Huge Republican Tax Increase

[JFootin]

So, what do you think is going to happen if we get the New England moderate as president? Here, we see what the mind of the Republican establishment is, which is a far cry from true conservative principles. And if we nominate 'their' candidate, where will it lead?

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2012/03/15/republicans-join-democrats-supporting-colossal-tax-increase/

[knkali]

Yep keep taxing and not producing. Solid thinking there.

[popgoestheweasel]

So, what do you think is going to happen if we get the New England moderate as president? Here, we see what the mind of the Republican establishment is, which is a far cry from true conservative principles. And if we nominate 'their' candidate, where will it lead?

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2012/03/15/republicans-join-democrats-supporting-colossal-tax-increase/

My vote is...another rotten mess like the one W and his party put us in!!!

[Longitude Zero]

My vote is...another rotten mess like the one W and his party put us in!!!

An educated voter knows W and his party put us NOWHERE. We were already there thanks to predecessors. Now he did nothing to get us out but your aspersion is completely erroneous.

[kgturner]

An "internet sales tax" has been discussed for years and you better believe that the feds and state governments are going to find a way to dip their ladel into that stream of hundreds of billions of dollars being spent over the internet every year. I don't like it, but I think we're at the point of "when" will the internet be taxed, not "if".

Kevin T

[JohnR]

If a Republican wins, those who put us in this rotten mess will make damn sure we crash hard so they can blame it on Republicans.

And if the O wins, they'll keep boiling the frog slowly.

Just a few more degrees and we'll forget all about free speech, the 2nd Amendment, free religion...

Either way it's a crash, sooner or later. No one is willing to do what's needed to prevent it, if indeed it's still possible.

[Frankhenrylee]

That's my biggest complaint about so-called Conservatives - there not. A piece of crap is a piece of crap, no matter's who's it comes from. I don't know how many true Conservatives there are anymore, it seems more like a catch phrase than an ideal. Let's just say we're Conservative and then turnaround and spend just as much money as the Dems, if not more, but that's OK because we're Conservatives and whatever we decide is best for everyone. I love this country, but our governments on every level are a joke. If people didn't stand up and fight for their rights, I firmly believe we wouldn't have any if left up to these guys.

[TriggerMan]

An educated voter knows W and his party put us NOWHERE. We were already there thanks to predecessors. Now he did nothing to get us out but your aspersion is completely erroneous.From the start, Bush embraced a governing philosophy of deregulation. That trickled down to federal oversight agencies, which in turn eased off on banks and mortgage brokers. Bush did push early on for tighter controls over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1869495_1869493_1869484,00.html), but he failed to move Congress. After the Enron scandal, Bush backed and signed the aggressively regulatory Sarbanes-Oxley Act. But SEC head William Donaldson tried to boost regulation of mutual and hedge funds, he was blocked by Bush's advisers at the White House as well as other powerful Republicans and quit. Plus, let's face it, the meltdown happened on Bush's watch.

and , from Wikipedia:

"The economic policy of the George W. Bush administration was a combination of tax cuts, expenditures for fighting two wars, and a free-market ideology intended to de-emphasize the role of government in the private sector. He advocated the ownership society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership_society), premised on the concepts of individual accountability, less government, and the owning of property.
During his first term (2001–2005), he sought and obtained Congressional approval for tax cuts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_cuts): the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_ of_2001), the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_Creation_and_Worker_Assistance_Act_of_2002) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_and_Growth_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2 003). These acts decreased all tax rates, reduced the capital gains tax, increased the child tax credit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_tax_credit) and eliminated the so-called "marriage penalty", and were set to expire in 2011.
The last two years of his presidency were characterized by the worsening subprime mortgage crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis), which resulted in dramatic government intervention to bailout (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailout) damaged financial institutions and a weakening economy.
The U.S. national debt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._national_debt) grew significantly from 2001 to 2008, both in dollars terms and relative to the size of the economy (GDP),[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administrati on#cite_note-0) due to a combination of tax cuts and wars in both Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)) and Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq). Budgeted spending under President Bush averaged 19.9% of GDP, similar to his predecessor President Bill Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton), although tax receipts were lower at 17.9% versus 19.1%.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administrati on#cite_note-CBO_Historical_Tables-1) "

[muggsy]

State governments have been losing billions of tax dollars to out of state internet purchases. Local stores can't compete with out of state websites for business. Something had to give and it finally did. One way or another the states were going to get their due. Everyone wants government services, but no one wants to pay for them. This may come as a surprise to some of you, but there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

[JFootin]

Blue or red, it doesn't matter much. The professional polititians are all corrupt, misguided and/or profoundly stupid. But Obama is neither. The link posted yesterday, "Barack Obama's RULES FOR REVOLUTION (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Rules%20for%20Revolution%20%282%29.pdf)", puts everything in clear view. Woe be unto us. :(

[kgturner]

The only color a politician cares for is green. Whoever has the most green gets the most influence. If you don't like, step up and cast your one, single vote. Politics is all about looking after your major donors while not completely pissing off 51% of the little people.

Kevin T

[popgoestheweasel]

From the start, Bush embraced a governing philosophy of deregulation. That trickled down to federal oversight agencies, which in turn eased off on banks and mortgage brokers. Bush did push early on for tighter controls over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1869495_1869493_1869484,00.html), but he failed to move Congress. After the Enron scandal, Bush backed and signed the aggressively regulatory Sarbanes-Oxley Act. But SEC head William Donaldson tried to boost regulation of mutual and hedge funds, he was blocked by Bush's advisers at the White House as well as other powerful Republicans and quit. Plus, let's face it, the meltdown happened on Bush's watch.

and , from Wikipedia:

"The economic policy of the George W. Bush administration was a combination of tax cuts, expenditures for fighting two wars, and a free-market ideology intended to de-emphasize the role of government in the private sector. He advocated the ownership society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership_society), premised on the concepts of individual accountability, less government, and the owning of property.
During his first term (2001–2005), he sought and obtained Congressional approval for tax cuts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_cuts): the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_ of_2001), the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_Creation_and_Worker_Assistance_Act_of_2002) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_and_Growth_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2 003). These acts decreased all tax rates, reduced the capital gains tax, increased the child tax credit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_tax_credit) and eliminated the so-called "marriage penalty", and were set to expire in 2011.
The last two years of his presidency were characterized by the worsening subprime mortgage crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis), which resulted in dramatic government intervention to bailout (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailout) damaged financial institutions and a weakening economy.
The U.S. national debt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._national_debt) grew significantly from 2001 to 2008, both in dollars terms and relative to the size of the economy (GDP),[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administrati on#cite_note-0) due to a combination of tax cuts and wars in both Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)) and Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq). Budgeted spending under President Bush averaged 19.9% of GDP, similar to his predecessor President Bill Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton), although tax receipts were lower at 17.9% versus 19.1%.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administrati on#cite_note-CBO_Historical_Tables-1) "

Nice summary!!! Very nice!!! Filled with those pesky facts and only a scratch on the surface of the mistake known as " W " . As for 3M (Massachusetts Moderate Mitt), good ole Newt and his presidential rivals are revealing him for the phony he is. Gosh, I hate it for him. I knew there was something I liked about Newt.

[muggsy]

Nice summary!!! Very nice!!! Filled with those pesky facts and only a scratch on the surface of the mistake known as " W " . As for 3M (Massachusetts Moderate Mitt), good ole Newt and his presidential rivals are revealing him for the phony he is. Gosh, I hate it for him. I knew there was something I liked about Newt.

And the truth will set you free.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yga7TlsA-1A

[TriggerMan]

And the truth will set you free.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yga7TlsA-1A

This poster said it best in his comment:

So funny, as if FOX NEWS is actually news. They blame the "small people" in the democratic party that praised these companies, yet, I see NO effort to blame the people that where IN CHARGE at the time.
This is completely politics as usual and does nothing to address the so called problems with mortgage finance. Look at the dates of the Democratic comments..Schumer is 2005? way before we had any of this 2008 fiasco. FOX NEWS always full of **** and spinning EVERYTHING.

[TriggerMan]

And the truth will set you free.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yga7TlsA-1A

Plenty of blame to go around. Were does the buck stop? Obama is continually targeted as the reason things are not 100% turned around.

Bush did push early on for tighter controls over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1869495_1869493_1869484,00.html), but he failed to move Congress.

Pick your poison, the whole system sucks.

[yqtszhj]

Blue or red, it doesn't matter much. The professional polititians are all corrupt, misguided and/or profoundly stupid. But Obama is neither. The link posted yesterday, "Barack Obama's RULES FOR REVOLUTION (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Rules%20for%20Revolution%20%282%29.pdf)", puts everything in clear view. Woe be unto us. :(

^^^^ What he said ^^^^

[muggsy]

Plenty of blame to go around. Were does the buck stop? Obama is continually targeted as the reason things are not 100% turned around.

Bush did push early on for tighter controls over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1869495_1869493_1869484,00.html), but he failed to move Congress.

Pick your poison, the whole system sucks.

Bush failed to move congress, because if you will recall, both houses of congress were controlled by the democrats in the last two years of his presidency. The two years that immediately preceded the economic collapse. But then, of course, Obama inherited the rotten economy from bush. You still want to discuss spin?

[DKD]

Amen MUGGSY. Obama feels he ain't responsible for anything...its always someone elses fault...that cowardly, narsasist, marxist, little weasle. This country surely can't survive another four years of his war on the American way of life and our founding principals.

[Popeye]

Amen MUGGSY. Obama feels he ain't responsible for anything...its always someone elses fault...that cowardly, narsasist, marxist, little weasle. This country surely can't survive another four years of his war on the American way of life and our founding principals.
This ^^^^^

[yqtszhj]

And the truth will set you free.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yga7TlsA-1A

The Dem's (Barney) knew about it and claimed nothing was wrong/did nothing.... Hmmmm this is what I think about that

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y80EL6d2peI

[TriggerMan]

Bush failed to move congress, because if you will recall, both houses of congress were controlled by the democrats in the last two years of his presidency. The two years that immediately preceded the economic collapse. But then, of course, Obama inherited the rotten economy from bush. You still want to discuss spin?His watch. His ineffectiveness. Republicans fail to know we need them to compromise and learn to help govern. The Tea Party types will learn at their first re-election that voters won't stand for gridlock.

The housing debacle is but one element of several that got all of us in a much bigger mess. Bush spent like a democrat but lowered taxes like a republican. A bad formula. Spin it however you want.

[Chief Joseph]

From the start, Bush embraced a governing philosophy of deregulation. That trickled down to federal oversight agencies, which in turn eased off on banks and mortgage brokers. Bush did push early on for tighter controls over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1869495_1869493_1869484,00.html), but he failed to move Congress. After the Enron scandal, Bush backed and signed the aggressively regulatory Sarbanes-Oxley Act. But SEC head William Donaldson tried to boost regulation of mutual and hedge funds, he was blocked by Bush's advisers at the White House as well as other powerful Republicans and quit. Plus, let's face it, the meltdown happened on Bush's watch.

and , from Wikipedia:

"The economic policy of the George W. Bush administration was a combination of tax cuts, expenditures for fighting two wars, and a free-market ideology intended to de-emphasize the role of government in the private sector. He advocated the ownership society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership_society), premised on the concepts of individual accountability, less government, and the owning of property.
During his first term (2001–2005), he sought and obtained Congressional approval for tax cuts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_cuts): the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_ of_2001), the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_Creation_and_Worker_Assistance_Act_of_2002) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_and_Growth_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2 003). These acts decreased all tax rates, reduced the capital gains tax, increased the child tax credit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_tax_credit) and eliminated the so-called "marriage penalty", and were set to expire in 2011.
The last two years of his presidency were characterized by the worsening subprime mortgage crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis), which resulted in dramatic government intervention to bailout (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailout) damaged financial institutions and a weakening economy.
The U.S. national debt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._national_debt) grew significantly from 2001 to 2008, both in dollars terms and relative to the size of the economy (GDP),[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administrati on#cite_note-0) due to a combination of tax cuts and wars in both Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)) and Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq). Budgeted spending under President Bush averaged 19.9% of GDP, similar to his predecessor President Bill Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton), although tax receipts were lower at 17.9% versus 19.1%.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administrati on#cite_note-CBO_Historical_Tables-1) "

It's really pathetic that "deregulation" is how the left loves to blame the housing collapse. THAT was brought to you from the start by the 2nd worst president ever, now that we've seen nobama in action. carters fair housing program. Reagan slowed it, CLINTOON ballooned it. In 2003 W made an effort to slow it and in 05 mccain tried with the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. I remember vividly that scumbag barney frank standing up and saying that the loans were SOUND, backed by his dem buddies. And if you look somewhere other than wikipedia, you might even see after the collapse the loser was STILL trying to push subprime loans. This "deregulation" was an ORDER from government to reduce the requirements for loans so minorities who couldn't qualify could buy homes. The government REQUIRED them to do it, and it would be backed by the government. The cause of the collapse completely rests on socialist government trying to social engineer an outcome. Once they screwed with the free market it became the mess, and yet they are STILL doing it and unfortunately too many Americans are still buying into it. Unlike our current loser in chief, at least W. was constrained by the other branches of government, nobama doesn't feel the need to follow the Constitution. It's amazing that government tells the private sector to loan, they do, the expected result occurs and leftists sit back and blame those who were only doing what they were told to do.

[Chief Joseph]

His watch. His ineffectiveness. Republicans fail to know we need them to compromise and learn to help govern. The Tea Party types will learn at their first re-election that voters won't stand for gridlock.

The housing debacle is but one element of several that got all of us in a much bigger mess. Bush spent like a democrat but lowered taxes like a republican. A bad formula. Spin it however you want.

Ya, we're getting a great lesson in "compromise" from loser in chief, is he even aware there are other branches of government? Spent like a democRAT? I guess you're unaware of how much this current joker has spent? And how much more he plans on spending? He gets another term we're doomed. The cbo has already "corrected" mr liar in chiefs nobamacare costs.

[tv_racin_fan]

I'm still trying to figure out when the Republicans had 60 seats in the senate... I can not recall such a time in my lifetime.

[popgoestheweasel]

Blue or red, it doesn't matter much. The professional polititians are all corrupt, misguided and/or profoundly stupid. But Obama is neither. The link posted yesterday, "Barack Obama's RULES FOR REVOLUTION (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Rules%20for%20Revolution%20%282%29.pdf)", puts everything in clear view. Woe be unto us. :(

I think the truth is beginning to set me free. My view is now clearer after reading the Horowitz article linking Obama with every low-down, rotten human being (or group) one could think of. Alinsky, Capone, Castro, the Clinton's, Dillinger, Hitler, Lenin, John Lennon, Michelle O, Communists/Socialists, etc...(even Bush?). Toward the end of the article, I was beginning to wonder why Charles Manson was forgotten as Obama's best friend. But, not to worry, the author didn't disappoint. Finally, ole Charlie was mentioned. So, I'm just about ready to drink the Kool-Aid and join the overwhelming majority of KahrTalk members whose #1 priority is to beat Obama (oops), I mean Obummer. Speaking of Kool-Aid, how did Horowitz forget naming Obummer and Jim Jones in the same sentence???

Staying on topic, we must nominate a true conservative Republican...only the most conservative of the bunch. The question remains, WHICH of the Republican hopefuls is 'that man'? Does it really matter? I think NOT!!! Supporting a republican candidate lacking true conservative principles won't be difficult come November. Mitt can be our man...as long as we beat OBUMMER. Like many others, we'll forget what we stand for and pretend he's a true conservative. Think about it, the only knock against Mitt is that stupid story of his sick dog, Seamus, strapped atop the Romney-mobile. I'll bet y'all 10,000 measly dollars it won't get him beat. Besides, FOX news will continue to report the dog (and the brown liquid) was hosed off so the issue is irrelevant. Hey, FOX can spin anything (even RomneyCare) with a little help from Uncle Newtie!

Let's all do our part to make sure Obummer is a one-term President. After all, Republican Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, made this objective the #1 priority of the 2008-2010 Republican Congress. We must not fail!!! NOTE: I'm sure WE were a priority as well. So...let's join the Republican establishment, set aside those all-important principles, swallow hard, and make Mitt YOUR man.

[muggsy]

I think the truth is beginning to set me free. My view is now clearer after reading the Horowitz article linking Obama with every low-down, rotten human being (or group) one could think of. Alinsky, Capone, Castro, the Clinton's, Dillinger, Hitler, Lenin, John Lennon, Michelle O, Communists/Socialists, etc...(even Bush?). Toward the end of the article, I was beginning to wonder why Charles Manson was forgotten as Obama's best friend. But, not to worry, the author didn't disappoint. Finally, ole Charlie was mentioned. So, I'm just about ready to drink the Kool-Aid and join the overwhelming majority of KahrTalk members whose #1 priority is to beat Obama (oops), I mean Obummer. Speaking of Kool-Aid, how did Horowitz forget naming Obummer and Jim Jones in the same sentence???

Staying on topic, we must nominate a true conservative Republican...only the most conservative of the bunch. The question remains, WHICH of the Republican hopefuls is 'that man'? Does it really matter? I think NOT!!! Supporting a republican candidate lacking true conservative principles won't be difficult come November. Mitt can be our man...as long as we beat OBUMMER. Like many others, we'll forget what we stand for and pretend he's a true conservative. Think about it, the only knock against Mitt is that stupid story of his sick dog, Seamus, strapped atop the Romney-mobile. I'll bet y'all 10,000 measly dollars it won't get him beat. Besides, FOX news will continue to report the dog (and the brown liquid) was hosed off so the issue is irrelevant. Hey, FOX can spin anything (even RomneyCare) with a little help from Uncle Newtie!

Let's all do our part to make sure Obummer is a one-term President. After all, Republican Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, made this objective the #1 priority of the 2008-2010 Republican Congress. We must not fail!!! NOTE: I'm sure WE were a priority as well. So...let's join the Republican establishment, set aside those all-important principles, swallow hard, and make Mitt YOUR man.

Even Charlie Manson had his limits on with whom he would associate, Weasel. Apparently that's not the case with you. Enjoy the balance of Obama's one term as president. The great failed experiment.

[JFootin]

Yeah, we'll just have to hold our noses and vote for Nomorebama. :hippie:

[muggsy]

Yeah, we'll just have to hold our noses and vote for Nomorebama. :hippie:

Nomorebama has my vote.

[muggsy]

I'm still trying to figure out when the Republicans had 60 seats in the senate... I can not recall such a time in my lifetime.

It's possible that the next election could produce a sixty seat majority in the Senate for the Republicans. The socialist democrat party has really screwed up the country and it shows at the pump. People vote their pocketbooks.

[popgoestheweasel]

It's possible that the next election could produce a sixty seat majority in the Senate for the Republicans. The socialist democrat party has really screwed up the country and it shows at the pump. People vote their pocketbooks.

People vote their pocketbooks and will undoubtedly choose Mitt. After all, who relates better with the poor folk than a guy making $10,000 bets who calls $374,000 "not very much". It's comforting to know Mitt isn't worried about the poor. He's got 'their' back!

[AIRret]

There is a way to pay off the Nations debt without raising TAXES. We should cut all foreign aide and use that money to pay down the debt. The HELL with the rest of the world. Most of them hate us anyway!!!

[Chief Joseph]

It's possible that the next election could produce a sixty seat majority in the Senate for the Republicans. The socialist democrat party has really screwed up the country and it shows at the pump. People vote their pocketbooks.

That's truly the saddest part of all. People willing to let the dems run this country into the ground just so long as it doesn't affect them PERSONALLY. Great citizens our founders sacrificed for.

[Chief Joseph]

People vote their pocketbooks and will undoubtedly choose Mitt. After all, who relates better with the poor folk than a guy making $10,000 bets who calls $374,000 "not very much". It's comforting to know Mitt isn't worried about the poor. He's got 'their' back!

Now that's funny, cause we all know the dems are just full of poor people trying to help other poor people. And at least Mitt EARNS and SPENDS his OWN MONEY, unlike nobama and his worthless wife who get a kick out of spending OUR money on their extravagance. Of course, why care when you've never had a real job in your life, right?

Oh and by the way, can you afford to go to any of nobamas fund raisers? You know, the 25 grand a plate ones?

[Mike_B]

I'm basically just a working stiff. I'm just smart enough to realize I'm not smart enough to know all the answers . From my perspective (down here in the 99th percentile) I don't trust the Republicans or the Democrats. They all suck! It's all about Big Money. Screw the little guy- history has proved time and again most people are just fodder for the Rich Man's pursuit of the almighty dollar (or yen, or euro, or whatever....).

I believe something drastic has to happen, and will- one way or another.

First- eliminate the IRS completely and implement a straight, across the board sales tax on EVERYTHING, for EVERYONE. No loopholes for corporations or anyone else.

Second- eliminate the 2 party system. I have no idea how to do this, but what it has evolved into is a big fat piece of crap!

Third- nationalize healthcare! I know some might label me as a socialist for that statement, so be it! I'm old enough I don't really worry much about what others think of me. I'm a nurse and everyday I see how jacked up the healthcare system is. The whole thing is set up to benefit one thing- you guessed it- Big Money! It's mostly payed for by the government anyway. Ever heard of Medicare, Medicaid? If it was nationalized and our Democratic government functioned as it should- We, The People, would not only be paying for it, but we'd actually have a say in how it's run (through our votes)!

For those who disagree, ask yourselves- Should we privatize other "public services" like law enforcement and fire protection? How about the military?

Fourth- I can't say I disagree with the idea of eliminating most, if not all, of our foreign aid. At least cut out what we give to those who hate us.

I really love this country. As screwed up as it is- it's still the best place to live in the world. I feel like all I can do is hope that a group will surface with the brains and influence to put the United States back on course. Hopefully they won't have to resort to the drastic measures our original founding fathers had to use. God, please help us!

Here a good illustration- From the great classic "Monty Python and the Holy Grail".....

2 filthy peasants on their knees in the middle of a field, digging up God knows what. Arthur and his servant ride by. One peasant looks at the other and says "He must be a king". "Why do you say that?" asks the other. The 1st's reply- "He's not covered in Shxt!"

[popgoestheweasel]

Now that's funny, cause we all know the dems are just full of poor people trying to help other poor people. And at least Mitt EARNS and SPENDS his OWN MONEY, unlike nobama and his worthless wife who get a kick out of spending OUR money on their extravagance. Of course, why care when you've never had a real job in your life, right?

Oh and by the way, can you afford to go to any of nobamas fund raisers? You know, the 25 grand a plate ones?

See how easy that was to abandon those true conservative principles and jump on the Mitt bandwagon??? Speaking of worthless wives, what is Willards position on Polygamy? I'm hoping he isn't one of those 'plural' kind of guys, otherwise, we might think of preparing for another sell-out of those closely held conservative values, just to beat Obummer. Imagine the cost of extravagance for 5 or 6 1st ladies????????? We'd have to build another White House.

[Chief Joseph]

See how easy that was to abandon those true conservative principles and jump on the Mitt bandwagon??? Speaking of worthless wives, what is Willards position on Polygamy? I'm hoping he isn't one of those 'plural' kind of guys, otherwise, we might think of preparing for another sell-out of those closely held conservative values, just to beat Obummer. Imagine the cost of extravagance for 5 or 6 1st ladies????????? We'd have to build another White House.

Mitt was my last R choice, but after seeing nobama in action, he's worse than I think anyone with half a brain could have expected. I didn't expect this behavior until a second term, but the narcissism in this guy is unbelievable. At this point, I'll take a progressive R over this corrupt, committed anti white, anti Jew, anti American any day of the week.