitalistic price that is determined by the action of supply and demand as there are more people desiring the highest quality tire than can be produced at the highest level of quality. . most if not all of the transformation of the elements is done by the use of capital in the form of the equipment used. I doubt if i will have nay influence in my argument as you have already made up your mind I offer this short video as a better description than i have done here.

http://youtu.be/4ERbC7JyCfU

Marx was the author of the labor theory of value but it did not work out so well in practice. It requires the involuntary cooperation of millions of people doing what a central planner must direct them to do regardless of their own aspirations. If the collective needs steel you may find yourself digging iron ore for the good of the collective even if you want to paint pictures. China has learned that the price system and capitalism is more effective than a 5 year plan. I'm glad there are romantics like you around though hoping for Utopia where all work is for the common good instead of their own self interest but I think human nature being what it is that will never happen without force and that disrupts the common good. . Oh well it has been fun going back and forth I hope we can do it again sometime in a friendly manner.

ThoughtfulC: again you bring up the specter of this "central planner" who seems not to exist in the nations I've cited or in the rural telephone cooperative to which I belong.

You write, "The money you demanded as a need from your University"; I never demanded a penny. The President and Provost at my job interview told me what they wanted me to do and I told them what it would cost to do that. I fail to see how that equates to my demanding anything.

You keep saying that you doubt it'll do any good to engage with me as I've already made up my mind, yet your mind seems rather inflexibly made up to me; if it's somehow a bad thing to have made up one's mind based on decades of experience, then you're just as guilty as I am.

ThoughtfulC: you also write, "I share that impulse that is why i have been an employer rather than a worker. I hope you think about that for a minute." So the lone alternative you present to me not to have my labor contribute to the profit someone else is to become a person who profits from others' labor? What if I want a system where no one does that?

Your ECON 101 remark above seems to imply that you think I didn't take ECON 101 in college and haven't been reading books economics since then. Both implications are inaccurate.

dslca

you seem to have a thin skin about words maybe my choice is poor. my econ 101 use true that is where I was first introduced to that concept . drop the word demanded and I stand by the point which is larger than your motivation. th3e "central Planners " may not be know to you but they are there not in the body of one person but there has to be a mechanism that directs for example where steel goes if the market doesn't. Since you have economic knowledge then you understand the use of econometrics for this function. I don't know where i implied that your position had a value judgement by me to it. I don't make those kinds of statement at least not intentionally.

if you have read as you say my explanation of why profits are necessary you have already looked at and rejected. I wrote my masters on the efficiency of distribution of scarce resources and the differences between what was then Russian Communism and capitalism. Since I think maximization of resources through technology through entrepreneurial effort is a good thing the barter system which is the logical extension of what you have embraced is not for me. There is no need for money in a world where all labor has equal value since the value of an hour say transplanting a liver has equal value as an hour cutting grass then money could only exist as a representation for labor units. A dollar become nothing more than a credit for an hours labor. Products (if there are in will carry representations on the package as to how many units of labor went into making. A gallon of milk would include a complex tracking system to find out how much time was taken hooking up the milker, turning on the pasteurization machine, carrying to the truck, driving the truck, placing on the shelf how much of the cleaning night crew that cleaned the shelf and on and on. Sorry, doesn't work for me.

ThoughtfulC: Please explain to me where in a system like the one I've described (where the workers own the factory, the clerks and customers own the store, the telephone users own the cooperative) a central planner enters into the picture? In my little local experience with a telephone cooperative, I get a notice of all meetings (I can come in person and speak or I can vote my share by mail or I can appoint a proxy to vote my share for me); no one has EVER made a decision on service or major expense without such a process taking place and not once has the result of this process ever been ignored by a "central planner." In fact, I'd argue that what's happening in places like Greece (where the European banks refused to allow a democratic referendum on the "bail out" and then dismissed a democratically elected prime minister and replaced him with an unelected technocrat of their choice), in Italy (where the banks dismissed a--lousy, in my opinion--democratically elected prime minister and replaced him with an even more banker-friendly alternative), and in Michigan (where the governor has the power at his own discretion and with no guidelines or limits to dismiss locally elected officials and boards and impose his own "emergency manager" who is under no obligation to follow the will of the people as expressed in elections) represents much more the imposition of a "central planner" and it's being done by the far right and in the interests of bankers and corporations, not being done by the far left in the interests of workers and consumers.

You write, "A gallon of milk would include a complex tracking system" as if that's somehow not occurring already under capitalism. Given the advent of digital technologies, all that information is already being collected and used.

I'd argue that the reduction of everything to exchange value represented by the artificially created value "money" is closer to a "barter system" than what I'm proposing where things have use value rather than exchange value. Your sentence on the subject reads "Since I think maximization of resources through technology through entrepreneurial effort is a good thing the barter system which is the logical extension of what you have embraced is not for me." I'd just point out that this is an example of your inflexibilty on the subject--the same state of mind you think is somehow negative when you ascribe it to me. I've NEVER advocated Soviet style communism; as someone who visited that nation and saw it at first hand, I don't want to live that way. As someone who has also visited and seen at first hand countries like Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Canada, etc., I know Socialism works there and I do want to live that way. I'm not opposed to "the market" deciding where goods go; I just want markets to work for people and not the other way around and I want to remove basic human necessities (food, medicine, education, shelter, warmth) from the control of the "invisible hand" and have those things be guaranteed as basic human rights.

you have changed your initial proposition from the labor theory of value to utilitarianism. That alone trumps your original position as capitalism is based on the valuation of everything by by two qualities its scarcity (diamonds) and its utility including labor. Simply put the engineer who designed the car only did it one time. The guy putting on doors does it 5 times an hour(made up number) the engineer is paid more for his services due to the utility of it and the scarcity of his skills.A large population of the labor pool could be taught using OJT to put the door on so however a large investment must be made to create an engineer. On both counts the engineer is worth more under capitalism due to the scaricity of the skill and the utility of them. Under the system you opined about they would be worth the same. capitalism works just as the pencil video I posted. Human behavior in the market place is what distribute everything from labor to water using the price system which include utility. Now suppose you are 18 and about to graduate from High school . You have the option of going to medical school, engineering school,or straight to work as work as a life guard at the beach . the first two mean long hours of studying attending classes etc.Medical school carries with it a 24 7 work schedule the engineer is faced with deadlines etc. Assume the student is a good looking fit male. Since looking into the future after university etc he will be making the same as he can get starting tomorrow as a life guard what choice do you think that most would make. Going further same person looks at several jobs. One is restroom cleaning, one garbage collection one ditch digging, and one is a hotel desk clerk. As soon as you are hired you will dilute the ownership of the people now working so prices will have to be raised to accommodate your wage or the others will have to take a smaller cut as their ownership interest has been lowered. With these choices before you no one would choose to be a ditch digger so ditches would go un-dug. But if ditches have to be dug an no one wants that job because it is hard dirty sweaty and outside the only way to provide that labor is a system of assigning the job to someone who realty doesn't want to do it. which means coercion from some entity. This would not make the average person happy since they are no longer able to choose the path they want to take. The price system allocates the labor mentioned fairly and without coercion. If the man who owned the ditch digging company can't attract ditch diggers he has only two choices Go out of business or pay enough over say a convenience store to attract labor from a relatively easy job to a hard one. Here C-stores pay minimum wage bob cat operators ( the equivalent of a ditch digger) makes around $20 and hour. . Regarding your comment on my milk example"isn't that what we do now. NO most of the production does not contain labor. it is processed by machines which have no labor content except that which went into making the machine, which when purchased reward all the labor that went into it.Mile and for that matter all commodities are priced at a point that will sell all the milk on the shelf And cover the cost of production. If the price demanded by the buying public is lower than the cost of production then all cows become hamburger. Also their would be no incentive to buy more cows and put them into production as you are already selling all you produce with out the guarantee that if you produce more it will be purchased which will requiring lowering the price. Since that involves high risk the cooperative would have to vote to see if they are willing to jeopardize what they have in order to just hire more people since everybody in the country is paid the same for an hour of labor. And of course risk is the hidden element that brings the owner to seek profit. Without profit no one would accept the risk not even a collective. HY-VEEE grocery stores is employee owned but is run for profit. The reason is that profits increase the value of the stock share owned by the employees. Floor sweepers want profits as much as the President and by the way they do not make the same.

Since no collective in its right mind would accept risk then the only way growth can take place is under central planning which takes money from the various population members taking the same amount form each person and then see to it that needed but unglamorous industries get expanded or for that matter created. Think about your co op. Suppose 500 people want to move there in a subdivision next door to you. Those apartment need cable. the existing owners will have to pay a special assessments to upgrade to the new level. Since there is no profit motive the developer won't do it as there is nothing in it for him. I am worn out now and will deal with your other issues to be polite since you asked me to even though it will be fruitless on my part. I did not proof read so there are probably many errors which you can point out if it pleases you.

thoughtfulc: you present a lot of stuff here, but you don't answer my questions. Where in the model I propose is this "central planner" who will do such a terrible job at allocating resources? I reject your notion that the profit motive is the only reason people do things. And I don't wans a "growth" economy. At every turn these days we see the ugly limits of growth. I want a sustainable economy. And I really wish you'd stop saying things like "it will be fruitless on my part"; you aren't willing (it seems to me) to change YOUR mind based on your experiences, yet I'm somehow being bad or something by exhibiting the same behavior.

I don't know when I called you a bad a a person I studied the system you have outlined and it is something I have seen so many times it is like going to McDonald's. That is twice You have accused me of doing what I did not do. For that reason i will gladly trade jazz, folk or classic rock links, critique movies with you etc from this point on but not economics.. I am sure you will understand.

I'm happy to talk jazz or classical or rock with you and I used to teach university seminars on Chaplin, Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Truffaut, Kubrick, silent film comedy, and screwball comedy! When you repeatedly write "even though it will be fruitless on my part" and such, you imply a negative unwillingness to change my mind on my part when I've never seen any willingness to change your mind on your part either.

There is a difference between preference and acknowledgement of science. Anyone is welcome to their preference far be it from me to argue with anyone preference. I live in a rural bible belt area where creationism is a vital and accepted fact. I don't share that belief but I don't engage those that have it in debate.You are right that I show no inclination to change because I would have to ignore the math that tells me what I take to be truth. I would suggest that if your preference were extrapolated to an entire economic system it would be the classic example of the "fallacy of composition" which does not detract from your successfully following your ideas in your own life. Here is a peace offering.

http://youtu.be/z1LY3MeaTgE

There's no need for a peace offering as I don't perceive us to be at war. I'd like to give "real" socialism a try; in countries where versions of it have been employed (Sweden, Canada, New Zealand, etc.) the economy has worked just fine. I'm afraid the "boom and bust" cycle is inherent in capitalism (and I just dislike a system that not only depends upon selfishness, but rewards it).

So, what's your favorite movie? Mine's Chaplin's City Lights.

motropolis

you should have known. By the way the name for boom and bust is the "business Cycle"

They say that this country was founded on capitalism, but it is not true. The revolt was because of capitalist endeavors of royals. I have issues with strictly capitalist "free market" that some people believe is our government. True, there are interests and that pesky "regulate commerce" power of congress has so many folks confused and in denial. We must regulate commerce, or there will be plutocracy and the whole Preamble to Constitution would seem to be tossed aside.

We are taking fighting government's purpose lately, to assure the corporations and wealthy are protected, but leaving everyone else out of the equation. I am for the Preamble, which encapsulated the purpose of our Constitution is to

"form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Our Constitution is not to ensure that wealthy are given tax breaks or the wars are fought for bringing profit, like ENGLAND went about colonizing and striking deals with inhabitants of colonies to bring profit.

The people are led astray in many of the beliefs or what they are told about capitalism being pure on its own. I am not opposed to the pursuit of happiness being accumulating wealth, I am opposed to keeping the wealth away from "those People" that are deemed unworthy or outsiders that provide the labor to help accumulate wealth.

I know about the Business Cycle, thanks. It's because I know about it that I want a different economic system.

I gave a seminar paper on Metropolis at a conference in Toronto maybe twenty-five years ago. It's a great film

Than kill Peter and blame Obama!

... and firing Paul so he can steal his retirement pension.

Kutlas. That should be a bumper sticker but start with the Republican Party are Robbing Peter to pay Paul !!!! ! They are hell bent on running this nation into the ground by starving the poor! The rest of the world will say we have become a country that can not be trusted. If we turn our backs on the poor we have lost our moral compass!!!

Pam, Their idea of government is an Oligarchy. A government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

The rest of us don't matter.

It is un-American. It is immoral and it must not stand.

OBAMA 2012!

India, from your mouth to the voters ears. Great post.

Thanks, Valerie, how nice to see you! How are you?

Doing great. My hubby and I are leaving a week from Sat. for a two week vacation in a condo right on the beach in sunny Florida. Two weeks after we get home, our grandchildren fly up for a two week visit. Pretty busy summer ahead.

Valerie, Good for you. Say hello to my old beach stomping grounds in FL. Had I not left, I'd have turned into a beach BUM! I really miss our trips to Sanibel Island. I collected shells from there and made all kinds of things.

Have a great time.

I have been going to Florida for 24 years now. I started traveling there when I became the legal guardian for 3 of my family members. I averaged about 5 trips a year for 20 years. I always stayed in Indian Rocks Beach, about 20 miles south of Tampa. The last member died 5 years ago, but I loved the area so much that my husband and I still go down once a year for a relaxing vacation.

Hi Pam

Here are bumper stickers I saw recently all on one car... obviously a progressive. I love them all.

They only call it CLASS WARFARE when we fight back.

When free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost. ~Ronnie Raygun

Wall Street is like a crime scene ~ without the yellow tape.

I work and pay taxes so wealthy people don't have to.

The soul of our nation is tied to how well we treat our most vulnerable members.

America's healthcare system is neither healthy, caring, nor a system. ~Walter Cronkite

Obama is not a foreign-born socialist giving away free healthcare. That would be Jesus.

@Dscully,

Saw a lot of anti-Obama stickers myself.

My favorite was one that had a picture of Obama that said, "Does this ass make my truck look big?".

Also saw a lot of "Impeach Obama" stickers.

At least the car you saw was only one voter.

I have never heard such insane remarks as I've read here. Don't you on the other side ( Dems ) even listen to another information outlet? You have been brainwashed is what I'm guessing, by the liberal media who bought into this president that we now have. One would think you'd be smart enough to see what our country has become, and has lost! Obama is such a loser, he could'nt , or would'nt pass a budget for the entire time he's been in office. Let me remind you, he had two years of democrat control in all branches of the system. What did he do? Nothing! He's a loser, and surrounds himself with people so far out of touch with reality, that they don't see the train about to hit them. I'm sadened by the knowledge of the left, as they are so into themselves than this country! WAKE UP!

Amazing how we process information. All I have to know is who supports Romney (the 1% and those who listen to Fox news) and who supports Obama (the rest of us). Also who has benefitted from the Republican policies and who has fallen behind. As they say, follow the money. You say Obama had the control in all branches, not quite with the filibuster used more times than ever before. The word is obstructionism. Whenever the left would try to compromise and move right, the right moved farther right. When the left would accept policies of the right, the right would vote against them. It seems you are projecting when many on the left feel that it is the right that are selfish and uncaring, shown by their policies toward the less fortunate and middle class. We are not asleep, and sadly, a battle will be fought. I only hope our side wins against the overwhelming odds of the millionaires, billionaires, and ignorant who side with them against their own self interest.

@flower lady

Exactly... I think Jeffy above is another delusional victim of the idiots on the Fox propaganda network, or maybe just another brain-dead Dittohead.

He seems to think that President Obama was only elected by the liberal media.... instead of a huge majority of the country.

@DScully,

I think it's kinda funny. I think it's kinda sad. The people who don't think like you are always blamed on Fox News. Must be nice to have a convenient scapegoat.

Wow!! Did you actually write "a huge majority of the country"? Get ready for 2012!! The will be another referendum on Obama, just like 2010.

Is their blood?

red? <s>

It may be cold like a reptile? The reptilian brain does not have the capacity for morality.

Hi, Cynical and xxx!

CC & xxx: Bingo!!!

HI Kathe/Joy Its somewhat enjoyable,yet its deadly serious! WE MUST WIN!

So, Joy...

Your frog's name Jeremiah?

David you jumped on that one! Hee Hee

David,

Yes, Sir!!!

All you need is a good size bomb or an earthquake to take care of that.

Is that what their having after their victory? You must be the cook. Or, are you a waiter?

Hi Pam,

Once again you have succinctly stated the facts.

Thank you,

Joy

Pam, it's not all Republicans, but it is all of the Republican politicians.

Indeed but some lead and the others fall in line, Grover must have one hell of a black book!

Joy, Valerie And XXX OOO, Thanks Joy, VALERIE I agree even Republicans are starting to open there eyes. Just hope they stay that way. They will be shape shifters now and try to change there image to pull people into a trap baited with deceit! MR.XO, It is funny how the Re pub politicians follow each other like sheep. Agree with the black book and if they disobey him and have coherent thought of there own he will strike a line through there name and send them to hell ! How can men and women Politicians be such stupid fools?

Pam 52, talk about sheep being led. Get a grip! You dems follow Obama like the rats for cheese. But, guess what? This country is out of cheese. Buy your own, and stop killing my grandkids future!

Jeff, maybe you are the one who needs to take off the blinders. Most of the seniors my age have paid into medicare and social security for over 40 years. There was no such thing as a 401K plan and many of us never had a pension plan. So, we counted on these benefits. Social Security and medicare would have been just fine, but Republicans kept borrowing from these funds to pay for programs that benefited them and NEVER paid one dime of the "loan" back. I want these programs there for my grandchildren, but I am not so stupid to think that these programs will give them enough to live on. However, my grandchildren are 14 and 12 years old. They know that they will have to pay into a 401K plan, make sound investments to help them in retirement years. Something my husband and I were not offered. So get off your high horse, stop answering people you don't agree with in rude comments and put downs. Being nasty will not get people to even listen to you, much less give your opinions some thought.

@Pam

How can one party be so heartless ?

Look at who their leaders are and who they take their directions from. They take their marching orders from Cheney and Limpbrain. One has no heart, the other has no soul.... thus the party has lost it's moral compass.

Hi, OR!! Long time no see.

Corporations end up in receipt of our tax dollars and their only constituency are their shareholders.

"Representatives", like Ryan, are the puppets and enablers for the corporate greed.

Its not inborn its learned, If you don't follow you conscience it will leave.

If you're in the GOP leadership, you fall asleep counting your money.... that's all that matters to them.

How can Romney sleep at night knowing he made his money firing people and shipping jobs overseas? See what I mean?

Does Romney think everyone should have guaranteed "no-cut" contracts with their employers?

Or just himself?

Romney to Bain: Bail Me Out and Lie About It

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/romney-to-bain-bail-me-out_b_1454064.html?ref=business

May people recognize Willard for the liar he is. The "small" business that Willard touts he "started" was Bain Capital financed by Bill Bain. Bill Bain said there was no risk to Romney. It's in the book "The Real Romney".

Kathe/Tacoma, How true, Bill Bain started Bain Capital and gave Mitt a sweetheart deal! Thank heaven for Ed's show, he uses FACTS to show them up for the liars they all are. I can't wait for the Obama/Romney debate. Willard will be exposed as the sociopath he is.

He will do or say or twist ANYTHING to become president. His remarks are so depressingly negative as well as untrue. One sees the hand of Karl Rove in there all the time.

I refuse to go back to the robber baron age. Let's move forward with Obama! Obama is cool, reasonable, very intelligent, moral, and truthful. In my opinion, anyone else taking over after the mess Bush made would not have done one tenth as well.

If it had been McCain/Palin....sorry, I can't even GO there. I'll have nightmares tonight!

Kathe: Will the REAL Mitt Romney please stand up!

Most people have a Angel on one shoulder and Devil on the other, Mitt has Two Devils!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/

MONEY POWER & WALL STREET! PBS MUST WATCH!

xxx ooo, Romney has two Dollar signs on the shoulders, that's all he cares about!

If Mitt were Prez I think he would have made a big statue of himself! But my grandpa had one already made, it was in the bottom of the outhouse!

xxx

I watched part 1 and 2 three and four are comining. This is the best exdplanition of the crash i have seen to date. i urge ll here to watch both parts. It even names the woman that invented CDO's. She was 28 .

Never heard such un informed BS. Please check your facts!

Hey tc

Have you gotten a magnet bracelet yet, for your knees? I've been wondering how you are doing.

I could not find one locally so i ordered one on line but not here yet > I am really anxious Somebody I think India said she got one and it worked so i am hopeful thanks a million for telling me about it. I'm about the end of my rope with pain. I found a roll on at Walgreens that helps but is ungodly expensive about ten bucks a day. Thanks for asking. I have been following your posts on the LDS church I think I mentioned i had a good friend that was in the Church and he and his famliy were really giving people . He helped a lot of locals who were in trouble out of his pocket. I am afraid your side is going to try to make the LDS look like a cult and and make him look like he is a member of a cult. I hope they don.t but what little i am picking up I believe that is going to be a liberal attack point.

jeff

you evidently have no training in either economics or history the PBS program is accurate in every way. I always check MY facts where is your rebuttal to the program? Wall street created a maze of risk avoidance derivatives that had leverage rates of up to 40 to 1 . Anybody with a first year education in business know that is asking for bankruptcy. 10 to 1 is pushing it. Haw long do you think you would last in Vegas betting on a ten to 1 table. even the roulette wheel is only 3o to one.

TC

You couldn't find a magnetic bracelet at Wally world... they usually have a display of them near or in the jewelry dept? I have gotten most of mine there.. and for a very reasonable price. I think that is where India found hers also, and yes... she said it did help her. I thought you mentioned that you have a Walmart local to you.

I didn't know that you have an LDS friend, but I'm glad to hear it. The people in the church are generally kind and generous and friendly, though very conservative in their thinking. But what do you mean about "MY SIDE" making the LDS look like a cult. Those who have primarily done that have been the Evangelical leaders like Pastor Jeffress, etc. which I expected. I have been surprised at some of the attempts here to attack Robme based on his religion or beliefs.

The only beliefs I feel should be eligible for attack are his political beliefs and economic policies. Those are the only things that will have an effect on the country if he wins or buys the White House, as is his plan. I'm not sure what exactly your attitude or opinion of him is... or whether you support him. I obviously don't, based strictly on his political beliefs, economic policies and complete out of touchedness with average citizens.

TC

I have a question about your avatar.... is he sitting on a commode? lol

I don't care what his faith is, but its not with human decency for sure!

Never thought of it that, but you are absolutely right.

Paul Ryan & all the GOP ..."I swear to rob from the poor & Give to the Rich!

@xxx ooo

Isn't that in Grover Norquist's pledge they all signed?

I think a lot are sorry the signed with Grover. I wish they had not i do not like pre detirmining any policy it restricts flexibility.

Agreed!

Stop his pension, put him on unemployment.

I agree with you Kathy. I too, am not represented by Paul Ryan. His town hall calls are a joke! I have been a victum of these bogus calls and I, being a Democrat, am screened from and not allow to weigh in on these town hall meetings. I sure hope he's gone when his term is up!

As I was writing this, We received another town hall call from Ryan--We just hung up! He's not willing to listen to his middle class constituents, then we're not willing to listen to him brag! He must really be worried about the backlash after today's speech--seems like he needs some consolation--poor baby!