The only proposal that has come up in the supercommittee has been the Repub proposal from TPer Pat Toomey who did include some "added revenues." Dems said "nowhere near enough," but are too big of cowards to present THEIR own plan because they know it will infuriate their entitlement constituency. No different than when they had control of both the House/Senate and were too scared to pass a budget.
The Dems show zero desire to get serious about the debt and deficit reduction and would rather have the automatic and severe cuts go into effect than make a tough vote politically. It's not Norquist's fault that the Dems lack any courage at all and want to keep ignoring reality. IF the 1.2 trillion in cuts take effect in a year as "promised," maybe they'll wake up because those cuts are draconian but seemingly necessary since Repubs are barely bending on taxes and Dems aren't bending at all on entitlements.
How about a vote on the Boyles/Simpson committee proposals or the Group of Six? Nope, way too scared to go there either because while both raise taxes, eliminate some deductions like mortgage interest(more revenue), they also cut entitlements by raising age qualifications and lowering COLA. EEEK!
Stop blaming others - and put the blame where it belongs- the apathy of the American citizens!! You have seen the crack in the decisions on both sides. Who is benefiting from this indecision? Look into it. Not me or mine. We're not part of the 1% protected class in this country. I'm old - but never understood that sacrifice was not needed when we went to war. I had difficulty understanding our President encouraging us to 'spend' to help the economy. But after all, he was the president - and he knows. Well, I know now that maybe somewhere down the line, we took a wrong turn. Soros and Norquist have won. . . .but we still have the vote. They will continue to win if we don't get out and vote. We need leaders who work for us, not Soros or Norquist. Forget the d--- labels!
The voter(and non-voter) is responsible for putting into power all of those who have contributed to the fiasco past and present and who are too timid to want to even address solving it because it might offend and dry-up their treasured campaign donations.
What a birthday present! I just laughed so dang hard! Cheers to you both! See you soon and Happy Thanksgiving. Great weekend with my chilrens :-)
No better way to spend a birthday than with your children. Glad it was great---don't eat too much turkey, would hate for you to lose that Adonis look.
Did he do something illegal with Freddie or Fannie? Did he steal something from Tiffany? Hawaii and Keynes?
Did you let bonkers/dollar/roundabout use your account?
Anyway, even with all of Newt's baggage he'll still mop the floor with the Obumbler in Chief. Avoidance would be Obumble's best option.
Please don't council avoidance. All electronic messages are weighed.
I am besides myself with the possibility of a Newt/Obama debate. It would be historic in a grand cataclysmic train wreck kind of way. Our grandchildren would talk of it fifty years from now.
Call Chris Matthews, I think my leg is tingling thinking about it.
This is breaking 'news' - or political attack!
CNN and others are including this in their 'specials' this morning.
Newt's consulting payola, and the failure of yet another huge government program/kickback scheme is nothing new.
We know it- but it's part of the political fodder this morning! ( just in case someone forgot). Check out his website - he's quite the politician, staying ahead of the slime.
...a free paycheck for politicians? Raul Emanuel was on one of their boards for a few months and attended 2-3 meetings total before leaving; his pay was something like $350,000. I'll have to find that article on this scumbag.
Ah, here it is (Google's a wonderful thing):
Emanuel was named to the board of Freddie Mac by former Democratic President Bill Clinton in 2000, where he served for 13 months, earning more than $320,000.
Apparently you aren't keeping up with the smart guys extensive bibliography.
Here is your answer for No 1 above... feel free to research the truth for yourself as well.
A. They should both go to jail, along all those that said these institutions were sound, safe and we had nothing at all to worry about. They are:
Maxine Waters, California
Carolyn B. Maloney, New York
Luis Gutierrez, Illinois
Nydia Velázquez, New York
Mel Watt, North Carolina
Gary Ackerman, New York
Brad Sherman, California
Gregory W. Meeks, New York
Michael Capuano, Massachusetts
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
William Clay, Jr., Missouri
Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Joe Baca, California
Stephen Lynch, Massachusetts
Brad Miller, North Carolina
David Scott, Georgia
Al Green, Texas
Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri
Gwen Moore, Wisconsin
Keith Ellison, Minnesota
Ed Perlmutter, Colorado
Joe Donnelly, Indiana
André Carson, Indiana
Jim Himes, Connecticut
Gary Peters, Michigan
John Carney, Delaware
B. Newt is a professional politician and has enriched himself at your expense. So, how is he different than all other professional politicians, political hacks, and DC leeches? You know just like the current bunch in charge.
C. Because he knew he was toast. You shouldn't play with aides when your married, unless you're actually IN the White House.
D. Not much
E. Reference the book
Naturally, you have no similar questions about the current upstanding individual occupying the White House? Oh, maybe I shouldn't use the word "occupy".
is how the moral right will handle the 'family' matters of Newt and Obama. Interesting indeed.
That's real simple: Gingrich has always been pro-life and Obama has always been pro-choice. One is also a Repub and the other a Dem. While the hard right social conservatives can tolerate flip-flopping from Repubs like Reagan and Bush 1 on the issue, they aren't going to vote for a pro-choice Dem like Obama.
The bigger issue is whether the fundies will ever get over Romney's Mormon beliefs. If they do, Obama is a one-term President. If they go all lukewarm because Romney isn't pure on the issue or gay rights for that matter, Obama probably can squeek by in next year's election since he's raising over a billion dollars for propaganda, including $38,0000 a plate dinners with Wall Street(no cameras or media allowed)movers and shakers after seemingly supporting the stinky hippies and whiny brats of the OWS movement.
Will the moral right ignore what they found disgusting when Newt married his lover after divorcing his sick (cancer) wife? Will they be able to tear down Obama's immediate successful family life by bringing up his father's relatives(who he hardly knew)? Will they be able to overcome the transparent 'anything' suggested by Obama, the 'right' is obligated to be against?
The under 50 crowd that reads more than Coulter, Cain, Hannity, etc., is beginning to re-evaluate what the extreme right conservatives are sharing as 'truth'. Gosh, they've thrown the kitchen sink at Obama - and still he stands. Amazing! They (conservative Republicans) are tearing down all of their candidates except Romney and Newt. Obama vs. Newt? Hmmmmm.
He has no chance in hell of getting the nomination, just like Bachmann, Perry, and Cain before him. Way too much baggage and part of the problem, not part of the solution. Romney has the Repub nomination locked-up by virtue of the fact that he's far better organized and financed than anyone else, though Perry still has cash to burn but it won't matter when he's about as stupid as Joe Biden.
It's Romney vs. Obama. Flip-flop Mitt vs. total hypocrite and unprincipled Obama and the roles are interchangeable depending on which way the wind blows. Obama can be Mr. Junior Senator and vote against raising the debt ceiling while railing on and on about how stupid deficit spending is and say later that raising taxes during a recession is "stupid," and Mitt can counter that with RomneyCare being great "for just the states" and going every which way on abortion, gay marriage and raising taxes. Wow, big change coming in 2012 when your two best candidates for the office are extremely pliable and care solely about politics/getting elected and nothing about principles.
Of the two bozos, I'd take Romney over Obama and the triumvirate of Obam/Reid/Pelosi any day, plus the next President is likely going to appoint two new SC justices as well as be in control of the ridiculously bad DOJ and other fed agencies that Obama has turned into ideological dead zones of common sense.
I understand your reasoning, but a junior senator does not have the true financial picture of our country, a President does - or should! I'm disgusted with the partisanship exhibited in our Congress while the citizens they are representing are suffering. IMHO, the biggest waste of taxpayer money is salaries for the current Congress!
They only care about that stuff if you are not a republican.
Got your facts wrong. His wife requested the divorce before she entered the hospital to have benign tumors removed--no cancer! She's still alive.
divorce papers for her to sign while she was in the hospital after surgery. She is still alive--she did not request the divorce--
If his opponents in the Republican Debates don't shower the 'scandals' of Newt on the airways - the Obama camp will -if Newt is the candidate; See below. That's politics.
. . .and some other fodder which will be thrown at us if Newt is the candidate:
From Newts daughter
"or years, I have thought about trying to correct the untrue accounts of this hospital visit. After all, I was at the hospital with them, and saw and heard what happened. But I have always hesitated, as it was a private family matter and my mother is a very private person. In addition, for the four people involved, it was one of a million interactions and was not considered a defining event by any of us.
My mother and I have both recently run into quite a few people who hold an inaccurate understanding of this hospital visit. Many think my mother is dead.
So, to correct the record, here is what happened: My mother, Jackie Battley Gingrich, is very much alive, and often spends time with my family. I am lucky to have such a “Miracle Mom,” as I titled her in a column this week.
As for my parents’ divorce, I can remember when they told me.
It was the spring of 1980.
I was 13 years old, and we were about to leave Fairfax, Va., and drive to Carrollton, Ga., for the summer. My parents told my sister and me that they were getting a divorce as our family of four sat around the kitchen table of our ranch home.
Soon afterward, my mom, sister and I got into our light-blue Chevrolet Impala and drove back to Carrollton.
Later that summer, Mom went to Emory University Hospital in Atlanta for surgery to remove a tumor. While she was there, Dad took my sister and me to see her.
It is this visit that has turned into the infamous hospital visit about which many untruths have been told. I won’t repeat them. You can look them up online if you are interested in untruths. But here’s what happened:
My mother and father were already in the process of getting a divorce, which she requested.
Dad took my sister and me to the hospital to see our mother.
She had undergone surgery the day before to remove a tumor.
The tumor was benign.
As with many divorces, it was hard and painful for all involved, but life continued.
Opinions of a loving daughter and her point of view is respected . It does not change the classless behavior of her father.IMHO
I'm thrilled to inform you that today cancer is not a death sentence . (You appeared to believe if the tumors are cancerous, it's curtains for the patient. I think everyone is correct - Newt will not be the 'one' to run against Obama. But it is interesting that the Republican candidates are giving the Obama supporters great debate issues/arguements. LOL
What? You mean you don't know? I thought Kevin had recruited you to be the lead Dog in the Blue Dog pack--and then when the pack gets a tad out of sorts, you can call in Dad to get things straightened out and get the pack back on the right road to the swamp! I think Kevin had to promise your Dad upgraded seats on his next four 767 flts with Delta!
Newt: Go get a job, but first take a bath. Is this statement made to those who are a part of the 9%+ unemployed in our country? Is this considered politically correct? Are the less than 50% citizens that vote encouraged by this statement? Are the other 50% disgusted with this statement? Even in this discussion, there is more agreement than disagreement. I do find it interesting that 'low income' citizens are criticized for not doing a better job of family planning in a fiscally responsible way - but organizations like Planned Parenthood are frowned upon - and sex education is still to be kept in th dark recesses of our educational offerings. Interesting, confusing, - but part of the democratic way - when we have strong leaders backed by strong involved citizenry. Does that describe either the donkeys or the elephants of 2011? The 'me' generation is alive and well in the states. We will be exposed to more enlightened discussion this week - a Republican debate. Wonderful!
Interesting, confusing, - but part of the democratic way - when we have strong leaders backed by strong involved citizenry. Does that describe either the donkeys or the elephants of 2011?
No it does not! And even though we are caught between two parties that care more about partisan politics than the electorate that elected them, we bash people that do not vote. I admit that I have considered staying home on election day myself. Are we not causing the continuation of this problem by continuing to play their game? Until we turn away from donkey's and elephants and choose some real independent leaders things will not change. But if you choose some one that is not a main stream, media approved, politician you are told that you wasted your vote. And you did because most of the sheeple will follow the media's lead and avoid anyone that does not have the GOP, Dem, media stamp of approval. No real change will come no matter who we elect. I submit that we the American voters are getting what we deserve. Or at least what we will allow.
Remember when the GOP claimed to be the party of "Family Values" and that "character" was the most important qualification for leadership?
Yes let us take our country back to the good old days.
But that was before GOP officials messed with young boys and women other than their wives.
Now two of the leading GOP candidates for President have--shall we say family value problems? Newt is now married to his third wife who had been his mistress for six years before he divorced wife #2. And in addition to the sexual harassment charges, another woman has come forward to say that she and Herman Cain had an extra-martial affair for 13 years!!!
Now I have nothing against sex but I find all these phony attempts to justify or overlook Cain and Newt's behavior as disgusting.
The GOP today has few ethical standards. Its only goal is to defeat President Obama no matter how repulsive the GOP candidate may be.
I had the opportunity to talk to some of the Occupy Wall Street participants this week-end. What a diverse group of citizens! I'm amazed with all of the lack of 'family values', integrity, honesty, etc., etc., etc. - that more citizens don't feel like G35 Dude - just too tired to vote. Question: There is a political ad featuring a Republican from the previous presidential election (Huckabee?) who is asking for signatures and contributions from 1 or 2 million citizens to repeal Obamacare. How can this country that is composed of millions and millions of people be overpowered by the signatures of a couple of million people? VOTE!
Poll after poll for over two years shows the majority wants Obamacare repealed, so I don't think it's an issue of a couple million signatures. It's a political fund raising campaign for Repubs because they know have an issue that people feel strongly enough about to perhaps dig into their wallets and contribute to Repubs.
If you want to talk about people being "overpowered," look at how polls show consistently a majority favors raising taxes on the "super wealthy" and that hasn't happened yet. Or, how a large majority in the US strongly supports anti-immigration efforts in Arizona, Georgia, Utah, Alabama, and nothing is done on that issue at the federal level either.
The problem is you can't run government based on current polls and it's very difficult to determine what the "will" of the people happens to be this week or this year, mainly due to the "people" not having much of a clue or interest themselves. That's the beauty of having a republic and not direct democracy.
The problem is you can't run government based on current polls and it's very difficult to determine what the "will" of the people happens to be this week or this year, mainly due to the "people" not having much of a clue or interest themselves. That's the beauty of having a republic and not direct democracy
The thought of losing our direct democracy because of disinterest and / or ignorance is frightening to one who just earned the right to vote in this state 47 years ago. How old is this country? I realize that those who have always been 'entitled' to vote may be too tired - but come on! We have men and women who have sacrificed their lives for our form of direct democracy. I think I'll start a campaign ad that states it is disrespectful to the memory of our veterans and those who paid the ultimate sacrifice to not participate in the voting process.
Yes, voting is good but sadly, many do not vote based on their knowledge of issues & informed opinions. Many are not able to even tell you who current office-holders are. I'm not sure those are folks we want influencing our future. Maybe there should be a test of sorts when one registers to vote--like the test one must take before becoming a naturalized citizen.
We live in a constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.
Let me guess - you attended government schools.
Yes Grizz you are correct. Our leaders lead us to think that we live in a democracy but we do not. A true democracy was what they had in Roman times. Everyone went to the coliseum and voted on any and every law. That won't work here so we live in a constitutional Republic. We elect leaders to make decisions for us. Now comes the second question. Do we elect our leaders to go to Washington because they will represent our wishes? Or do we elect our leaders because we think they are the smartest of the lot and trust them to make whatever decisions they see fit? And if these leaders and this system have been found to be corrupt why should we feel obligated to continue participating in it or be found unpatriotic?
I have not met one person who has been polled regarding Obamacare!
OK now you have. I was polled in a phone poll and stated that I'd repeal it. I think anything that had to be pushed through congress so fast has to be filled with flaws. And I think that any senator or congressman that passes any bill without reading it should be not only impeached but also jailed.
It's always important to use correct nomenclature. Grizz your need to sarcastically belittle only exposes your own insecurity.
I was completely serious. Only a complete moron educated in government run schools would be stupid enough to think that we live in a democracy.
No sarcasm on my part either. IMO you are a representative of what so many persons consider 'The Ugly, Arrogant, Self-Centered, Undereducated/Over-rated, citizen of these United States. Now you will retaliate by calling me names which will be a waste of your time and energy since I will no longer waste my time reading your contributions to this blog. LOL ! Nite!
I know a great number of people - and a member of many large organizations and small groups. I have not met one
person who has been polled regarding Obamacare! I agree, polls don't tell the story of the opinions of our citizenry.
The Obamacare repeal poll is only conservatives speaking. Americans have said it likes parts of the bill but not the whole thing. Most Americans agree that senior citizens need healthcare even if they have a pre-existing condition. The New Healthcare plan paves the way for them to get coverage. Just fewer than 90% of Americans polled like the idea of providing coverage to over 6 million kids.
The key is what party you speak for. Repeal the bill per GOP or let’s make changes to it says the majority of Americans. Asking to make changes to it has been twisted by the Repub. to America wants it repealed.
Funny most of the Healthcare ideas came from Republicans. Even one of the GOP front runners (Mitt) passed a Health bill very similar to the new healthcare law. Only slight differences. It is because Obama was in office when this passed as to why the GOP wants it repealed. Some more of our tax money down the drain.
Our major issue in this country is this vote for the Party thing.
...but just off the top of my head, can you cite a case where before 2009 a sick child (and I mean REALLY sick, not just cold/flu) was turned away and not treated due to their parents lack of insurance? Many GOP'er DID support this act, just not all of it, and it was shoved down their throats by the (then) majority party of both houses of which MANY didn't even read it, or even part of all its (how many) thousands of its pages?! Now THAT's ignorance and irresponsibility in action!
Yes, the enaction was horrible. But there is no case I can cite where a child was not treated because the law requires them to be treated. However, the result is the squandering of billions of dollars because the care came from emergency room and urgent care facilities, the most expensive option.
Parts of Obamacare specifically targets this type of misuse of the emergency and urgent care facilities. Are you supporting the Obamacare approach or are you supporting the system we have now that unnecessarily routes these uninsured people into the emergency care systems?
You're right that lots of GOPers supported parts of the legislation. Repeal is not going anywhere in reality. It will take years to re-legislate and amend it and tune it but that's what they are going to do.
...as you proved my point exactly. The 'scare' statement that 6 MILLION KIDS W/O INSURANCE' is, in effect, false; they WILL be cared for, as you stated. I agree that the indigent abuse these emergency centers, since it's free, and I don't have an answer of how to stop the abuse. I have not read over 2000 pages of the Affordable Health Care Act; can you tell me how they've fixed this? Have they required private health care providers to see them for free? Are they creating social medical clinics that anyone can visit? Please, if you know, tell me, or refer me to that portion of the Act.
My daughter worked for a short time in a OB/GYN clinic, and she - mostly liberal in her views (she voted for OBAMA!) patently stated that the WORST and most DEMANDING 'customers' were those on public assistance. It was enough that my 23 yr. old may eventually turn to the right! The complete socialization of medical care in the US will NEVER happen, there are too many worldly examples of other system's failures (hmmm, didn't a Russian president get care here years back?). At the very least, the only providers will be new & foreign doctors, or old doctors who are just staying busy; maybe a few idealistic souls will pitch in, too. After 25 yrs. in the military, I saw care improve GREATLY (esp. after 9/11), but for most young Docs, it was a way to pay off massive loans and move on, with experience under their belts, to private practice. I imagine 'Public Service' medicine will attract the same. Point being, the care will be minimal at best. Like anything free, you'll get what you paid for.
I agree full repeal will not happen, but in the interim maybe our reps will actually READ the bill/Act before acting.
Just for review and clarification.
...Politicos, politicians; that's all. I think it's common usage in journalism these days; at least I think I've seen it in use!!
Thanks for the clarification! I learned something!