Loony Tunes

A just released poll of 2000 Republican voters :

 

  • 39 percent of Republicans believe Obama should be impeached, 29 percent are not sure, 32 percent said he should not be voted out of office.
  •  

  • 36 percent of Republicans believe Obama was not born in the United States, 22 percent are not sure, 42 percent think he is a natural citizen.
  •  

  • 31 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a "Racist who hates White people" -- the description once adopted by Fox News's Glenn Beck. 33 percent were not sure, and 36 percent said he was not a racist.
  •   

  • 63 percent of Republicans think Obama is a socialist, 16 percent are not sure, 21 percent say he is not
  •  

  • 24 percent of Republicans believe Obama wants "the terrorists to win," 33 percent aren't sure, 43 percent said he did not want the terrorist to win.
  •  

  • 21 percent of Republicans believe ACORN stole the 2008 election, 55 percent are not sure, 24 percent said the community organizing group did not steal the election.
  •   

  • 23 percent of Republicans believe that their state should secede from the United States, 19 percent aren't sure, 58 percent said no.
  •  

  • 53 percent of Republicans said they believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/large-portion-of-gop-thin_n_445951.html

From Glenn beck's mouth to their lips. This poll did not include independents identifying with the tea party! What is wrong with these people? These percentages are much higher than I thought. 

To the other Republicans that don't hold these extreme beliefs, take hold of your party!

 

EvesHarvest EvesHarvest
56-60, F
88 Responses Feb 2, 2010

What do you base that on, Zeroz?

Thumbs up to you, Mister C! This statistics are mind-boggling, aren't they? I love changing GOP to GODP. It fits!

31 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a "Racist who hates White people" (??????????) <br />
<br />
Do these people know that our President's mother & the grandparents who helped raise him were all "white people"? Are their minds so full of paranoia & hatred that they forget that then-Senator Obama had to leave the campaign trail to see his WHITE grandmother before she passed away? When she died 2 days before Election Day (AFTER having voted via absentee ballot, thankfully) , Senator Obama wrote of his WHITE grandmother, Madelyn Dunham , that she was "the cornerstone of our family, and a woman of extraordinary accomplishment, strength, and humility." That doesn't sound like a racist to me...or to most people who put more than a few seconds' thought into the subject.<br />
<br />
63 percent of Republicans think Obama is a socialist<br />
<br />
Just WOW! I think the political pachyderms should change their initials from GOP to GODP (Grand Old DELUSIONAL Party...though, I personally haven't seen anything "Grand" about that party since Teddy Roosevelt). Of course, considering the herd that's running that party now, they probably think that Attila the Hun was a Socialist!<br />
<br />
And finally...<br />
<br />
53 percent of Republicans said they believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama.<br />
<br />
Ex-half-termer Governor Sarah Palin who couldn't even make it through one interview with that monster, Katie Couric, without sounding like an illiterate moose-killer, and who said that her foreign policy experience consisted of watching Russian President Putin from her kitchen window, and whose eye twitched so much when she talked that you couldn't even pay attention to the palaver she was regurgitating from McCain's stump speeches? THAT Sarah Palin? Sarah "pitbull-with-lipstick" Palin is more qualified to be President that President Obama?<br />
<br />
I think I finally figured out what's wrong here! The Republicans have ventured so far down the rabbit hole that they are living in another dimension where up is down & night is day & genius is ineptitude. They just happen to be living in that dimension at the same time the rest of us are living in the real world.<br />
<br />
That's the ONLY thing that explains poll results like this.<br />
<br />
Tonight, I say an extra prayer for President Obama and our wonderful country!

this is a deeply cynical group of plutocrats who see the writing on the wall. The demographics are against them. They know it. That's why Karl Rove was so intent on creating a permanent single party majority, y'know... like those socialist autocracies. East Germany, Soviet Union.

Hey There, Daero, thank you for jumping in. Paul Krugman does a great ob of laying it all out there, doesn't he?

as you can see conservatives are to blame for 100% of this.

Starving The Beast<br />
Print this Article Tell a Friend<br />
<br />
"We're not talking about minor policy adjustments,” says Paul Krugman. “If taxes stay as low as they are now, government as we know it cannot be maintained."<br />
<br />
The large tax cuts promoted by the right-wing are intentionally designed to force government to cut back severely on social spending.<br />
<br />
For decades, a key part of the anti-government agenda of conservatives has been to cut spending on social programs. Their targeted programs have included: health care for the elderly and poor, welfare and food stamps, military retirement, drug abuse centers, unemployment compensation, aid to education, college student loans, nursing homes, employment training, childcare centers, housing subsidies for the elderly and disabled, and school nutrition. They believe that these programs have grown too large and cost taxpayers to much money.<br />
<br />
But attacking social spending has not been easy. Most Americans think that these programs do a lot of good and do not want to see them cut. Indeed, as another article on this site points out, most of us want the government to actually spend more on education, retirement, and health care – not less.<br />
So Republicans have developed a tactic for attacking social spending that they hope will not trigger the ire of the public – an indirect attack on these programs. The tactic? Tax cuts. The idea is simple: if we keep cutting taxes, eventually there won’t be enough money to spend on these social programs and they will have to be reduced. They call this tactic “starving the beast.” Taxes are what nourish government, and so if that source of nourishment is taken way, government must inevitably shrink. For anti-tax advocates like Grover Norquist, this is the ultimate purpose of tax cuts: “The goal is reducing the size and scope of government by draining its lifeblood.”1<br />
<br />
Milton Friedman, the arch-conservative economist, speaking of ways to limit or reduce the size of government, offered this prescription: “How can we ever cut government down to size? I believe there is only one way: the way parents control spendthrift children, cutting their allowance. For the government, that means cutting taxes. Resulting deficits will be an effective – I would go as far as to say, the only effective – restraint on the spending propensities of the executive branch and the legislature.”2<br />
<br />
So underneath all the Republican rhetoric about cutting taxes – all the talk about stimulating the economy and giving money back to hardworking Americans – there is another, deeper political goal: to strangle government social programs. But this is rarely discussed publicly. Conservatives focus the public’s attention on what they will gain from the tax cuts, not what they will lose by reducing social programs.<br />
<br />
This strategy was first tried in the Reagan administration. He came into office in 1980 promising to balance the federal budget. But he quickly cut taxes and raised military spending, creating huge budget deficits. (Sound familiar?) This made little sense to many people at the time and was not understood until Reagan’s budget advisor, David Stockman, later revealed that this was a conscious effort to “starve the beast” – a phrase he is reputed to have coined.3 The idea was to put increasing financial pressure on social programs in order to make it easier to cut them. And indeed, it had some effect, with domestic discretionary spending, falling from 4.5% of the economy in 1981 to 3.3% in 1988.3<br />
<br />
A series of massive tax cuts during the George W. Bush administration revived this strategy and implemented it in a much more extensive way. These tax cuts cost the federal government over two trillion dollars ($2,000,000,000,000) in lost revenue from 2001 to 2010 alone.5 As economist Paul Krugman observed at the time, “‘starving the beast’ is no longer a hypothetical scenario. It’s happening as we speak. For decades, conservatives have sought tax cuts, not because they’re affordable, but because they aren’t.”6<br />
<br />
The Goal: Massive Cuts in Social Programs<br />
<br />
So what kinds of drastic cuts in government social programs are conservatives really after? To see, we need only look at the 2007 budget proposal made by President Bush. His proposal covered budget goals for the five years from 2007 to 2011. Bush targeted programs such as education, housing, job training, environmental protection, community development, and children’s services for $221 billion in cuts. These would have been severe and unprecedented reductions in these programs. But it is important to see that these kinds of cuts in discretionary spending – whether they were in education or environmental protection – were only part of the starving-the-beast strategy. Anti-government activists were also out for much bigger game: cuts in mandatory spending for the large entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. These programs form the bulk of federal spending and they were the ultimate targets. The President’s 2007 proposal also hacked away at this kind of mandatory spending – detailing $65 billion in cuts for these programs. This included $36 billion to be taken from Medicare programs and $14 billion for Medicaid. Over $650 million would also have been cut from Food Stamps, thus denying them to over 300,000 people in working families.7<br />
<br />
But as draconian as these proposed cuts were, they paled in comparison to the budget reductions being demanded that same year by some Republicans in Congress. The Republican Study Committee, a groups of conservatives members of the House of Representatives, proposed to establish an “entitlement cap” that would have limited the total federal expenditures for entitlement programs other than Social Security. This cap would have required that projected entitlement spending be slashed by $1.8 trillion over the next ten years. That translates into $766 billion cut from Medicare, $405 billion from Medicaid, $114 billion from federal civilian retirement and disability, $66 billion from military retirement and disability, $63 billion from unemployment compensation, and $50 billion from food stamps.8 The Committee argued that such these program cuts were necessary for the “restoration of the American dream.” They were obviously not taking into account the dreams of the elderly, the sick, the disabled, the jobless, and the poor who would have to pay the price for these truly staggering reductions in federal programs.<br />
<br />
Ironically, despite having advocated such deep cuts in spending, these conservative budget plans would have done little or nothing to reduce the deficit because they included a new round of large tax cuts – $1.7 trillion in new tax reductions in the case of the President’s budget.<br />
<br />
The Deficit Trap<br />
<br />
There is an obvious problem with this starving the beast strategy. On the federal level, cutting taxes does not necessarily require spending cuts: the government may only just borrow money and increase its debt to continue spending. And this is exactly what happened during the Bush administration. Along with this tax cuts, Bush also oversaw some large increases in government spending – mostly in the area of defense. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost an estimated 900 billion dollars between 2001 and 2009. This combination of increased spending and huge tax cuts caused budget deficits to soar during the Bush years. This led some conservatives to complain that Bush had abandoned the idea of limited government. David Brooks concluded in one of his New York Times columns that all this spending and the growing deficits heralded “the death of small government conservatism.”9<br />
<br />
But these accusations were misplaced. They ignored one key fact: growing deficits were entirely consistent with the long-term plan to reduce government. The hope was that soaring deficits and a rapidly growing national debt would eventually force policymakers to reduce government spending – whether they liked it or not. From its very first days, the Bush administration embraced deficits as a good way to reign in government. In August of 2001, as the federal budget surpluses began to disappear and new deficits began to loom, the president had an unusual fit of candor and described these developments as "incredibly positive news," arguing that this would now put Congress in a "fiscal straitjacket."10 Republicans in Congress also came around to this point of view. As conservative Rick Santorum explained it, he first hated deficits, but then came to like them because they made it harder to pass any new spending bills. “I came to the House as a real deficit hawk but I am no longer a deficit hawk. I’ll tell you why. …Deficits make it easier to say no.”11<br />
<br />
Clearly if the Republicans had remained in power in Washington and their program of massive tax cuts had continued, deeper reductions in spending for mandatory programs, even including Social Security, would eventually have become inevitable. Deficits and public debt simply cannot continue to grow forever. At some point, the federal government eventually has to start paying its bills. As Paul Krugman has explained, the crunch would most like come when baby boomers begin to retire and start making increasing demands on the Social Security and Medicare systems. At that point, the gap between the government’s income and its outlays would become alarmingly large. The government would have no choice but to either rapidly raise taxes or drastically cut spending. Given the difficulty of raising taxes, the most likely scenario – and the one anti-government conservatives would favor – would be for government to dramatically slash spending. "We're not talking about minor policy adjustments,” says Krugman. “If taxes stay as low as they are now, government as we know it cannot be maintained."12 He predicts that we could experience cuts of up to 40% on some of the largest government programs: "Social Security will have to become far less generous; Medicare will no longer be able to guarantee comprehensive medical care to older Americans; Medicaid will no longer provide basic medical care to the poor."13<br />
<br />
When the Democrats took control of the White House and Congress in 2008, it seemed that finally the tax cuts and the attacks on social spending would stop – which did in fact occur. But the huge deficits and growing national debt of the Bush era continue to act as a “fiscal straightjacket” for the Democrats and have been preventing them from increasing funding for badly needed programs. To make matters worse, the severe recession that started in 2008 greatly reduced federal revenue and required a surge in spending for an economic stimulus package – all of which created large yearly deficits. In reaction to this, President Obama proposed a three year freeze on most domestic spending – an idea that made many Republicans positively gleeful. Unless Democrats are willing to raise taxes – and many are reluctant to do so – there is a good chance that the “starving the beast” strategy of the anti-government movement will strangle any efforts to increase social spending and eventually create a fiscal crisis that will require large cuts in social programs. A very worrying situation to say the least.<br />
<br />
Starving the States<br />
<br />
Today, while the Democrats are firmly in control of Washington, conservatives still control many state and local governments. And it is on this level that we see the most dramatic effects of the starving-the-beast strategy. In large part, this is due to an enormous advantage that anti-government activists have on these levels of government: virtually all states and cities must balance their budgets. So when revenues fall or expenses increase, these governments cannot borrow to make up the difference; they must either cut programs or raise taxes. Conservatives have often been successful in blocking tax increases, which has meant that states have had no choice but to reduce spending on social programs.<br />
<br />
During the recession that began in 2008, most states cut their social spending – often in disturbing ways. Many of these cuts fell on these states’ most vulnerable residents. Several states cut reimbursements to nursing homes or made it more difficult for the elderly to qualify for nursing home care. Twenty-one states implemented cuts that restricted low income children’s access to health insurance. Services for the elderly and disabled were cut in 22 states. Educational spending also took big hits, with state aid for K-12 education reduced in 24 states. Funds were also cut for higher education in 32 states, forcing some to raise tuition by more than 10%. 14<br />
<br />
Clearly, the decline in state revenues caused by the recession played a large role in these budget cuts. But that is not all that was going on. Many states have had ongoing fiscal problems, and in many cases those problems have been caused or exacerbated by conservative forces who have attacked the abilities of states and local governments to raise needed taxes. For example, the foundations for many states’ fiscal problems were laid in the 1990s when state-level anti-government groups waged successful campaigns to reduce taxes. Between 1994 and 2001, under political pressure from conservatives, 44 states passed significant tax cuts. The effects of these cuts were masked at first by the stock market boom that increased the states’ returns on investments in the late 1990s. But now, with the stock market boom long gone, those cuts have come home to roost and are costing the states an estimated $40 billion or more a year in lost revenue – a significant cause of the long-term fiscal difficulties in many states.15<br />
<br />
Conservatives have also been successful in many states in installing caps on certain tax rates. In Massachusetts, for example, local property taxes cannot be increased by more than 3.5% a year. In many years, city expenses have risen faster than that rate and tax revenues have not kept up. This has forced many cities to repeatedly cut public school budgets – firing teachers, reducing courses offerings, eliminating sports, and increasing class sizes. Cities have also been forced to reduce fire and police staffing and limit essential public services like snow plowing and road repair.<br />
<br />
Fourteen states also now require supermajorities for the raising of some taxes – and this has become particularly problematic. Supermajorities require that 60%, 67%, or even 75% of the legislators must agree before taxes can be raised – rather than the simple majority of 50% plus one that applies to other kinds of legislation. This allows a anti-tax minority to block majority rule. In some states, for instance, a majority of citizens in local school districts have often voted to raise taxes to help fund education – but they have been frustrated because they couldn’t marshal the needed two-thirds majority. Statutory requirements like supermajorities and tax caps are the some of the best political weapons used by anti-government forces, because they make it all but impossible to raise taxes and this forces state and local governments to cut spending on programs.<br />
<br />
Making matters even worse, conservatives are now pushing efforts to establish constitutional caps on state government expenditures – plans that would limit spending growth to the rate of inflation plus population growth. The first state to adopt this approach, Colorado in 1992, saw its public services deteriorate significantly. For example, it dropped from 35th to 49th in K-12 spending as a share of personal income, and from 35th to 48th in higher education funding as share of personal income.16 In 2005, citizens in Colorado voted to suspend this amendment for five years so that they can restore needed funding to vital services. The disastrous results in Colorado have not stopped anti-government activists from launching campaigns to pass similar amendments in 15 other states.<br />
<br />
The Case of California<br />
<br />
The severe and ongoing budget problems in California are a good example of the kind of damage that anti-government activists can do on the state level. During the recent recession, the state ran into billions of dollars of deficits and was force to make draconian cuts in states programs and services. The main problem was not excessive spending, but excessive restrictions on the taxing ability of the state, which made it all but impossible for it to raise taxes to deal responsibly with its fiscal crisis.<br />
<br />
The problems for California began decades ago when obstacles to tax increases were introduced into the state constitution by an anti-tax campaign. Proposition 13 was passed in 1978 and capped property taxes at ridiculously low levels. Cities and counties were then forced to try to raise other assessments and fees in order to continue to supply basic public services. But anti-tax zealots were then able to pass Proposition 218, which prevented cities from raising those fees without the approval of two-thirds of the voters – usually an impossible barrier to overcome.<br />
<br />
This left localities no choice but to go begging to the state government for needed revenues. But Proposition 13 actually worked to restrict this source of funds as well. It mandated that the state could not increase taxes without the approval of two-thirds of both houses of the legislature. This anti-democratic arrangement has allowed a minority of tax-hating lawmakers to frustrate the majority and consistently block any efforts to raise needed revenues.<br />
<br />
Faced with these anti-tax restrictions, the state had no choice but to institute a series of very damaging cuts in state services. Severe cuts were made in aid to K-12 school systems. California’s public schools already ranked 34th among the states in per-pupil expenditures and 49th in teacher-student ratio – a disgraceful situation that could only be worsened by new budget cuts. Millions of children have been denied medical coverage. Large cuts have also been made in many other essential programs, including mental health services, mass transit, home health care, food stamps, prisons, and aid to the blind and disabled. State colleges and universities have become more expensive and less accessible. <br />
<br />
The Effects of Starvation on Education and Infrastructure<br />
<br />
Sometimes the effects of starving the beast are serious, but not immediately obvious. Some vital public sector programs have been reduced so gradually that the effects may not be clear to many in the public. Two examples of this are the effects of funding cuts on higher education and infrastructure development.<br />
<br />
In recent years, spending for state higher education institutions has taken a hard hit. States have been cutting budgets for public colleges and universities – which produce three quarters of all degrees in the United States. Teaching positions are being cut, class sizes are spiraling, and needed maintenance is being neglected. Some colleges are now unable to provide students with the required courses they need to finish their degrees. In addition, states have been raising their tuitions and cutting financial aid. A study by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education gave the public college and university systems in 43 states a grade of “F” for affordability.17 This means that many low and middle-income students simply cannot afford college anymore – in one year alone a half million were turned away for lack of money.18<br />
<br />
Crucial infrastructure spending is also being neglected. A study by the American Society of Civil Engineers found that America’s infrastructure is in terrible shape and blamed low levels of investment by state and federal governments. They estimated that over the next five years it would take at least $1.6 trillion to bring our national infrastructure into an acceptable state. 19 Some excerpts from the report:<br />
<br />
Roads and transit systems are in peril. Funding at the federal, state and local levels is in danger of drying up and citizens are failing to invest in their communities' futures. The nation is failing to even maintain the substandard conditions we currently have, a dangerous trend that is affecting highway safety, as well as the health of the economy. … 27.5% of the nation's bridges (162,000) were structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. …The nation's 16,000 waste water systems face enormous needs. Some sewer systems are 100 years old and many treatment facilities are past their recommended life expectancy. Currently, there is a $12 billion annual shortfall in funding for these infrastructure needs. …Due to either aging, outdated facilities, severe overcrowding, or new mandated class sizes, 75% of our nation's school buildings remain inadequate to meet the needs of school children. While school construction spending has increased, the cost to remedy the situation remains more than $127 billion.<br />
<br />
Clearly this failure to invest in our infrastructure has produced a looming crisis – one that can only be addressed with higher taxes and more spending on the state and federal level. But in 2006, the Republican Study Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives actually proposed that federal spending for highways, bridges, mass transit and other infrastructure development and repair be cut by $103 billion by 2011.<br />
<br />
Seeing the wide spread negative effects – and human costs – of all of these cuts in services, programs, and investments on the state level, you might expect that conservatives would have second thoughts about their anti-tax and anti-spending policies. But amazingly, these kinds of problems have actually been welcomed by anti-government activists. Reports indicate that the Bush White House was happy to see states and their citizens caught in a fiscal crunch and forced to cut programs, and had no desire to help bail them out. Numerous administration officials stated privately that the states’ fiscal problems would play a useful role in shrinking state governments.20 And anti-tax activist Grover Norquist seemed almost gleeful about the fiscal troubles being faced by states, remarking that “I hope a state goes bankrupt.”21<br />
<br />
There is an Alternative<br />
<br />
It doesn’t have to be this way in state governments. In fact, it hasn’t always been this way. In the days before the anti-tax movement took hold in the U.S., many states had a vibrant public sector with healthy investments in infrastructure projects and adequately funded social programs for state residents. In his book, Paradise Lost, Peter Schrag offers the following descriptions of pre- and post-Proposition 13 California:<br />
<br />
California was once widely regarded has both model and magnet for the nation – in its economic opportunities, its social outlook, and its high-quality public services and institutions. With a nearly free and universally accessible system of public higher education, a well supported public school system, an ambitious agenda of public works projects – in irrigation and flood control; in highway construction and park development – and a wide array of social services and human rights guarantees that had no parallel in any other state California seem to have an optimism about its population, possibilities, and future....<br />
<br />
But California ... is no longer the progressive model in its public institutions and services, or in its social ethic, that it once was. California's schools, which 30 years ago had been among the most generously funded in the nation, are now in the bottom quarter among the states in virtually every major indicator – in physical condition, in public funding, in test scores – closer in most of them to Mississippi than to New York or Connecticut or New Jersey. The state, which had almost doubled in population since the early 1960s, has built some 20 new prisons in the past two decades, but has not opened one new campus of the University of California for nearly three decades. Its once celebrated freeway system is now rated is among the most dilapidated road networks in the country. Many of its public libraries operate on reduced hours, and some have closed altogether. The state's social benefits, once among the nation's most generous, had been cut and cut again, and then cut again. And what had once been a tuition-free college and university system, while still among the world's great public educational institutions, struggles for funds and charges as much as every other state university system, and in some cases more."22 <br />
<br />
Schrag laments what he has termed the “Mississippication” of California. He has nothing against Mississippi, but is simply referring to the reputation that state has for stingy social programs, abysmal schools, inadequate health care programs, and a poor quality of life. This is what could be in store for all of us if government is reduced to an emaciated state. If the anti-government and anti-tax crusaders have their way, we will all be living in Mississippi, whether we want to or not.<br />
<br />
*************<br />
<br />
For more on how anti-government activists have been attacking vital government programs, see Stealth Deregulation.

how bout we start by bush deciding a 10 trillion dollar ddeficit was a good thing because it locked the liberals into a "fiscal strait jacket" and if you don't believe me just google "fiscal strait jacket" and for some reason their "followers" still delusionally believe that republicans are better at finance. Then let's point out that they wrecklessly invaded a country that didn't attack us and bungled it, wrecklessly endangering our troops and seventeen kinds of havoc Thus proving themselves weak on defense too, then let's look at their family values and compare to say mark foley, Ensign, all of the gay bashers who turned out to be you know, gay.

how bout we start by bush deciding a 10 trillion dollar ddeficit was a good thing because it locked the liberals into a "fiscal strait jacket" and if you don't believe me just google "fiscal strait jacket" and for some reason their "followers" still delusionally believe that republicans are better at finance. Then let's point out that they wrecklessly invaded a country that didn't attack us and bungled it, wrecklessly endangering our troops and seventeen kinds of havoc Thus proving themselves weak on defense too, then let's look at their family values and compare to say mark foley, Ensign, all of the gay bashers who turned out to be you know, gay.

It is amazing how thoughtless some people are and how easily the terms flow off their tongues.<br />
I would like to say what a thoughtful story this has been.<br />
I read it start to finish while my wife watched a movie........I was engrossed.<br />
I hadn't seen this thread before and was surprised to see how incredibly late to it I was.<br />
Thank you for the welcome EvesHarvest and I would like to thank all the sane members for their input on this story.......I am proud to be in your presence.

Welcome, Elfinsong. MusicMouse, it mystifies me. I was scared of George W. and all that went on with his administration. I just couldn't believe he got elected for a second term. And people are so afraid of a moderate like Obama! I just have to think that his name, heritage, and the color of his skin touch on deep, unconscious fears in people that they don't even know that they have. And then the far right puts things out that give a place for their ego-dystonic fear to land and coalesce.

This story is an historic document .<br />
I am sorry I arrived so late

I think public lynchings could be on the horizon if the American people awaken to what has truly happened because of the Bush/ Cheney/ Rumsfield/ Rice gang.<br />
I for one wouldn't lift a finger or a voice to stop it

I have to say, they don't seem good at their lies. People seem gullible, unquestioning, and easy to manipulate!

Well, this is the most comments I have ever gotten on a post, Music Mouse, so thanks for helping it thrive.<br />
<br />
I think your comment with all that info deserves to be its own story. I encourage you to post it separately! Start a new thread.

Thank you for that well-researched historical perspective, MusicMouse. Very informative.

The Queen of Loonnies has just been introduced at the tea party convention. Check out CSPAN.

I need to clarify something--I found out Puck was teasing me with that over the top and lengthy description of me.<br />
<br />
It is mind-bending how twisted the conversation is about health care reform. A real trip down the rabbit hole.

Fearmongering is one of the tactics that is used. Truth be told, most conservatives really don't understand the things they say the advocate. But... when pushed they refer to 'those people". <br />
<br />
There was an interview done with one of the orgizers of the Tea Party convention this weekend. In it, she and actually a couple of the other organizers said "they are afraid, and they are angry". <br />
Never once do they say who or what they are afraid of, nor do they say why they are angry. <br />
They do however say they are having a hard time truly organizing because they haven't clearly said what their goals are. Group A wants this, Group B wants that, and neither group wants want C,D, and Z want. <br />
<br />
They also have a strong tendency to give ideas for solutions when pushed...but they are ones usually already in circulation, and when told that, they withdraw. <br />
<br />
It's amazing to watch at times... But these people, who claim conservativism, scare me. <br />
With good reason. They are "afraid" and they are angry, and they are heavily armed. Scary combination.

Me, too, MusicMouse, and post it here, as well.<br />
<br />
On Wednesday, The Ed Show was broadcast from another one of these free clinics set up in Hartford, Connecticut. If these free clinics are being broadcast internationally, we must look like a third world country. The public nurses said that they invite people from congress to these, and these invitations are refused by representatives from both sides of the aisle. They just don't come.<br />
<br />
Ed Schulz did an exceptional rant against Joe Liebermann that I really enjoyed.

If you do, send me the link, please?

Ha! Puck's pulling my leg! ; ) Somebody transfer one of your brilliant comments or write a new comment and paste it into a new story in this group so we can all read it and start a new thread. I'd love to see this group's stories remain listed on the popular stories of the day page every day! Its about time!

I guess we should give the conservatives a chance to catch their breath and respond. We're a powerful group!

"The free market has as it's goal equal opportunity, not equal results, much like life itself does not promise equal results. "<br />
<br />
This sums up (imho) the theory all Conservatives have that the "good" people will always be rich and the "bad" people (lazy, stupid, greedy) will naturally become poor.....therefore it is wrong to help the poor because they are poor because they DESERVE to be.<br />
<br />
The problem is that the free market does not offer equal opportunity. Paris Hilton has a few more "opportunities" for success than someone born to a single mother making $25,000 a year. This is why the GOVERNMENT set up college grants and financial assistance.<br />
<br />
Not everyone has equal access to the free market. That is why government programs are necessary to ensure that the children of the ultra-wealthy don't turn into a ruling nobility and that the poor aren't condemned to poverty with no hope of advancement. Without PUBLIC schools (a hated government insitution) this is exactly what would happen. Only the rich would have an education and the poor would not. The system would be gamed from Day One without government interference to level the playing field.

Conservatives ALWAYS debate points that are never brought up.<br />
<br />
Example: They will insist they don't mind a few, small social programs -- but are against the Democratic idea that every single person in American should have every single need provided by the government and everyone should be given a check for $250 million dollars!<br />
<br />
Wow...that sounds reasonable. Except NO ONE IS ADVOCATING THAT SYSTEM!<br />
<br />
They keep making vague (intentionally vague!) remarks about how there is "too much" welfare available....but absolutely refuse to go into detail about what specifically they want to reduce. Do they want to reduce food stamps? If so, by how much? Do they want to eliminate subsidized school lunch programs? if so, by how much?<br />
<br />
Because (to be frank) its a rhetroical game. They know they will lose the arguement if they talk specifics....so they talk vaguely about wanting only to make "reasonable" adjustments to welfare. Notice how they refuse to talk in specific terms! Go on guys -- tell me exactly how much welfare a single mother in Arizona gets if she earns $12,000 a year and has 2 kids. Now go into exact details about what exactly you want to "reduce" in her benefits.<br />
<br />
They won't do it.<br />
<br />
1) because they have absolutely no idea what the welfare requirements actually are<br />
<br />
2) they have absolutely no idea what the actual welfare benefits are or how long they actually last! Is it 30 days? 1 year? 100 years? They have no idea.<br />
<br />
All they "know" is those damn poor people are getting way too much!<br />
<br />
And as far as the whole "teach a man to fish" anaology goes -- there is a fatal flaw in that. It assumes there are fish in the pond!<br />
<br />
If ACME Fisheries set up shop next to the pond and overfish the waters for 10 years and then relocate to Mexico because the labor is cheaper.....what the hell are the 100,000 people left behind going to eat?<br />
<br />
The Republican solution is to simply scream, "Work harder!"<br />
<br />
But there are no fish (fish being jobs). Much like Detroit that is beyond devestated economically. Simply screaming "Just do it!" is not an effective economic strategy and simply letting 100,000 residents go bankrupt destroys the community. The tax rates falls through the floor, roads don't get repaired, entire neighborhoods get boarded up.....and no new business will want to relocate there because the infrastructure is so neglected and the neighborhoods in such bad shape.<br />
<br />
Simply shrugging your shoulders and saying, "Find work!" has been the Bush philosophy for 8 years....and things didn't exactly get better, did they? At some point we need effective government leadership to step in and help.<br />
<br />
And that may come in the form of extended unemployment benefits or mortgage renegotiations or something else...but simply shrugging your shoulders and procaliming that "If they are good people...God will magically send them good jobs and money!" isn't a realistic economic strategy.<br />
<br />
We tried the Republican strategy for 8 years.<br />
<br />
God didn't magically send the "good" people jobs and money. The righteous and the wicked are ALL going bankrupt and the government needs to step in even more than it has. We need more government leadership, not less.

Lil Annie, I think your last post on this thread is brilliant.

I still think they haven't reconciled themselves to the fact that they lost the elections. <br />
First day after the election, first day! Rush Limbaugh dubbed him the 'recession' president.<br />
they've got the narrative down! and everytime they get up it's just the talking points, ma'm,<br />
not the facts. <br />
One thing that really disturbs me is their body language and the tone GOP'ers assume when talking with Obama... it's like, "Don't you get uppity with me boy!"

If people were inherently good, kind, peaceful and non-violent, we would not need any government at all. We would not need police, we would not needs the military. But 20,000+ years of human existence shows us that we DO need governments. If corporations were so benevolent, we would not have needed anti-trust laws, OSHA regulations, EPA guidelines etc. However, corporations exist to maximize returns for their stockholders, not to provide clean air and water, not to necessarily provide safe and stable work environments, nor to provide a level playing field for other companies. It is nice to say that in an "ideal" world corporations would see that their best interests would be served by being excellent corporate citizens, but history shows us differently.<br />
<br />
Every other economically developed nation in the world -- in the WORLD -- provides health insurance for its citizens. None of these other countries have large groups of people clamoring to return to the dog-eat-dog world of the US health system. I do not see Conservatives in the UK or Norway or France or Japan or Germany winning votes by promising to return to the Open Market Health Insurance the US has.

WhenTheWallsFall, where do I start? <br />
<br />
"The free market system, for some reason, always loses the propaganda war. I apply free market ideals to all aspects of my life, for I see the free market, in it's truest sense, as akin to the golden rule. Treat others as you would prefer to be be treated. " Even if we assume that people, for the most part, follow the golden rule, corporations aren't people. Yes, legally, they are. But they aren't people. Perhaps the single biggest lesson from the economic crash and mortgage crisis has been, wall street does not give a **** about people. It doesn't even care about long-term profit; it cares about short-term profit. Deregulation has lead to horrific practices and an economy of trading paper taking precedence over making real goods. The free market system without regulation is economic anarchy.<br />
<br />
RE: Socialism. You brought up Russia and China as examples, both communist countries. Look at the countries that Stevester brought up, England, France, and Spain. Framing things in the most extreme terms is the key problem in having a rational discussion about health care reform. And look at what we rate world-wide in health care in comparison.<br />
<br />
For the life of me, I don't understand the argument that businesses will do a better job of managing health care than the government. If we went to single payer, it would be important to use a good model and to have good oversight. The insurance companies are concerned about profit, and have been rationing health care for years. Good health care does cost money, even with reform--Why do we want a profit motive on top of that? Because it will make them act wisely? That is not what we are seeing.

"Everything in moderation, nothing in excess." Authoritative control over private property and economic forces stifles inovation and suppresses liberty. Unfettered free market forces consistently leads to irrational exuberance and the creation of bubbles that expand till they explode. Surely, a better solution lies somewhere in the economic middle.

Well said WhenthewallsFell.

I pondered entering the fray on this one ...again. The discussion tends to stray off into invective whenever the rational arguments no longer pan out. Quoting the PR from interest groups as statistics cuts no ice. I have availed of the health care systems in the UK, France and Spain. My experience is nothing other than anecdotal as it is not statistically relevant. But form the personal point of view i found them all fit for purpose. In terms of taxation, a purported 11% of my salary up to about £40,000 is used for healthcare. After that 1% is used. Oh and the first £6,700 is tax free. So in my instance i pay on average £4,800 per annum or £400 per month. For that i get complete coverage. My wife pays a similar amount. My usage of the health care services in the last 30 years amounts to a sprained ankle and 3 sutures. On a like for like basis not a great return. however, my wife mother contracted cancer 3 years ago and died two months ago. During those three years she received constant care both in hospital and at her home. She had dedicated nurses. Her house was modified to accommodate her loss of mobility. At the end she received palliative care and the entire process was efficient, professional but also very humane. She had to worked in many years and did not have any savings. She would not have qualified for health insurance.<br />
<br />
Are there abuses of the system, yep. Is it better than the US, yep. WHO statistics show US placed 37 in the world league of health care, UK is 18 and our French cousins are better again. Is it a drain on national resources ...yep but it's still less expensive than a war.

Puck - <br />
<br />
>>Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill – THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benes u get >><br />
<br />
As opposed to the committees of large insurance companies which do the same thing now, except that the insurance companies are motivated by profit, so there would be far less 'denials' than there currently are. Gotta protect those bonuses for the CEOs and protect that shareholder profit, ya know!<br />
<br />
>>Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into pub Opt plan. NO CHOICE>><br />
<br />
Wait - there's a public option? Yay! You mean the creationist retards in the Senate didn't kill the public option? Oh, wait, you mean they did? So now we have a mandate to purchase insurance, but no choice which would drive premiums down? Thank you Republicans and conservative Democrats! <br />
<br />
I also love how people are so SCARED of a MANDATORY public OPTION. OPTION, as in OPTIONAL. That is what Obama wanted. Hell he was even willing to compromise and put it up to votes by state so a state could 'OPT out' of having that 'option'. How much more optional can he make it? DO YOU REPUBLICANS EVEN KNOW WHAT COMPROMISE IS?? <br />
<br />
Somewhere between 65% and 70% of people in Connecticut want a public option, and yet somehow Joe LIE-berman says that he absolutely CANNOT vote for any plan with a public option, as a matter of conscience. More like a matter of his bank account and the contributions he would lose from big corporations by supporting the will of the people he represents. <br />
<br />
>>Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access 2 your bank accts. 4 elect. funds transfer >><br />
<br />
Oooooh, you mean like how the govt already has direct access to the bank accounts of everyone that files direct deposit tax returns? Oh my, scary scary stuff..... Run for the hills! The socialists are coming!

Side Note; Yes, KOS commissioned the poll, but an independent nonpartisan polling group conducted it.<br />
<br />
NiceGuy, I think bringing up the successful models of health care in other countries is the best way to quell the hysteria. <br />
<br />
Alex, I wish we had a choice about paying for wars, too. Though I certainly wouldn't want young men out there without adequate equipment, etc.

I don't think Obamacare is a communist plot. I just think it's a mess, and it was all done in secret behind closed doors, and people were bought off.<br />
If we get a health care bill that the American people can live with, it will have to be close to the french system, However the French are taxed over 40% and their health care system is going bankrupt.<br />
French longevity is due to laughter and good wine!

The evil government healthcare conspiracy seems to be all over the place!<br />
<br />
First they will guarantee healthcare for EVERYONE even illegal aliens who don't pay into the system (gasp!)<br />
<br />
But in the next breath its stated that the government will deny and ration healthcare for everyone because its to expensive to give it to everyone.<br />
<br />
Wait...huh? Haha!<br />
<br />
Seems like the Conservative attempts to spin things have created some plot holes more incoherent and contradictory than the ones in the LOST season premier!<br />
<br />
"Government is going to give away trillions of dollars in healthcare to illegals!"<br />
<br />
"Government is going to deny everyone healthcare because its too expensive!" <br />
<br />
And according to the Conservative interpretation of the bill our "evil" government plans on both "giving away healthcare " and "denying healthcare" to everyone....all at the exact same time!<br />
<br />
And then its stated that the government will even go so far as to hire translators to help those damn illegals get FREE breast enhancement operations for their wives! Any illegal can just walk into a clinic and get $75,000 worth of cosmetic surgery and the taxpayers have to pay for it! But then its stated that the government will basically deny everyone, everywhere all healthcare. If you try to get an aspirin from a hospital for a headache Barack Obama will personally come down to your house and kill your entire family. So the evil conspiracy runs has the evil government handing out millions of dollars in healthcare to every single Mexican on earth....but also denying healthcare to every single person in America including illegal immigrants, but then again this budget obsessed HC-rationing evil government is also willing to spend money to hire translators so non-English speaking residents/visitors can better understand their healthcare options.<br />
<br />
We can see the evil plot (no doubt plucked straight from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion) to enslave Christian America is getting a little nonsensical and convoluted. <br />
<br />
Oh...and ACORN will be placed in charge of the entire thing as well as representatives from the USSR and the Soviet Council from China. Anyone who refuses to sign up with Obamacare will be arrested and placed in Maximum Security along with heir entire families to await trial for treason.<br />
<br />
C'mon, Puck. Obviously I'm teasing you, but can't you see this allegedly socialist plot is just a figment of Conservatives imaginations? France has universal healthcare and no one there has been placed in a prison camp and the government hasn't executed CEO's on live television as apart of Soviet-style "worker revolution" show trials.<br />
<br />
If France is perfectly happy with their system and its CHEAPER and they have LONGER life expectancies than we do....why shouldn't we adopt a superior HC system?<br />
<br />
If other countries can have universal healthcare without it being an elaborate Communist plot to enslave the populace....why are you so convinced that is MUST be a Communist plot here in the States?

PS. If you research KOS media the ones who did the poll, it will become pretty obvious that the poll is not legit.

1) I guess conservatives have taken over the internet. If you google "Bush lies" and then "Obama lies" You would think that Rush Limbaugh has taken control of google. Liberals had better get off their collective butts and start documenting some of these lies.<br />
2) Whether or not Obamas policies are socialist, depends on who you ask. I personally see him as moving in the opposite direction of capitalism, free enterprise, small government, and the constitution ,which according to him is flawed. His love affair with labor unions, and his movement towards government ownership of corporations and health care, reflects a European style socialism. My liberal friends , of course, think this is a good thing. The fact that I don't agree does not make me a racist.<br />
3) The vast majority of conservatives agree that health care reform is needed. Health care represents one sixth of the American economy, fire and police departments and education however do not. If you take a look at HR3200, it's a jumbled confusing mess. The math works out a lot worse than 25 bucks a week taken out of your check, and there have been some statements made about it by democrats that are false. Here are some of the items that I, as a conservative disagree with.<br />
Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!! <br />
<br />
Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill – THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benes u get <br />
<br />
Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill – YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!! First year individual $5000. <br />
<br />
Pg 42 of HC Bill – The Health Choices Commissioner will choose UR HC Benefits 4 you. U have no choice! <br />
<br />
PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill – HC will be provided 2 ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise <br />
<br />
Pg 58 HC Bill – Govt will have real-time access 2 individuals finances & a National ID Healthcard will be issued! <br />
<br />
Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access 2 your bank accts. 4 elect. funds transfer <br />
<br />
Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange 2 bring priv HC plans under Govt control. <br />
<br />
PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill – Govt mandates ALL benefit pkgs 4 priv. HC Plans in the Exchange <br />
<br />
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill – Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration ur Healthcare! <br />
<br />
PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill – Govt mandates linguistic approp svcs. Example – Translation 4 illegal aliens <br />
<br />
PG 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps 2 sign up indiv. for Govt HC plan <br />
<br />
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill – Specs of Ben Levels 4 Plans. #AARP members – U Health care WILL be rationed <br />
<br />
PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill – Medicaid Eligible Indiv will be automat. enrolled in Medicaid. No choice <br />
<br />
PG 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No judicial review against Govt Monop <br />
<br />
PG 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill – Doctors/ #AMA – The Govt will tell YOU what u can make. <br />
<br />
Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into pub Opt plan. NO CHOICE <br />
<br />
PG 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Emplyr w payroll 400k & above who does not prov. pub opt. pays 8% tax on all payroll <br />
<br />
PG 150 Lines 9-13 Biz w payroll btw 251k & 400k who doesn’t prov. pub. opt pays 2-6% tax on all payroll<br />
<br />
4) I personally don't agree with everything every conservative says. I don't think it works that way. Conservatives are a varied and individually unique group, just like liberals. Also, racism is by no means geographical, as a matter of fact I've seen less racism in the south than I have in the north. I don't think there's any way of getting accurate statistics on something like that though.<br />
5) I don't think that poll is legitimate. Would you honestly believe that 21% of republicans would actually want their state to secede from the union?<br />
6) I doubt that my IQ is nearly as high as niceguyinhells, but this is how I feel on the subject. I'm hoping that a smarter conservative comes along soon!

I think we may be waiting a long time, vendetta.<br />
<br />
I keep thinking of the national parks. Here is a perfect example of the government using “force” to prevent businessmen from buying up that land and using it as they see fit. I can’t think of a single American who will go on record as saying they demand the government allow private businesses to purchase these lands and keep the public out!<br />
<br />
The Cons have this romantic notion of America and part of it involves taking the family to see the glory of our national parks on family vacations (which they get to by travelling on roads maintained by the government).<br />
<br />
Imagine if Enron or Haliburton had decided to just go ahead and “buy” the Redwood National Forest or the Grand Canyon…and put a giant fence around the whole thing and simply refused to let anyone in!<br />
<br />
We these Cons be smiling and singing “God Bless America” at the top of their lungs (as they stand outside the giant fence unable to view any part of the Grand Canyon)…or would it slowly dawn on them that a LOT of what they love about America has to do with the Commons provided by our government for the enjoyment, use and benefit of all citizens?

I'm awaiting responses to niceguy's posts from our conservative and libertarian friends, who will give us many reasons why socialists such as niceguy and myself are wrong. <br />
<br />
I'll probably be waiting a long time.

NiceGuy, you are making too much sense! <br />
<br />
It would be nice if people thought about what socialism means before rejecting policies as socialist.

more people who hate glenn beck watch him then people who don't. it's like being unable to take your eyes off a train wreck. latest polls show 59% of his audience disagrees with his stances. <br />
<br />
i agree with y'all. republicans, conservatives, whatever they call themselves, they are absolutely blind and happy and proud about it.

Here is a definitive definition of Socialism:<br />
<br />
IT is from the Oxford Dictionary of Economics (ISBN 0-19-280018-3) , <br />
Black, John. A dictionary of economics. Oxford University Press, USA, 1997. Print. <br />
<br />
It is on Page 433:<br />
<br />
"socialism The idea that the economy's resources should be used int he interests of all its citizens, rather than allowing private owners of land and capital to use it as they see fit. Socialists have included believers in voluntary co-operation, believers in central planning, and believers in the use of the market mechanism in running a socialist economy. Socialists have tended to egalitarian in principle, though not necessarily in practice. The use of planning rather than prices in running the economy makes the actual measurement of inequality difficult, and individuals can be as corrupt in a socialist as in a capitalist economy."<br />
<br />
There -- an actual definition. Maybe not the Tea Party definition, but an ECONOMIST'S definition of an economic idea.

That's just crazy talk, Annie. Kindness and cooperation! <br />
<br />
How nice to wake up on the west coast to so many interesting comments. Music Mouse, I loved what you posted about Bush.<br />
<br />
NoShadow, nice parody and platitudes, though not terribly helpful or informative. WhenTheWallsFall, you are the first conservative to address what was in the poll in a thoughtful way. I don't agree with you on some things, but I see that you actually think about things.<br />
<br />
One more thought. Though the poll was coast to coast, the majority of respondents were from the south. I was talking with my husband, who is from the south, about the poll results. A lot of people haven't quite gotten over losing the civil war. Racism is alive and well there. My husband's mother is very well educated and smart, so I was shocked when she said (just after Obama was elected), "Well, you know, he is going to be favoring the blacks, and I don't like that." The 21% polled who think that their state should secede, combined with 31% (and 33% unsure) that think he hates blacks, make me think that racism is a significant factor in some of the hatred towards Obama. This isn't to dismiss those that have policy differences with Obama as racism. I'm talking about some of the more irrational criticisms having roots in racism that can't be acknowledged or talked about openly out of shame, or at least awareness that it would look bad to be open about it in the way my mother-in-law was.

Here is a definitive definition of Socialism:<br />
<br />
IT is from the Oxford Dictionary of Economics (ISBN 0-19-280018-3) , <br />
Black, John. A dictionary of economics. Oxford University Press, USA, 1997. Print. <br />
<br />
It is on Page 433:<br />
<br />
"socialism The idea that the economy's resources should be used int he interests of all its citizens, rather than allowing private owners of land and capital to use it as they see fit. Socialists have included believers in voluntary co-operation, believers in central planning, and believers in the use of the market mechanism in running a socialist economy. Socialists have tended to egalitarian in principle, though not necessarily in practice. The use of planning rather than prices in running the economy makes the actual measurement of inequality difficult, and individuals can be as corrupt in a socialist as in a capitalist economy."<br />
<br />
There -- an actual definition. Maybe not the Tea Party definition, but an ECONOMIST'S definition of an economic idea.

So basically, WhenTheWallsFell, you want to live in a country wherein you pay absolutely no taxes whatsoever?<br />
<br />
Because you definition of “force” is the government taxing a portion of your income.<br />
<br />
So the police department, fire department, highways, local library, public schools…wouldn’t all of these institutions be considered “socialist” institutions by your definition because they are provided to the whole community and are paid for by taxes?<br />
<br />
Just out of curiosity…how would this country function if there were no taxes paid (except of course to pay for the military)?<br />
<br />
Do you believe that NOTHING should be offered to citizens as a whole? What about education? Prior to public schools the only people who became educated were the wealthy…do you advocate a return to that system?<br />
<br />
What about police protection? Do you advocate that the only people “worthy” of protection should be those who can afford to employ their own private bodyguards?<br />
<br />
That doesn’t sound very democratic. It sounds like a return to British Nobility circa 1600’s!<br />
<br />
And you made the point that you want to keep more of your “hard earned” money. Well, we all do! The reality is that paying taxes is actually CHEAPER than paying for everything out-of-pocket to for profit private companies. Pooling community resources and providing for the Commons allows all of us to keep more of our money. <br />
<br />
Example: In Sweden they have $25 taken out of every paycheck to pay for their evil socialized medicine. Now compare that to US citizens paying $400 a month for private insurance (and also paying co-pays and also paying for the $5,000 in routine services that our insurance doesn’t cover.) Which system allows you to keep more of your money?<br />
<br />
Example: In France the government takes $30 in taxes out of every paycheck, part of which goes to cover national childcare for all citizens. In the US we “keep” our money and instead pay $100 A WEEK to a private for profit childcare provider. Again, which system allows you to keep more of your money?<br />
<br />
Do you see how you actually LOSE MORE MONEY by paying less taxes and insisting that our country should be run as an every-man-for-themselves operation?<br />
<br />
Which system allows you to keep more of your money: having $25 taken out in taxes via graduated tax rate for universal healthcare….or paying $400 a month to Blue Cross/Blue Shield and also having that company only pay 47 percent of your total hospital bill?

"the goverment is nontheless taking my income, by force, to spend for the "needs" of others. If you define socialism by any other definition, I'd love to hear it."<br />
<br />
People of good will come together in communities, always have, always will. The human race has evolved with this spirit of cooperation because it has proven very beneficial for the species to be this way. Goverment is a mechanism to facilitate this cooperation. We can have good goverment, or we can have bad goverment, but no goverment devolves quickly into Mogadishu, Somalia and I'd rather not and neither would you, thank you very much. So, technocrats to the rescue, give me a good policy wonk over a militia survivalist anyday. I like kindness and cooperation, call me crazy that way!

What "values" does Sarah Palin have that that mad tyrant Obama opposes?<br />
<br />
Does Obama routinely engage in human sacrafice to appease the pagan gods he prays to...whereas Sarah is a monotheist who opposes human sacrafice? Please tell me what these "values" are that Obama (the most evil man on earth) opposes?<br />
<br />
Also...what exactly is "socialist" legislation? Please list the top 5 peieces of legislation that Obama has personally endorsed and passed in his 1st year in office that you consider socialist, WhenTheWallsFell. <br />
<br />
And when you say you want to be free of government interference....does that apply to Conservatives issues as well? Because when the Cons demand the GOVERNMENT ban all same sex marriages, that sounds like them wanting -- no, demanding! -- that government interfere with our personal lives and take freedoms away from us. Instead of allow each person the freedom to decide for themselves who to marry...the Cons want the government to decide for us. <br />
<br />
When the Conservatives want -- no, demand! -- that government ban abortion...that sounds exactly like government interfering in our personal lives and taking the freedom to make individual decisions away from us. Doesn't this come in conflict with your idea of keeping government out of our personal lives?<br />
<br />
When the Conservatives want -- no, demand! -- that government ignore all domestic and international laws when dealing with POW's suspected (not convicted, merely accused) of terrorism...that doesn't sound like "freedom" to me. It sounds like a double-standard. Human rights and the rule of law apply to US citizens...but the rest of the world can be treated like animals. Empowering the government to deny everyone (even US citizens if they so decide) of due process under the law and protection from unlawful incarceration doesn't sound like "freedom" to me. Does it sound that way to you?

ha, ha... more lying than Bush.. the biggest lie of the last 12 years was the Iraq war. <br />
It was interesting to watch how FOX news handled Obama's speech to the GOP<br />
They delayed and filtered every response from Obama, as if their viewers are too stupid to <br />
judge for themselves. <br />
Then, when Obama was pulverizing the GOP on their own turf, Fox pulled the plug for the last 20 minutes. Ailes was watching and, no doubt, told them to pull the plug. He's a shrewd ****** and knows when he's beat. <br />
When asked why he pulled the last 20 minutes, Ailes changed the subject. <br />
That's what they do, refr<x>ame the problem. Or change the subject.

Well said old boy i think you present a very reasoned and reasonable argument as to why you correctly voted democrat. All of the things you quote are perfectly reasonable, not in the way you presented them off course, as you have been rather naughty in taking them out of context and adding an emotive and populist overtone. The alternative to all this of course is totalitarianism because the world of complete choice, free market and survival of the fittest that you espouse lacks any form of social cohesion and will implode as surely as the world will end in two years time and Noah was able to build a boat of wood that supported 1 million tons of biosphere (that is if he took two of every species on earth).

I voted Democrat because. <br />
I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to<br />
marry my horse. <br />
I voted Democrat because. <br />
I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene<br />
but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't. <br />
I voted Democrat because.. <br />
I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I<br />
earn than I would. <br />
I voted Democrat because <br />
Freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it. <br />
I voted Democrat because <br />
When we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they<br />
are doing because they now think we are good people. <br />
I voted Democrat because <br />
I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my<br />
local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and<br />
thieves. <br />
I voted Democrat because <br />
I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday<br />
can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if <br />
I don't start driving a Prius. <br />
I voted Democrat because <br />
I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies so long as<br />
we keep all death row inmates alive. <br />
I voted Democrat because <br />
I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education,<br />
and Social Security benefits. <br />
I voted Democrat because <br />
I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits<br />
for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away<br />
to the government for redistribution as the democrats see fit. <br />
I voted Democrat because <br />
I believe liberal judges need to rewrite The Constitution every<br />
few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their<br />
agendas past the voters. <br />
I voted Democrat because. My head is so firmly planted up my ***<br />
that it is unlikely I'll ever have another point of view.

Wow Ole George was even more cunning than I thought. I know a friend of mine who was refused a job interview becasue he had taken 7 sick days in the previous 12 months. He had the 'flu. <br />
<br />
politics is a dirty game.

Rhetoric, propaganda, and polls of their freakazoid party members can naver change the fact that they are insane, utterly and irrevocably insane. Beck is a paid liar to spout for the Big Bro faction, we all know it, well, except for the dumb a99es who watch that crap. Did you see the "Glenn Beck fake Crying" video? Outrageous! Just go ogle it, it's there for the world to see the REAL Glenn Beck! Show your friends! Fun at parties! A real laugh bag of hilarity! (Not. It's serious business lying for money, and he takes it serious. It's where his paycheck comes from.)<br />
<br />
http://snardfarker.ning.com/video/glenn-becks-fake-crying<br />
<br />
They're all just creatures of hate, misanthropists who don't care who suffers or dies for their cause, I daresay, even Obama, who is just continuing Bush policies, he is trying, but he cannot get around all the stupid laws Bush and his cronies put into effect for their benefit. The handbasket has arrived, but I refuse to load up.<br />
It makes me think of a story I wrote here about partisan politics:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.experienceproject.com/uw.php?e=860397" target="ep_blank">EP Link</a><br />
<br />
<br />
Great group. Great story, stirring the pot, good. They need a wake up call, some cold tea in the face.

Don't blame Puck, he's just a fan of Beck, who thinks Obama is a racist-socialist-Marxist-commie-atheist-Muslim-terrorist-who-wants-to-raise-everyone's-tax-rate-to-100%-to-spread-the-wealth-around-and-take-away-our-guns-and-put-us-into-secret-FEMA-prisons-where-death-panels-decide-to-unplug-Grandma. <br />
<br />
When the people you look up spew such ridiculous lies, what do you expect?

Well, I guess Archimedes77 was right. I had a good friend for many years who was Republican. We had really interesting, spirited debates. We disagreed but respected each other. But that is not the atmosphere today. It's really kind of sad.

I didn't see that coming. I'm not interested in having name-calling on this post, so you can move along Puck. You really don't make yourself look good when you behave that way.

No problem. You commie marxist socialist pinko bleeding heart tree huggin hippie left wing loon of a liberal!

The lobbyist problem is bipartisan, for sure. I've got to go. Check out the Friday talk, Puck. I appreciate you hanging in there for an interesting discussion and being open to hearing Obama's response to the criticisms of him.

Check out his past and who he has been hanging out with, and I don't see how you can trust him. Look at all the bribery ie labor unions, seiu, Nebraska, Louisiana, just watch what he is doing. Take a good look at where he's been.<br />
Of course Sarah Palin has a ton more political experience than he does. She did a terrific job as a Mayor and as the Governor of Alaska.

Well I prefer it to a pundit on msnbc. I do listen to him, and I hear him lie and recycle promises.He has the audacity to talk about no lobbyists, or transparency?

Speechless, you aren't making sense.

Thank you, Puck. <br />
<br />
Speechless, it is obvious you haven't been listening. Obama thinks we have a monarchy! Where do get this stuff?!

If I'm slow in responding, it's my internet connection. It's pathetic.<br />
<br />
Puck, Obama has proposed a spending freeze and lots of cost cutting measures. You need to actually listen to what he says, not what a pundit on Fox represents.<br />
<br />
Speechless, you making irrelevant remarks to this discussion when you talk about Michelle Obama's make up. WTF.

OH yes of course . I gave it half an ear, but I'll give it another listen. Eves Harvest.

The silence is deafening on my challenge, Puck.<br />
<br />
Speechless. Right now, Republicans are blocking ending "Don't Ask'; Don't Tell." Right now.<br />
<br />
This isn't a monarchy. Obama is proposing a package to get money flowing to small businesses using Tarp money to increase jobs. Being blocked by Republicans. Obama cannot sign things into law without congress. He cannot solve the problems we face without congress.

Yes lets cut spending!

Hello?

LIberals obstructed nothing!!!!! There was some Supreme court fights but that's about it.....Repubs were there for 8 years and did nothing about abortion.....they are hypocrits....did nothing about the growing deficit.....hypocrits.....spent spent spent and paid for nothing...hypocrits.....so much for meeting in the middle....we have to get beyond this.....let's cut spending!

At least I'm the only conservative on here right now. You can take comfort in that. Sore losers? I smell hypocricy. Look how the liberals acted during bushes 8 years!<br />
<br />
OH make that two. Hi speechless!

Did I hear somebody say "meet in the middle"? Hooray! Hooray! Yipee! The fight's over? Let's get to Work! Tell your legislators to sign back on to that commission and help to cut spending. That's right, you heard right, CUT SPENDING! Now, show up or shut up! Sorry....passions flame!!! So sorry! Hahaha!

Well said, Annie! With my slow satellite connection, I'll need to wait until a not prime time to look at that link.<br />
<br />
AND, Puck, I will only look at it if you commit to watching Obama's 90 minute exchange with Republican house members Friday, in its entirety! He addresses his Republican critics and takes questions from them. I'm sure you can get it on the internet. Is it a deal?

I know bush lied on tape more than once, but that's all I could find. He lied about the levy after Katrina<br />
Obama also lies 8 times about putting the Health care bill workings on Cspan.<br />
<br />
Fact is, all conservatives aren't stupid red necks., and all liberals aren't begging leeches.<br />
It's really two sides of a coin; yen and yang; if you will. Look at the history, all the great things that have happened politically, have happened because of both conservatives and liberals fighting it out and meeting somewhere in the middle.<br />
<br />
I'm not crawfishin though!

I followed the Obama lied link and my computer froze twice! Had to reboot both times. Its exhausting. ....160 lies. Obama claims he's bipartisan.....He's not! He lies! <br />
<br />
If I dissected everything any politician ever said I could ...Dear God in Heaven! The man is in office, he is on the job to solve problems, and he is being obstructed and deliberately targeted for destruction. Shame on you! Half his proposals are former republican talking points. Republicans are the most childish sore losers in the entire history of mankind and this is being written, it will be written again and again, Our Grandchildren will read about this period of our country when action was needed and thwarted by a right wing with the political mentalilty of very backward children, treating our country as their playground.

Lol, Arch! Thanks, I needed that. <br />
<br />
Puck, I will look at your links and take some time to read them and address them. How is that for reasonable?<br />
<br />
Do I need luck for this posting? I am inviting Republicans to say where they stand on the issues listed. If they disagree about Obama hating white people, being born in another country, being impeachable, etc, then distance yourself from these kooks. If they agree--say it, own it, and take the fire.

http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/05/documented-lie-50-obama-claimed-he-had.html<br />
<br />
these are all in blue so you can get the scoop on each one. As far as the lies on tape I've found a lot more obama than bush. I just got to bundle em up some how.<br />
<br />
Gosh UC that comment sure sounds elitist.

So Puck, you haven't backed up your statement. I won't hold my breath.<br />
<br />
UC, I knew they were out there. I still held hope that there weren't that many of them with such stupid, undocumented, baseless, beliefs.

Eves harvest, Find me a tape of Bush lying 7 times in 2 minutes. I'll get you more examples for comparison

Puck, I'm not blaming all of this on Beck, but he is leading a lot of it. I asked you those specific questions because they were in the poll. I don't want to know where Beck stands; I want to know where you stand, and have something to back it up.<br />
<br />
"Our Obama" was a typo; it was supposed to be "find out Obama supports it." I like him, but I haven't set up an alter to him!<br />
<br />
If you are going to say that Obama has lied on tape more than Bush, you need to be specific and back it up. That is a pretty big charge.

Glenn never said that Obama wasn't a citizen. Acorn is guilty of widespread corruption and voter fraud. No I don't think Obama is a rascist.You say "our Obama" he's lied to you just as much as he's lied to me. I doubt you will think of him as "our Obama" for long. He has been caught lying on tape already more than bush did his whole term.eg. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UErR7i2onW0<br />
<br />
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60

Puck, the Huffington post didn't conduct the poll, it just reported it. Do you believe Obama hates white people? Do you believe that ACORN stole the election? Do you believe that Obama wasn't born here?<br />
<br />
Annie, I really hope that the word gets out about Republicans reversing their position on something once they find our Obama supports it. It really exposes them.

A poll of Glen Beck's audience would skew those numbers even higher!

Just look at the polarity on this site alone! It is exactly as if left and right people live on different planets. I heard a reference to a sound bite (how's that for fourth hand knowledge! LOL) Anyway, Obama remarked how disheartening it was that those Republicans who had signed up for a deficit reduction fact finding group, all resigned when they realized that Obama was endorsing their commision. They can't keep this united opposition thing up for much longer, even the dim wits who took that poll will see them as the fools they are.

rigged polls and the rantings of left wingers. Huffington Post? Who in the hell is that?I know the huffington post.Glenn Beck has an astronomically larger audience than does the Huffington Post. So I guess most of the US is really screwed up.Glenn Beck does enlighten people every time he opens his mouth. That's how he got to be where he is. The second most popular man in America.

It sickens me that it has been so successful.

There's racism but I don't believe that's more then a tiny part of what's going on. I think its the result of a deliberate campaign of fearmongering by the right wing. They'll exploit anything they perceive as a weakness to maintain power. They are ruthless, they are relentless, and they are shameless.

I'm so glad he is out there pulling the projections off of him. I don't remember another president getting such dark projections, not in my lifetime. I don't know how to explain it other than deep, unconscious racism. It is so obvious when you listen to him how distorted these views are.

That poll is one of many reasons I am sooooo glad he's out and about again and showing his stuff. Everytime he opens his mouth, he has to enlighten at least one ignorant person. I have to believe that, if I didn't, I don't think I could put one foot in front of the other.