Hello:

We're pretty divided, both politically and geographically. I don't think we've been THIS divided since before the civil war. Do you think we can make it as a nation?

excon

In his speech where he left office George Washington warned the nation that it faced many problems and dangers.

1. division between North, South, East and West.
2. division and use of two parties which would fight for power
3. allowing the checks and balances of the three party system to fail
4. getting national debt, wanted debt paid every year except if in war
5. not keeping religion and a national morality that was needed to keep people desire good
6. making changes to Constitution and passing laws that agree with the changes of moral and society values. Only change if the need for protection of the Union.


Everything he warned about has happened. According to his follow up, the Republic can not make it, unless these issues are corrected.

Hello Padre:

So, how do we correct them?

excon

Fr Chuck ;now don't you know that quoting the founders makes you an 18th Century Troglodyte ? That you are only quoting the "opinions " of dead white slave owners ?

Well that is very true of Washington. You lost you way long ago, the way back is very hard and you may not have the stomach for it, you only have to look at the greeks to see the possibilities. Washington left out a possibility, when the nation is run by corporations and faceless men

Is that the problem with Greece ? I thought it was unfunded entitlements .

Depends, do you want to help people move up or make them more secure in their poverty?

Depends, do you want to help people move up or make them more secure in their poverty?
We can start by filling those millions of jobs out there that are open.

We can start by filling those millions of jobs out there that are open.

OK, hard to get someone to work at McDonald's when they can make more on the government dole.

Hello again,

So, NO answers? Just more complaints, huh? Figured.

excon

For my 2 cents ;we are NOT more divided than the civil war or the founding . The geographic divide is only if you look at electoral college states . When you break them down to electoral districts you see a clearer patchwork. Also the issues we debate are the same ones debated since the founding . We don't have our leaders dueling with pistols or caning each other as once happened in the halls of Congress.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/graphic/large/CaningSumner.jpg

Hello again,

So, NO answers?? Just more complaints, huh? Figured.

excon

I gave you a clue but hey, you want answers? Stop intentionally dividing the country by class, race, gender...

Stop intentionally dividing the country by class, race, gender...
Did you look at the faces of the Republican convention attendees and then compare them to the faces of the Democratic convention attendees? If so, did you notice anything?

Who's dividing the country by class, race, and gender?

Hello again, Steve:


I gave you a clue but hey, you want answers? Stop intentionally dividing the country by class, race, gender... I could have said that YOU should toe MY line too... But, that's NOT an answer. It's more of the same.

So, you got NOTHING?? Figured.

Excon

Did you look at the faces of the Republican convention attendees and then compare them to the faces of the Democratic convention attendees? If so, did you notice anything?

Who's dividing the country by class, race, and gender?

Hmm, maybe that's because the left spends vast amounts of time and effort telling blacks we gon' put 'em back in chains. I mean really Carol, duh.

Hello again, Steve:

I coulda said that YOU should toe MY line too... But, that's NOT an answer. It's more of the same.

So, you got NOTHING??? Figured.

excon

Yeah it is an answer. Amazing you can't figure out that after all that time telling us we're greedy, racist, homophobic, sexist neanderthals why the country might be divided?

I'll guess I will put my two cents worth in as well.

If there is a division problem then you would probably need to change your ethos.

Dictionary.com gives a number of definitions of ethos [ee-thos]

1. Sociology, the fundamental character or spirit of a culture; the underlying sentiment that informs the beliefs, customs and practices of a group or society; dominant assumptions of a people or a period.

In the Greek ethos the individual was highly valued.

In your society the individual is also highly valued. While this is a very good thing it also has a down side. Informed self-interest is not a good starting point for any type of unification process.

When founded in the late 18th century Australia's found themselves (for the greater part of our history) to be strangers in a strange land. The environment was very harsh and unfriendly. To be a self-serving individual was not a good recipe for success in the early history of our country. We always believed that you need rely on your mates. So in a way it was a collectivist ethos that shaped our nation.

Tut

Hello again, Steve:


Amazing you can't figure out that after all that time telling us we're greedy, racist, homophobic, sexist neanderthals why the country might be divided?It's amazing to ME that you're UNABLE to figure out what I'm asking.. I know WHY we're divided.

If you want to participate in the SOLUTION you're invited.. If you just want to cast your usual right wing aspersions, take it somewhere else. I AIN'T interested in it.

Do you remember that jerkoff named Mourdock you tried to foist upon us... When he was asked about compromise, he said his idea of compromise was the left wing coming over to HIS side. That was most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, and that's why HE lost.. You sound JUST like him. The problem will NOT be solved by me becoming a rabid right winger. For you to THINK it would is BONKERS..

Look. It's clear. You have NO solutions..

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

It's amazing to ME that you're UNABLE to figure out what I'm asking.. I know WHY we're divided.

If you know why and have the solution why aren't you telling us?


Do you remember that jerkoff named Mourdock you tried to foist upon us... When he was asked about compromise, he said his idea of compromise was the left wing coming over to HIS side.

LOL, I always have to laugh when a lib talks about compromise.


That was most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, and that's why HE lost.. You sound JUST like him. The problem will NOT be solved by me becoming a rabid right winger. For you to THINK it would is BONKERS..

I don't quite follow how telling you that calling us greedy, racist, homophobic, sexist neanderthals is divisive means I'm unwilling to compromise, but I'm sure you'll tell me. I've never asked you to be anything but yourself, but I get that the words you put in mouth mean much more to you than reality.


Look. It's clear. You have NO solutions..

Just waiting for your solution. You libs are always great a telling us how we really should be... but you aren't very good with sarcasm and irony.

Ex thinks the solution is to bring back the birch

Hello again,

So, NO answers?? Just more complaints, huh? Figured.

excon

First off the only way we are going to save anything is to start with the basics.

1) Find something - anything that can be agreed on and start there.

2) Stop spending so much money.

3) Actually form a budget that takes in more then it spends.

I know Im dreaming but this country is in the worst shape it has been in during my lifetime.

So you think the solution relies on politicians being responsible and being signed on to the big picture, good luck with that

Hello dad:

You get it. I don't disagree with anything you said.

excon

I think the nation will continue but I think the pendulum has swung very far to the left and there will need to be an adjustment. We have already lost one of the pillars of democracy which is a balanced, free press. It was not balanced in our early founding years - it was riddled with lies and propaganda. Hopefully we will see the wisdom of demanding more of our media as happened a century and a half ago, and raise the bar again.

Hopefully we will also see the folly of overlooking the balance of powers. Our current president, whether you support him or not, has flouted the boundaries of his role. Bush steamrolled over the Geneva Conventions, Obama continued it. So - we will need to put each branch of our government back in their own role. Obama is the most politically divisive President in my lifetime. Whether his policies are good, this divisiveness is a hazard.

I think the greatest danger to our government is when we fall in love with our leadership and idolize any members thereof. This is a hallmark of every repressive government in history - always starts that way. The love for Obama is really strange. I see that people will support their candidate, but the level of infatuation is a new thing in the modern American era and is dangerous.

And Fr. Is right - when we eliminate all sense of faith and morals from our nation, we loose the point. The idea in founding of our nation was to permit everyone to openly practice their religion without fear of reprisals. Many misunderstand this foundation and think that our government and nation must be atheistic. The growing intolerance for Christianity in particular is very concerning. It is one of many signs that we are turning on our history and ourselves.

We need tolerance combined with a common ethic and we are throwing away the ethic, and tolerating only those on the edges of society.

Hello don't:

Yeah, yeah, yeah.. I've heard that right wing claptrap before. That isn't what this post is about. I COULD complain about the right wing, like you and Steve do about the left, but that ISN'T what this post is about.

I'm looking for SOLUTIONS, if there are any. I KNOW what the complaints are.

excon

The solution ex is consensus, each side compromising until agreement is reached and then abiding by the result

Hello clete:

That's it? All we have to do is agree? Well, shut my mouth. How come I didn't think of that?

excon

Wa'll ex tis cause you ain't aducated in group thunkin, y'all want it your ainway or the highway. When's the last time you called the nation together to tell the Prassidant what he ought to do? No, you let him tell you what you ought to do and it don't come out right.

You see you got it all backwards, the executive is about getting things done, the legislature is about deciding what should be done, and the courts, well, they is just along for the ride

Many misunderstand this foundation and think that our government and nation must be atheistic. The growing intolerance for Christianity in particular is very concerning. It is one of many signs that we are turning on our history and ourselves.

We need tolerance combined with a common ethic and we are throwing away the ethic, and tolerating only those on the edges of society.

It has happened before and we have the example in Nazi Germany of one possible outcome, in that case those on the edges of society were the victims. It is the inevitiable outcome that they must find a scapegoat and usually it is the one who says we don't like your agenda. The Christains have always said no to abortion and homosexuality, so now they are targets of scorn in a society in which anything goes

Hello clete:

That's it? All we have to do is agree?? Well, shut my mouth. How come I didn't think of that??

excon


The reason you didn't think of it is probably because you realized that it isn't the solution to the problem.

Unfortunately the ability to compromise may have nothing to do with healing divisions. It depends on the disagreement, but most political compromises come out of necessity. The divisions still remain as large as ever. As I said in an earlier post, most divisions run a lot deeper than politics... it seems no one was interested in that avenue.

Tut

Come on Tut they don't know that, you give them too much credit, they haven't though about compromise

Yes we have... our history is full of examples of compromise . The current impasses will be solved the same way.

H'mmmmm!

Here's the great divide according to a new Gallup poll. 27% of Republicans/leaners have a negative image of the federal government, while 75% of Democratsa/leaners have a positive image of federal government. 53% of Dems also have a positive view of socialism.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/pjbs9zsry02mwy71vegriw.gif

Not quite sure how 88% of Dems can reconcile having a positive view of free enterprise and 84% of entrepreneurs based on these numbers, but there you have it in a nutshell. Dems LOVE big government. Personally I think they just don't want to take responsibility for anything except how to spend my money.

Hello again, Steve:


Not quite sure how 88% of Dems can reconcile having a positive view of free enterprise and 84% of entrepreneurs based on these numbers,That's probably because Democrats UNDERSTAND what socialism IS and we don't demonize the word like you wingers do. You know that we have PLENTY of socialism built into our system, and it works FINE. You know, things like your police and fire departments, the military, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, your local ER for example.. Stuff like that...

And, because they LIKE stuff like that, doesn't mean AT ALL that they don't also like capitalism. They seem to work together pretty good.

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

That's probably because Democrats UNDERSTAND what socialism IS and we don't demonize the word like you wingers do. You know that we have PLENTY of socialism built into our system, and it works FINE. You know, things like your police and fire departments, the military, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, your local ER for example.. Stuff like that...

And, because they LIKE stuff like that, doesn't mean AT ALL that they don't also like capitalism. They seem to work together pretty good.

excon

Only 55% like capitalism. The larger point I put in bold letters, 75% LOVE big government while only 27% of Republicans have a positive view of the federal government. It's not any better understanding of anything it's a mindset, I want to take care of myself and my family and help out where I can - PERSONALLY.

You want government to take care of everyone via legalized theft and I think that's not only LAZY but HARMFUL to the very ones you think you're protecting. Not to mention the damage it does to the country and our freedoms.

And by the way, the military, police and fire are socialist, they are not part of the production and distribution segment of our economy. And when you guys get done with it the INSURANCE I paid for in SS and Medicare will be gone.

You want government to take care of everyone via legalized theft and I think that's not only LAZY but HARMFUL to the very ones you think you're protecting. Not to mention the damage it does to the country and our freedoms.
So you're against "police and fire departments, the military, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, your local ER for example"?

So you're against "police and fire departments, the military, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, your local ER for example"?

Did you not even bother to read my last answer?

Did you not even bother to read my last answer?
Yes, I even quoted it in my response.

Yes, I even quoted it in my response.

Well you obviously missed the point. Police, FD and military are not part of the production and distribution segment of our economy, i.e. it is not socialism to have police, fire departments and an army. They are government SERVICES, and in the case of police and fire and ERs they are LOCAL concerns. Many fire departments are VOLUNTEER, some actually charge for services.

SS and Medicare are insurance policies I'm paying for which big government is squandering. I would much rather have been able to decide where my money went towards my retirement.

Well you obviously missed the point. Police, FD and military are not part of the production and distribution segment of our economy, i.e. it is not socialism to have police, fire departments and an army. They are government SERVICES, and in the case of police and fire and ERs they are LOCAL concerns. Many fire departments are VOLUNTEER, some actually charge for services.
My taxes support them, plus my taxes support schools and libraries too.

SS and Medicare are insurance policies I'm paying for which big government is squandering. I would much rather have been able to decide where my money went towards my retirement.
I saved money for my retirement. I hope you are saving too.

My taxes support them, plus my taxes support schools and libraries too.

That doesn't make them part of a socialist economy.


I saved money for my retirement. I hope you are saving too.

So I should just kiss my SS and Medicare goodbye? I paid for it.

That doesn't make them part of a socialist economy.
If all of us pay into the pot for something, that's socialist.

So I should just kiss my SS and Medicare goodbye? I paid for it.
I get SS and Medicare AND have a nest egg that I have saved up over the years to dip into for all the things SS doesn't cover. You can do that too!

If all of us pay into the pot for something, that's socialist.
Socialism is any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

If all of us pay into the pot for something, that's socialist.

Wrong, it's a straw man argument. They are not part of the production and distribution of goods in our economy. The only thing I can even remotely recall our government producing is helium and privatization of that began in 1996 via the Helium Privatization Act of 1996.


I get SS and Medicare AND have a nest egg that I have saved up over the years to dip into for all the things SS doesn't cover. You can do that too!

That didn't answer my question.

Socialism is any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
I am the government.

I am the government.

This is silly.

Socialism is any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

So Tom socialism is not the provision of services by government?

so Tom socialism is not the provision of services by government?

Our government produces nothing but more dependents.

Our government produces nothing but more dependents.

Yes that will be true while you have a growing population and unemployment at high levels, but they cannot change unemployment without putting large numbers on the government payroll, changing unemployment will come when the private sector gains confidence and begins investing. You cannot give people incentives to become employed if there are no jobs, what you could do is give every new signon from the unemployment rolls a one year tax holiday giving them time to get set up again and reducing the wage burden on the employer who may not have to pay higher wages

Our government produces nothing but more dependents.

The economy produces dependants when its not working up to full potential. No good paying jobs, no spending, no economy. What you think that Walmart workers, and McDonalds can create enough demand for goods and services to spur a consumer driven economy? Hasn't worked yet, nor has the job creators helped either despite record profits, AND the Bush Tax cuts.

But you think its okay they get rich because charity needs their donations to take care of all those poor people they helped create by shipping good paying jobs to sweat shop and overseas slave labor.

Now you want to cut your own benefits because the government is lousy and we are broke?! You guys make excuses based on some weird stuff.

so Tom socialism is not the provision of services by government?

No that would be the nanny state .I have no problem with legitimate government services. The local governments can build golden calves for all I care so long as they stay within the law. The Federal government is rightly and intentionally restricted by the Constitution

No they only want to spend OPM not their own, heaven forbid they might actually get a tax increase. There are ways to fix all this, increase the standard deduction a little and do away with all deductions, no options as to whether you do actual or not, and allow a concession maybe for very large medical expenses. Manipulate the scales so the threshold where you actually pay tax is higher but no one actually pays more tax and introduce a new tax scale for those who earn ,say, more than $1M. Next take all those above a certain income off welfare, SS or any other benefit.

What does this do, it cuts waste by reducing the number and complexity of the tax returns. It cuts waste by not paying benefits to those who don't need it. It also means that the incidence of any increase falls on a small group with large incomes

Socialism is any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

The term, 'means of production' is pregnant with many possibilities, as is the term 'socialism' . The means of production of a modern society could include some of the things Wondergirl suggests. I think she mentioned such things as schools and the fire department.

As frustrating as it is Tom,some terms don't fit into neat boxes. Terms such as 'socialism' are next to useless when we try to give them a precise meaning when we try to exemplify particular occurrences.


Tut

No they only want to spend OPM not their own, heaven forbid they might actually get a tax increase. there are ways to fix all this, increase the standard deduction a little and do away with all deductions, no options as to whether you do actual or not, and allow a concession maybe for very large medical expenses. Manipulate the scales so the threshold where you actually pay tax is higher but noone actually pays more tax and introduce a new tax scale for those who earn ,say, more than $1M. Next take all those above a certain income off welfare, SS or any other benefit.

What does this do, it cuts waste by reducing the number and complexity of the tax returns. It cuts waste by not paying benefits to those who don't need it. It also means that the incidence of any increase falls on a small group with large incomes

Here is the problem I have with not giving SS to those that paid into it. It would be means testing. What your saying is that a person who bought something already loses the right to ownership of it just because they have done well. To me that is not right. It would be like having auto insurance that you have paid on for years and when you have an accident some decides you can afford to pay for it even though you have been paying into it for just such an occasion.

Wait until you see the great 401-K theft by the government .

wait til you see the great 401-K theft by the government .


Hi Tom,

What exactly is the 401-K? I'll assume it has something to do with socialism.

Tut

Here is the Obot's idea of coming together for a common purpose and finding common ground to averting the fiscal cliff .
Yesterday's bid was increase taxes on the high income earners ,to increase revenue by $1.6 trillion ; a massive stimulus INCREASE in spending ,and a unilateral blank check to eliminate the debt ceiling . (presented by Turbo-tax Tim to the Repubics on Capitol Hill)
I suppose they think that was a serious proposal .

Today instead of staying in DC to negotiate with Congressional leaders ,the President is off the Philly to do some more community organizing .

here is the Obot's idea of coming together for a common purpose and finding common ground to averting the fiscal cliff .
Yesterday's bid was increase taxes on the high income earners ,to increase revenue by $1.6 trillion ; a massive stimulus INCREASE in spending ,and a unilateral blank check to eliminate the debt ceiling . (presented by Turbo-tax Tim to the Repubics on Capitol Hill)
I suppose they think that was a serious proposal .

Today instead of staying in DC to negotiate with Congressional leaders ,the President is off the Philly to do some more community organizing .


OK then. But I'm still the none wiser.

Tut

Hi Tom,

What exactly is the 401-K? I'll assume it has something to do with socialism.

Tut

Quite the opposite . It is a pension plan funded by the participant ,sometimes with a matching contribution by an employer. The only govt participation is a deferral of taxes until the participant starts to withdraw funds. It is very popular and allows someone to plan and fund retirement and NOT rely on the minimal amts they will receive from the Social Security system. In many cases ,these accounts have replaced traditional pension plans.

The problem for the Dems is that they see all this untapped wealth and drool . They have been planning since at least 2006 for the government seizure of 401-K plans .They claim the money would be converted to some kind of government managed accounts that would pay a guaranteed minimal rate of return .

Quite the opposite . It is a pension plan funded by the participant ,sometimes with a matching contribution by an employer. The only govt participation is a deferral of taxes until the participant starts to withdraw funds. It is very popular and allows someone to plan and fund retirement and NOT rely on the minimal amts they will receive from the Social Security system. In many cases ,these accounts have replaced traditional pension plans.

The problem for the Dems is that they see all this untapped wealth and drool . They have been planning since at least 2006 for the government seizure of 401-K plans .They claim the money would be converted to some kind of government managed accounts that would pay a guaranteed minimal rate of return .


I see. Sounds a bit like the superannuation schemes we have in Australia. We have some type of co-super scheme whereby the Australian government matches your super saving on some type of dollar for dollar basis.

I would venture to say that there are similarities and differences between us and you in terms of government involvement. Anyway, our schemes are going quite well at the moment despite government involvement.

Tut

I think you are misleading them Tut, we have basically two schemes, the employer funded statutory scheme which is funded by offsets to salary increases with a current legislated12% contribution, each employee has a personal account and the private investment schemes consisting of personal contributions, the government co-payment is a very small part of that scheme, but contributions are concessionally taxed at 15%

I think you are misleading them Tut, we have basicly two schemes, the employer funded statutory scheme which is funded by offsets to salary increases with a current legislated12% contribution, each employee has a personal account and the private investment schemes consisting of personal contributions, the government co-payment is a very small part of that scheme, but contributions are concessionally taxed at 15%


Thanks for the clarification.

Venturing to say was a misadventure on my part.

Thanks again for the info. I'll have to talk to my accountant.

Tut

Thanks for the clarification.

Venturing to say was a misadventure on my part.

Thanks again for the info. I'll have to talk to my accountant.

Tut

Yes you should do that, the government fiddles around the edges with superannuation often making small changes to the rules

Whatever the plan is ;the seizure of private accounts is criminal .If they want to change the rules about the tax advantages fine . But I participate heavily so I can retire without having to rely on the government for my upkeep.
I'll assume all the risks of having my money in the private sector. I don't need the nanny state telling me I'm not competent enough to manage my own account.

I read something about this just yesterday.


Does Government Want To Drain Americans' 401(k) Plan? (http://news.investors.com/print/ibd-editorials/112812-634984-401k-on-the-table-for-fiscal-cliff.aspx)

Posted 11/28/2012 06:39 PM ET

War On Wealth: As Washington debates what to do about the fiscal cliff that it foolishly created, many potential sources of new revenue will be thrown on the table. One of them is likely to be 401(k) plans.

Retirement is an American's reasonable expectation. We put money into investment plans so that our work today funds our hard-earned leisure of tomorrow.

But many in Washington see our investment accounts not as the expressions of well-planned, disciplined decisions but as untapped reservoirs of wealth they can drain to fix the problems that they caused.

The tax protection that 401(k)s have now can be wiped out by grasping politicians who refuse to do what's right, which is to severely cut spending.

The war on retirement, particularly 401(k)s, is quiet now. But that's because it's a cold war.

And like the postwar tensions between the East and West, it could erupt at any time into a hot war.

One group of retirement plan professionals is warning that the hostilities might be closer than many of us think. The American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries launched on Monday, according to Reuters, "a media campaign intended to educate U.S. employers and workers that the federal government might consider changing the tax benefits of retirement savings accounts."

A website set up by the ASPPA advises account holders to tell lawmakers to "keep their hands off your retirement savings" and explains that "Congress needs to reduce the deficit, and part of deficit reduction will most likely be 'tax reform' that increases tax revenue" — the strong suggestion being that Washington is coming after Americans' 401(k)s.

If the ASPPA were alone in issuing its warnings, it could be written off as the hyperbole of an isolated group. But Washington's lust for Americans' retirement investments is well documented.

President Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, for instance, proposed lowering the cap on the amount workers could place in their 401(k)s without incurring taxes.

And nearly three years ago, Newt Gingrich and Peter Ferrara wrote on these pages about the Treasury and Labor departments "asking for public comment on 'the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams.'"

"In plain English," said Gingrich and Ferrara, "the idea is for the government to take your retirement savings in return for a promise to pay you some monthly benefit in your retirement years."

More than 60 million American workers have a 401(k) or similar — 403(b) or 457(b) — plan. But taxing these accounts or lowering the amount that can be contributed to them tax-free would do little to close the deficit and cut the debt.

Total assets in 401(k)s are roughly $3 trillion. So even if they were seized in their entirety, they would merely retire less than 19% of Washington's $16.3 trillion debt.

Taxed at 50%, 401(k)s would narrowly cover the $1.3 trillion deficit that Washington rang up in 2012.

Already a large chunk of America's retirement is held in the federal government's hands. Between 1937 and 2009, Social Security took in nearly $14 trillion in payroll tax revenue.

In all but 11 of those years, the government collected more than it spent on benefits.

Yet despite all the surpluses, the Social Security program is in financial trouble and Congress needs more revenue to fix it, just as it is looking for more of other people's money to avoid the fiscal cliff plunge.

Don't think for a minute that 401(k)s aren't on the table as a part of the solution.

And when they are served up in front of hungry politicians, they can be quickly devoured. All that will be left for the account holders will be a few crumbs.

Steal my money and promise to give some back? Yeah right.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" -Ronald Reagan

Hello again,

So, EVERYBODY has their sacred cow. One, two, three. Don't tax me. Tax that guy behind the tree.

I understand. You don't like that we owe, but you don't want to HELP pay for it.. That ain't right..

Look. I have the answer.. With my plan (or Romney's plan - I don't want to steal it), you can KEEP all your 401k money, we can fund the military's wish list forever, and our entitlements won't have to be touched...

Look. I'm a free market guy. But, when the free market DOESN'T self correct, then I have NO problem with the government stepping in. The health care industry has proven itself unable to STOP the runaway price increases. It's BANKRUPTING us. Food stamps aren't doing that. Unemployment isn't doing that. Unions aren't doing that. Run away health costs are.

Now, there's a fix. Romney said something about the Israeli's being able to spend 9% of GDP LESS on health care and get BETTER results... Hmmmm... Let me see. Can we do that? Aren't WE exceptional?

If I had to choose between a REAL takeover of the health care industry (the one YOU talk about is fake), or MASSIVE cuts to our military, to the safety net, and to YOUR 401k's, I'd go to where the money is.. There's enough money laying around over there to fix EVERYTHING... The only thing lacking is our WILL. Let's do it.

excon

How does the individual cost of health care have anything to do with runaway spending by the government ?

Hello again,

So, EVERYBODY has their sacred cow. One, two, three. Don't tax me. Tax that guy behind the tree.

I understand. You don't like that we owe, but you don't wanna HELP pay for it.. That ain't right.

I pay my "fair share" of taxes, I can't help it if that big government that 75% of Democrats love spends more than I pay in. Leave the rest of my stuff alone including my health care, and stop penalizing us for being responsible when government is not. It's not that complicated ex, stop wasting our money.

Hello again, tom:

I'm not sure what you're asking...

But, here's how the math works out... YES, I know how to do arithmetic. Our GDP is around $1.7 Trillion.. Let's say we achieve only a 5% savings instead of the 9% the Israeli's do. That's about $850 Billion a year, EVERY year, that we SAVE. That's REAL money.

Now, like you, I'd RATHER my doctor be self employed and on his way to his third million, but I'd be OK with him being a civil servant, IF it meant that my beloved country would be SAVED from bankruptcy.

But, that's just me.

excon

Then you'll have the Soviet Union all over with doctors saying they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work .

Hello again, tom:

Who you going to believe? Mitt Romney, or WND?

excon

You guys are a piece of work, and so misinformed. Your 401K is the exclusive domain of Wall Street, and pensions are the exclusive domain of The JOB CREATORS/and Wall Street. Government spending has nothing to do with either of them, yet as we have seen the first thing that goes when the job creators want more loot are YOUR benefits, 401K, and pensions.

Still confused? Just look at Hostess who used a Venture capital company to lower labor cost and extract high fees for themselves and bonuses for the top while NOT funding the agreed upon pension plans. That was years ago, and now they are doing the same with another venture capital company and going through liquidation through bankruptcy.

Workers left holding the bag, shareholders left with the loot. The Romney solution to bad management we voted against. That wasn't government spending screwing the workers, its Wall Street and their business model.

Now to the article you site Speech full of right wing false hoods to deflect the true nature of extractions free markets, and shift blame on politicians and government, while they loot our nest eggs, and crash our personal safety nets for profit. You better look closer as to what's been going on folks and don't forget the GLOBAL crash caused by Wall Street and their rich friends that we are still recovering from, while they have continued to loot and pillage. None of which has anything to do with the deficit, but everything to do with keeping them rolling in dough.


How does the individual cost of health care have anything to do with runaway spending by the government?
Private health care costs have been rising for years and would have done so unabated until the ACA demanded changes that made them rebate to consumers after expenses the money they collected in premiums and stopped them from cutting corners with limiting YOUR benefits. The government through Medicare and Medicaid are also victims of runaway costs as we are as consumers.

In truth we are all victims of ever rising health care costs both public, and private.

Your 401K is the exclusive domain of Wall Street, nope it's my money and if the government goes through with this plan I will join any class action suit filed against the theft .

You are getting mighty excited over this conspiracy theory. True fact is the rich people who control YOUR nest egg are the ones you should watch closely.

That's who you sue when you LOSE money. Oh that's right, you can't. Bummer.

nope it's my money and if the government goes through with this plan I will join any class action suit filed against the theft .
Your mattress is stuff with money?

You are getting mighty excited over this conspiracy theory.

Obamacare was once a conspiracy theory too.

To the right maybe, but to the rest of us it was a step toward a solution. I guess it was a gift to the poor and middle class women and minorities. Just one reason Obama was re elected.

Don't spread this around but righties got the gift too!

Your mattress is stuff with money?

Had I done that with the money the government confiscated out of my pay check for the last 40 years ,I'd get a higher return on my investment than what I'll likely get from any Social Security payout.
But being a responsible person ,I made provisions to be able to survive on my own without what the government thinks I deserve in retirement . Now the government wants to confiscate my hard earned nest egg because they see it as a source of untapped revenue to fund their wasteful spending .

To the right maybe, but to the rest of us it was a step toward a solution. I guess it was a gift to the poor and middle class women and minorities. Just one reason Obama was re elected.

Don't spread this around but righties got the gift too!

Yeah we got the shaft wrapped in a bow.

No repub has sent the tax cuts they got through the stimulus back, matter of fact, they want to keep them. You and Speech aren't cutting checks to treasury. Why NOT?

The guys who voted against it are trying to take credit for it as they blast the President, and cheese for the cameras. Like Paul Ryan to name ONE!!

I'll cut mine when Warren Buffet cuts one for 30% of his wealth to the government .

You crack me up. The government takes my money and gives me a pittance back ;and I'm supposed to be grateful ?

He said he would taxes under the law. So I guess you repubs can argue how much you allow. ME? I say goover the cliff and let the Bush tax cuts expire and all the other cuts through the sequester.

That brings the deficit down and makes you guys happy. It also will freak out Wall Street, and destroy your nest egg.

Hello again, tom:


The government takes my money and gives me a pittance back ;and I'm supposed to be grateful ?It takes a lot more from me, too, than it gives back. I'm grateful. I LOVE this country.

Excon

hello again, tom:

It takes a lot more from me, too, than it gives back. I'm grateful. I love this country.

Excon

Me too.

Oh how special, will you two be joining hands for a rendition of Kum Ba Yah next? I already said I pay my "fair share," I damn sure ain't writing a check so you can spend it on the morning after pill for a college grad who should rake in at least $200k.

The democrat party is the party OF division... everything the Democrats propose and IMpose are all about racial division... social dividion, and class warfare.

THe Democrat party hasn't been a party of inclusion in my adult life... and I'm over 50.

The only division seems to be with the right, and everybody else.

The only division seems to be with the right, and everybody else.

You keep drinking the Koolaide don't you...

Everything that ever comes out of a democrats facial rectum is about class, racial or gender warefare.

That's because few except YOU guys like the way you talk and act toward the rest of us. Keep talking and uniting everyone but those that agree with you, AGAINST YOU!!

To bad you are afraid to talk about race, gender, and ethnic issues without disparaging them, but that's YOUR problem, and others will vote against your ideas. Good or NOT. That's why Romney and YOU guys lost the election.

Are you mad we don't like what comes from the rights facial rectum?

And who makes it so