Imawhosure

Sigh, still falling back on the "old PC" concept are we?! Why is it you want to change the subject from what is, to what you want it to be? Anyway, I have made point well enough that some people have to deflect the debate to something else. That automatically means......it hit a nerve. I am not about changing the subject, but there is a very informative program on PBS called "the Roosevelts." It is very liberal coming from PBS, but even they can not gloss over the change. It is up to us to decide if it was good, bad, and if they have pressed the issue to make it better or worse as we have progressed through the decades. It is full of information, and it is actually accurate. It might teach those on the left here, where their roots actually came from in this country. I am sure they will be surprised what actually happened, and not what they THINK happened, lol. A good historical discourse is always good to clear the air. You will see that FDR was the equivalent of Obama for sure. You will also see, that what you thought fixed our economy back then, is an absolute fairytale. The younger people especially need to watch this, and maybe they will learn something.

I would like everyone to read the "lesson in irony" that I believe says it all---------> Todays Lesson in Irony! The food stamp program is administered by the US department of agriculture. They proudly report that they distribute free meals and foodstamps to over 46 million people on an annual basis. Meanwhile, the National Park Service, run by the US department of the interior, asks us, "please do NOT feed the animals." Their stated reason for this policy being that.......... "The animals WILL become dependent on the handouts, and then they will NEVER learn to take care of themselves." This concludes todays lesson in irony with an example that even the farthest leftist can understand. Any questions?

Mr Edstock sir; I would remind you that any corporations treasuries being full is fine, because it is their money. They earned it fair and square, and if they hoarde it, re-invest it, or burn it, it is their choice. (and their shareholders) Consider the whining about corporations consistently from the left----------> truth is, Apple releases a new I-phone, and the lines go around the building. Other phone companies, virtually the same. Is anyone forced to buy McDonalds, Burger King, Wendys? How about those oil companys? People can ride public transportation since most people on the left live in cities. Walmart! Oh yes, the evil one. Think rich people are the ones shopping there? No, it is the exact people who complain about them constantly. In essence, most on the left puff up their chests and talk a good game, but they are the 1st in line to buy, buy, and buy all the stuff from the people they claim are bad corporate citizens. It is kinda like this one here------------> monopolies are baaaaaaaad cause if any of these corporate actors gets total control over a needed/wanted product, and they are the only game in town you can get it from......they will fleece you! BUT WAIT FOR IT -)............unless of course the product is called E-D-U-C-A-T-I-O-N, then of course the government and democrats don't want competition, they want a monopoly for their supporting unions; and we see how that is working out in America, now don't we! The lust for power in some is soooooo great, they will not only throw Americas childrens education under the bus to keep getting elected, they will saddle them with debt they create so they can give free stuff away today, helping keep them in power. And you say corporations are the problem? Personally, most of us think that is the least of our worries! At least when a corporation gets some of my money, I get a product or service back; and I am not forced to buy their, or anyone elses product. Can you say that about low grade education, buying part of GM and Chrysler, or giving money to people for healthcare? Just because YOU like what they might be doing, doesn't make it right, correct, fair, or even legal.

I find it fascinating that someone from Ontario would comment on Burger King (or any other business for that matter) leaving the US when the corporate tax rate in Canada is waaaaaaaaaaay lower than ours! Debating over the question: is Obama doing well or does he stink, or if Bush did well, or did he stink..........is kinda crazy. We went from a REAL unemployment rate of around 5% to a REAL unemployment rate fluctuating between 13 and 17% over the last 7 years or so. If anybody wants to defend these two (Obama and Bush) because they were nice guys who somehow got a raw deal on a job they campaigned to get; may I suggest you add Jimmy Carter to the mix, and call them the 3 Incompetent Musketeers. Also-----> we should all thank our lucky stars that these less than stellar examples of Presidential timber, were not elected in succession. If they were, we would all be trying to immigrate to Canada and take Edstocks job! It may yet end up that way, if we get Hilly.

Geeze Phil, I am sure you can also show us some truths we need to learn also. Don't get all crazy because you were lead down the primrose path on this one, just learn something new, accept reality, and move on. Doesn't mean everything you thought you knew is in error, just this particular issue. And exactly what does Perry have to do with this conversation? If you want to discuss that one, start a new thread. Not demanding it mind you, just suggesting it.

You know what Akirby, I can't back up his statistical analysis. (nor can he) But I will post a site that HAS statistical analysis, so that maybe Mr Phil quit believing the ridiculous pap he is being fed by the fearless leaders of the party of division; known as liberal democrats. http://www.statisticbrain.com/demographics-of-active-duty-u-s-military/ You see Phil, once you start delving into things, you instantly begin to get a realization, that sometimes those who try and get everyone in an uproar, have to fudge the numbers. They hope that you don't know how, or are to lazy to check what they tell you. We keep trying to tell you that some of the stuff you think you know, you have to UNLEARN. You probably won't become a conservative in the near future, but at least you will know that you are being manipulated, and will start watching out for it. It is a learning process that almost everyone on here went through, trust me, when in my early 20s, I was a staunch democrat that turned to a republican, and in the last 20yrs, a conservative. You just have to check things out, add the numbers, and if you still think it is a great idea to support democrats, then so be it. We aren't telling you not to, we are just explaining that if the reason you do is because of the things you were taught that you say on here; you have been led astray!

Honest Phil, that is when the Tea Party started. It was sooooooooo upset with Bush, its main objective was to put conservatives..........not republicans.......in congress. And it is 100% absolutely true that the democrats banned with them. Look back in internet articles, and see what the democrats and Tea Party people were BOTH saying about "The President Bush" spending machine. This is how you know that the Tea Party people are NOT politicians. They don't care who/whom, or which party is in office, they stick by what they say. And as far as the list you posted for what they SHOULD add, they are only picking things that will sink the country; and issues that should actually go across party lines. You have been fed a "red herring" Phil. From what I have seen personally, 1/3 of the tea party is former democrats. 2/3 are former republicans. They are not so much interested in social policy, but rather fiscal policy and jobs. This is exactly why 1/3 of them are former democrats. You put in some social policies that lean solidly left or right, and the whole movement falls apart. But, as long as it is all about balancing the books and saving American jobs, both parties members can feel free and comfortable to join, and can argue later when there is (if ever) a surplus of cash, and where it should go. Their philosophy is simple, and I agree with it 100%----------> it is better to get together and FORCE our government to get things together and create a surplus we can then argue over; instead of arguing over money we do not have, creating massive amounts of debt that will sink all of us, or our children after we are gone! You do realize, we are passing massive taxes down to the people of our country, that today are not even old enough to vote to have a say in it. You would think (no, I would think) that you would be the 1st on board with this amongst all others on here, because what we are doing is----------> creating a situation where someone (s) are being forced to pay taxation (in the future) without representation in government. (today) No here is a little insight for you Phil-----------> I am called an evil conservative, and whole bunch of other descriptive terms because I do not agree this should be done. Isn't it kinda amazing that I; along with many other conservatives............fight what is happening, while the other side (along with the help of the rinos) run up trillions in debt! We aren't trying to lobby to get MORE money, we are lobbying to get them to CUT spending to save the country, and allow congress decide where/what they want to cut. So how bad are we? Pretty bad I guess. I suppose expecting Washington to do its job is to much.

Exactly Akirby. Just look at who the republicans are running in most of these races..........older than dirt people; actually, old white guys. And when someone young challenges them in a primary, (and when I say young, I mean late 30s to late 40s) they use every trick in the book as a total party to defeat them. It is the same for the democrats, Charlie Rangelle, or Tricky Dick Durbin, etc. These people were there for a lot of the screwing up of this country, went along with it, and here we are. Heck, by the time social security and everything else collapses, all these goofs are going to be dead! The republicans despise the Tea Party because it attempts to take its power and base. The democrats hate the tea party because they will close the checkbook. Therefore, they BOTH complain about them, and the people who get their information from nightly news see them totally different then what they are. And so, I have a question--------------> name me 1 (let me spell that for anyone willing to answer O-N-E) piece of legislation that the tea party supports that is racist, that is homophobic, that is anti old people, anti young people, or anti female. In fact, the tea party is in support of legislation that fixes what over 60% of the American public claim they are worried about, or want fixed. And what is all that legislation? 1. Shrinking the national debt. 2. Forcing LEGAL immigration. 3. Fixing social security. 4. Changing the tax code to a much simpler form so as lobbyists can NOT manipulate it. 5. Repealing/changing Obamacare. (and like it or not, close to 60% of America wants this) 6. Forcing congress to do its job, and stopping the executive branch from over doing theirs. In other words..........following the constitution when it comes to separation of powers. 7. reinstating states rights. 8. Fixing the V.A. And the list goes on to about 25 I believe. Nothing radical here, and the reason it addresses the issues they do, is because they are regular people. They are no politicians, nor community organizers, nor corporation CEOs. They are us trying to fix our country for our children. And for Phil, I offer you this as proof positive that the group in Washington will NEVER fix Social Security because it will piss off to many people----------> I contend that you, I, and a smart accountant could go into a room in Washington for about 2hrs and fix social security. (and the only reason we need an accountant is because we need him/her to run the numbers to insure it is solvent when we are done) 1. Social Security is an INSURANCE program, therefore.............depending upon your outside income AFTER you retire, you get between 100%, down to 65%, but never less than 65%. In other words.............somebody who has nothing would receive 100%, somebody who had money coming in from any source that equaled over 200,000 dollars would receive 65%. Everyone else falls between. 2. People 49 and older keep retirement age. 49 to 45 add 1yr. 44 to 40 2yrs. 39 to 35 3yrs. 34 and below, 5yrs. 3. At NO income level does Social Security stop from being deducted; BUT, if you own your own business, when you reach todays threshold you no longer pay BOTH the employer and employee rate, you only pay 1, at a 50% rate. Also, someone who is employed by another also has their rate drop by 50%.(and this includes the employer rate) At some point, it drops to 25%, then 10%, but never lower than 10%. 4. The money in Social Security can NOT be put into the general fund UNLESS the fund is funded to the tune of 75% of fully funded. (this stops them from spending it, then coming back and claiming you aren't paying your fairshare) The government CAN use the money to invest in STATE bonds rated AAA or higher, but can NOT use the money to buy treasury bonds. There, we just solved the social security problem. Of course, we just gave congress a large problem since they can't put that money in the general fund, but whoever said congress job was only to figure a way to spend more money each year, and not figure out how to spend less?!?!

Well, if I may interject........(maybe I can't) the militarys job is to kill people, and break things. I do not subscribe to the theory---------->that we have to fight politically correct. The Vietnam veterans really got the short end of the stick; although as we see, many of our wars afterward have been the same way. I do not subscribe to any political view from right/left, that our kids should sacrifice their lives for moral authority. It should be relative to every person in this country, that if we actually go to war, we use everything in our arsenal short of nuclear to defeat the enemy; and that we do not tie our soldiers hands with ridiculous edicts for rules of engagement. Phil, I understand your disgust at how all of this has worked. I had a good friend named "Marty" who went to Vietnam and had 1/2 of his hand shot off. A bullet right through between his thumb and index finger. His hand was crippled for life. Nobody would give him a job upon his return from active duty, and the last time I seen him which was 35yrs ago, he was trying to go to college on the GI bill to get a way to support himself and his soon to be family. Our politicians do NOT deserve the soldiers they command. How can any politician DEMAND that one of our soldiers; one of our kids, lay down their lives to make Washington look caring? Once a military action is decided upon, then all hell should break loose upon the enemy to force them to submit, to allow our people to get out of there. You got drafted, didn't you? You didn't want to do it, did you? But you did what the country asked, and now you are really pissed as they left you hanging out there to dry. Nah, you get no blow back from me on that one Phil. When you commit troops; no matter a democrat or republican, you give your troops the best chance to win; or never commit them. The troops that went to Vietnam deserved far better than what they got, and it falls on both parties. We may never agree Phil, but I thank you for your service, and I will always support your right to disagree with me on any issue, although you are probably wrong, lol. This is America, and I would never, ever, deny anyone...........most of all a veteran, the opportunity to put forth his/her opinion, on why things are such a SNAFU. The only thing I can do, is try and change what it is they fight against. Thnx again, with all respect while not in agreement with your views, but understanding your terrible sacrifice, with all sincerity, Imawhosure.

Well, the tea party wants S.S. to be solvent; what is wrong with that? And your erroneous assertion that the Tea Party was born out of hate for Obama shows how misinformed you are friend Phil. Where did you learn that from? Tell all of us who read your posts, or is that just your in error assumption? Actually, the Tea Party was born when GW was in office because he was spending money hand over fist and a lot of republican conservatives didn't like it. In other words-----------> the "Tea Party" was born out of the necessity to stand against a republican President who was acting like a goof on spending, and "gasp," were standing with the democrats who were at that point in time, railing against his spending too. Who would have known that upon GW leaving office, we would end up with A BIGGER SPENDER, and that those kind and loving democrats would change sides since the new guy was spending money on things they liked. (don't believe me, look it up) Do you even know what "Tea Party" stands for? T-E-A? Taxed-Enough-Already! For your information, I have been to more than one of their meetings, and gasp...........there was more than 1 African American, more than 1 Hispanic, more than 1 woman, and in fact; nobody talked about doing anything to anybody but the congress and President, in an attempt to get spending under control. The secondary topic at all the meetings was fixing S.S. and deciding what to do about Medicare/Obamacare. Sounds real radical to me! You should really try it. Hey, the worst thing that can happen is WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD is accurate, lolol. It isn't, but then if I was in power trying to hold on from either party, I would tell you the Pope is radical if he wanted to change things too, while knocking myself and friends of the ruling elite out of the box!

Phil, this has absolutely nothing to do with S.S. but I beg Akirbys forgiveness on this one. What I am about to tell you is absolute fact, can easily be found in multiple locations on the internet, along with libraries if you want to shrug off what the internet says, and before you have a knee jerk reaction that I am trying to spoof you, look up what I am about to say. Not going to get long winded because what people learn through their own investigation, is far better than someone pointing it out who they believe might be opposed to them. 1. The 1st President in modern times who put forth civil rights legislation was Dwight Eisenhower. It basically mirrored all the rights and protection of equality that was given by the Johnson legislation. Virtually every republican in congress voted for it, but it was defeated by democrats. 2. The legislation put forth by Johnson was indeed put forth by a democratic President, and his writer was honestly a democrat in congress. The amazing thing is, most of the democrats in congress voted no. Almost all, if not all of the republicans voted for it, and it barely passed. In fact, President Johnson had the republican whip of the house and senate at his side when he signed this great legislation, because without virtual unanimous republican support, the democrats would have defeated the bill. He wanted them in the picture as a "thanks" for pushing through Kennedys wishes. This nonsense that conservatives are against people of color is propaganda, foisted upon mostly the African American community once it became apparent they would be a huge voting block. All you need do is put on your thinking cap, remember history, and African Americans can see how they were played---------> The democrats are the party of spending, so they started creating programs to supposedly help poor people by GIVING them something. Now then, which sub group in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, had the most poor people? Ah-ha, got ya! First inclination is to say African Americans, and you would be wrong; it was WHITE PEOPLE; inner city, and the poor areas of the South. But, if you listened to democrats, the reason that republicans wanted to rein in these programs, is because they didn't like black people........while the whole time, most of the recipients were lily white!!!!!!!! And so, the myth was born. Fast forward to today. Democrats have kind of thrown black America under the bus. How/why? Because the largest group of ethnic voters now, or very soon, is Hispanics. And what do you hear? Republicans don't like Hispanics, they hate their children, they won't give them their rights. (eventhough in context, the ones being discussed are illegal) Do you see the correlation? Is not history repeating itself? And as for Obama? What do you hear? ----------------> We stand against him because he is the 1st black President. Ummmmmmm, isn't Harry Reid white? Isn't Nancy Pelosi so white she is like chalk? They all stand for the same thing, that is why we are in opposition. The color of a persons skin means absolutely nothing, for if it did, we would never have supported Clarence Thomas. It is what they say, and their ideas. I totally understand why black America doesn't trust conservatives; just as much as I understand why regular communist citizens hate the West. If all you hear is propaganda about how someone hates you for the express purpose of keeping you locked in to a thought process, it is very hard to break out of it and show trust. What is most depressing though, is that a political party would stoop to such measures. If you think I am wrong, just think of this (and I am told that when you bring the name of Adolf Hitler into a post, it crashes all your logic, but it is the best correlation I can think of)-----------> does any one here think that Germans are just totally evil people? Think they were/are just all crazy? Then how was a nation convinced to do what it did, and have the majority of its citizens support such absolute goofiness? PROPAGANDA, repeated over, and over, and over again; and they did it in less than 15yrs, black America has been hearing this pap for 50. A republican President isn't going to fix this Phil. It is going to take a conservative, or a Kennedy type. As Akirby pointed out-------> republicans and democrats just want to spend money on different things, thus they want to be the ones to control the levers of power. It is going to have to be someone that most people; by a wide margin, can believe in..........like Reagan, Kennedy. A true libertarian can't do it, because unless he/she goes the route of rogue President, the congress of democrats and republicans will keep his/her hands tied totally. We aren't electing a king, so we need someone main stream. Good luck to both of us finding that! When you have to constantly lie to hold power Phil, this should tell you that something is really wrong here. And don't count on the media letting you know, they started prosecuting a few of them a while ago, and THAT one thing might have been the biggest thing, that has gotten us in the predicament we are in today. Hope you understand my reasoning, also hope you look up to see what I said was true. If you say, "yes but, I don't care," then we can agree to disagree, I respect your opinion, and at least thanks for checking it out. Every little bit of truth helps, and it is something we should all try to carry with us.

And what does that have to do with the price of beans? Nobody is saying "cut off only blue states" here, we are in unison proclaiming to cut off all of the states. You are really trying to make this to partisan Phil; probably unknowingly. Nobody is saying anything about fixing anything on the backs of one political party, one ethnic group, or one region of the country. It is not feasible to try and find a solution while protecting certain groups or areas, just as much as it isn't to attack certain groups or areas either. You obviously are to caught up in being fair to subgroups that should have no sway with your decisions at all. We are all Americans, and the ones who have to get less, or pay more, are Americans too! The ONLY ones who have NO standing in the debate at all are illegals who are NOT Americans. You know how to tell a politician is useless? If his reasoning for doing anything is because-----------> 1 American group has to much, or another American group needs more. That is division of your country, when the goal should be to keep the country together. Not 1 conservative on this board wants an African American, or Hispanic American, to be treated any differently than a Caucasian American. As you succinctly pointed out, "some of the reddest states take the largest amount of government handouts." Did you see any of us on here proclaim they should be exempt because they are red? With Social Security; and frankly any other problem we have in this country fiscally; if we all quit insisting that we gotta protect this group, or attack this other group, and instead make reasonable decisions and let the chips fall where they may...........we will make progress together. You do realize that the number 1 reason that nothing gets done in congress is because------------> congress is to busy protecting sub-groups, or attacking sub-groups; while America burns. Congress real agenda is to protect lobbyists, or their political donors. They can't come out and say that though, so they spin it into something that really irritates guys like you, or I; and here we sit at each others throats.........instead of us being at congress throats. They like that a lot, and I am sure all of them from both partys are sitting there spinning their talking points to keep us all right where we are today, instead of telling all of them in Washington to take a hike!

What people do not want to understand is-----------------> people think differently, and not everyone thinks like me, or you, or Obama, or Cruz. In America, it USED to be you say what you wanted, and absolutely could think what you wanted. It is not that way anymore, and most disagreement is controlled by political correctness. I would ask the people on this board a simple question----------------> how many of you are paying a taxing freight, meaning you are paying more in then you ever get back? Now for those of us that do, let us break it down into another subset-------------> how many of those that actually pay the freight, want your wealth partially transferred to others, and how many do not? The point is------> it used to be called CHARITY and it was optional. Now you make it so everyone has to pay regardless. It is the same thing with how you live. How many of us would think living in a 700 square ft apartment demeaning? Many people are perfectly satisfied; and if someone is satisfied living as they currently live as far as home, nutrition, and transportation and can do it without working, why would they want to work? Now look at it from the other point of view, and lets make pretend-----------------> tomorrow, somehow, someway, somebody drops 50 million dollars in your lap, AFTER you paid your taxes. Some people would invest the money conservatively and live the rest of their life in bliss. Others, would try and invest and work hard at it to turn that 50 million into 100, 200, 300, or a billion dollars. It is all a state of mind, but the truth is---------------> what anyone chooses for themselves, they should also be responsible for themselves and the choices they make. Finally, I say think about this-------------> everyone on this board gasps when we see big scams that cost people billions. Those bloodsuckers screw the common working man, and even scam the rich. Just think of that power company in California who screwed everyone, and that clown who now sits in jail because they both fleeced millions, if not billions. (both names escape me at the moment, but I am positive you know of whom it is I speak) And yet, many of the same people who gasp at that, accept that people collect THEIR taxpayer money on false pretenses, don't care if more people are ILLEGALLY imported over the border to collect, do not mind that people who could actually help them PAY into the system scam it, and take a net benefit out, and then turn around and tell the rest of us we are somehow evil for demanding accountability on all fronts. Always remember that most scam artists never get rich of their scams, they just never have to work! It is also a proven fact throughout history, that LEADERS who try and cement power push the masses towards blaming a certain entity for their problems; all of their problems! And who do we have being blamed today? Why rich people, and business owners. Now that is brilliant, but I can prove it is all nonsense in one paragraph. If I, Akirby, XR, Fired, and Cal 50 all acquire 1 billion each tomorrow, how much does everyones taxes go down, and how much does your bank account drop? No change you say? Interesting! So what if we all have 2 billion today, and each lose 1 billion tomorrow? Does that affect your taxes or bank account? No? Interesting, isn't it! But what if our money is tied up in a business and the government taxes us more lowering our profit margin, for which we have to answer to our wives, or shareholders, lol? And you happen to work for me, or one of the others? Oh, now you are getting it! You see, if I am making 3% on my business, and you take 1/3 of that and drop it to 2% profit; and if I can make 2.5% profit by just investing the money and do nothing, why would I keep my business? Guess that means you and your co-workers are out of a job. Yes, you will blame it on me, but really, it was Obamas fault. Of course, you will never believe that as you try and collect your check for doing nothing.

Phil, just a few pertinent questions, 1. How many poor people own stocks? Did they get any of the growth in the market put in their pockets, or if they are poor, are they still looking for a good paying job that doesn't exist? 2. Income disparity? Do you think that allowing illegal aliens in is DECREASING, or INCREASING income disparity? The more we let in, the bigger the disparity grows, which I guess makes it a never ending talking point for poverty pimps of all racial special interest groups, now doesn't it! 3. I believe this is a vary important point-----------> Phil, I do not know what you do/did for a living, but I bet you were pretty good at it. I know what some of the people on here do/did, and I bet they are pretty good at their jobs too. Past performance leaves a record behind that goes to your resume, along with allowing people to measure the mettle of a man/woman, when they venture into conversation on various topics. In other words........their past performance adds to their credibility, and believability, which is not one in the same. And so, let us talk about politicians. If you were going to save a business, make a business grow, or restructure a business and balance the books; would the 1st person you think of be Barack Obama the community organizer? Would you pick him with everything you know about him BEFORE he ran for President as the person to handle foreign policy? How about fixing SS, medicare, or creating a new healthcare program? Looking into his past, and seeing (what is it you see?) how he faired in anything he has done, do you think he (or anyone for that matter) should just be able to use his pen and phone to affect years upon years of immigration policy, or any other policy for that matter? He graduated from Harvard, yes? Was that with honors? How many people graduated from Harvard, then went on to become community organizers? What do you think? You should really look up what a community organizer is, and it might scare the heck out of you. And so, let me remind you of a few things, and I will leave it at that. a. Who do Romney say was our geopolitical foe, only to be mad fun of by the media and Mr Obama? Who was correct! b. Who constantly ran adds about republicans pushing grandma off a cliff by messing with medicare and SS? Who actually took almost 800 billion out to finance a healthcare system that is not working? c. Who promised to fix ss and medicare, and won't even discuss it with congress? d. And your idea that if Romney got elected, the war machine would be happy is kinda not true. You see; all taxing and spending bills originate in congress, not the oval office. Me pointing the finger at Obama for overspending, is like you pointing your finger at GW. The only difference is----------> when republicans shut the government down to try and reduce spending, didn't every democrat scream bloody murder? Did the democrats ever shut down GWs spending by closing the government? See my point! In the end, the social compact for SS was made by politicians, and I don't see a one of them suggesting that the government quite taking that money out of workers checks, so therefore, if we are all smart, we will hold their feet to the fire for them to fix it. Doesn't make any difference what party they come from, they need to address the issue. Ignoring the problem is not going to make it go away, and older people who refuse to force our politicians do address it, are only hoping they die before it is and their benefit is altered. That is a hell of a way to run a country, and if the generations before us could win world wars, I am sure we can handle this bump in the road.

While this is slightly off topic, I would ask you this Phil-----------> should FDR get any credit whatsoever for getting us out of the great depression? Some historians say yes, some say no. My take is; that if he was President, at least he didn't derail it enough to stop the recovery. In the same vein, we have to look at Reagan. We were in terrible shape, and either his policies brought us back, or his policies were not a big enough detriment to stop us from coming back. Most Presidents (not all) had either a domestic, or global problem that was put on their shoulders. Those that either succeeded, or were in office as the problem went away, get/got credit. Many historians agree on some Presidents whos policies worked, while other Presidents, a raging debate still hovers over them on if their policies actually slowed down the solution. And now here is where you will gnash your teeth--------------> nothing has been solved under President Obama; unless you want to talk about the killing of Osama. The economy is still awful, eventhough they try to tell you it is not, SS is still in the tank, medicare ditto, wars all over the place, dollar being printed hand over fist, gitmo is still there, healthcare costs rising faster than inflation, and the Supremes are telling him most of his edicts are out of bounds, meaning that regardless if you agree or disagree on what he has done, within 12 months of him leaving office, most everything he did will go the way of the buggy whip. Point is----------->we will have invested 8yrs, and got next to nothing. We will have stood in place, and watched much of the world pass us by. That is NOT a good thing.

Phil, you are describing deals that every "special interest group' in this country gets. Oh sure, their "special" rights are all different, but get them they do. Should we not all wonder why taxes that are paid, or programs designed (the lottery as one person has mentioned) to go to one place, never do? It is because politicians then have an open checkbook (taxing authority) to keep people happy by scaring them, then taxing them to alleviate their pain of fear. One thing you are correct about Phil-----------> politically, we do not agree at all; or very little. You know what! The partys love that! They just love to see us arguing (but really debating) about who is correct, and who is not. Why? Because as long as we blame each other, we won't blame them, and they can use talking points of propaganda to keep the arguing going......giving them a free hand to do as they wish. Consider---------->when we debate S.S., we are all affected, are we not? Same thing with medicare. Makes no difference if you are a democrat, a republican, a libertarian, black, white, or Hispanic; our government MADE a social compact with us the citizens of the country, that if we paid this amount of money in, we would get this amount of money out. Long ago private accountants warned this country that S.S. and medicare were going to run into trouble as the numbers did not add up. This means that politicians then until now, knew bad things were coming, and their solution was TO TAKE THE MONEY AND SPEND IT ON OTHER THINGS! All of them, from both partys, so neither of these elite leaders are off the hook. We should ALL be indignant, as their solution is to punish us for them not fixing the problem long ago, nor adjusting the formula to make it solvent. No offense their Phil, but if Obama can use his pen and phone to let illegal aliens in, can't he use it to fix these problems for Americans? And what about the other Presidents who knew this; and there was a whole bunch of them. Point is, we can agree to disagree on many things, but much to the elite political classes chagrin, we can also work together to fix some things that are broken for the good of the country. We must all be aware that we have people coming after us that we love intensely, and if we can't demand a fix that is more than obvious from our elected politicians, then the greatest generation, left the greatest, most powerful country in the world, to the most useless, worthless, helpless, and hopeless generation; and our stupidity will destroy this country for our children, and grandchildren, that we insist we love more than anything. We have to move towards a balanced budget, with a plan to achieve it in the forseeable future. We have to ignite our economy by using what our country has, even if it means going against the enviro lobby. We have to use these tools to again defeat Russia by bringing that countrys economy to its knees WITHOUT war by supplying Europe. And we have to fix the social compact of S.S. by putting more people to work, by means testing S.S. and by pushing the collection date down the road by another year for those under 50 who have time to adjust their finances. And we have to do all of this, while keeping our pay as high as possible so we can afford to pay more taxes by % of income, by insuring illegal aliens do not flood our market, and undercut our salarys. Ok, so you now tell me--------> is anyone in congress trying this? If so, is Obama trying to stop them? Sometimes, the answers to your own questions make a light bulb go off. When it does, it is the best lesson in life we human beings can have.

Yes, absolutely, no doubt about it. The senators would have to do the states bidding instead of their own, or lose their jobs. It would also create 3rd party input into the selection, because if the vote is close, the 3rd party would have the say on who was chosen. Remember that the senates job is to REPRESENT the states that they are from. The house is to represent the people. And I too agree 100% that we need term limits for congress. That is NOT going to happen unless we have a meeting of the states though. To believe for 1 second that congress is going to put forth an amendment to limit themselves is ridiculous. As far as leaving the two party system for what you suggested looks good on paper, but will not work. Why? Because if I am a multi billionaire, all I have to do is finance 20 candidates under the table who will tell different groups everything they want to hear, and have all my business buddies vote for me. All of the my financed candidates carry 3% of the vote for a total of 60%, and I carry 30%, and there you have it, my money put me in the run-off. And you also know what! The media is part of the problem, a large part of the problem. Let me extrapolate--------------> regardless if you are a conservative or progressive; during the last Presidential debate, or any state debate for that matter, were any of the questions posed to the candidates questions that were important to you for the current political situation at the time? And if they were, did the moderator hold the respondents feet to the fire when the question asked had nothing to do with the response given? I mean seriously-----------> if I ask you what color the sky is, and you come back with "the grass is green," how is that a debate? So back on topic-----------> how many of you (from both partys) believe it would be a great idea to ask our candidates when they debate in 2016, what they are going to do about social security? IF they give a cogent answer instead of side step it, we have an opportunity to let professionals run the numbers to see if it is viable. But, the truth we all know is------------> somebody(s) is going to get the shaft if they are honest. Either the older people, the younger people, or the total base of the taxpayer. So, will you vote for someone who tells you the truth? Or rather, will you vote for someone who lies to all of us again, and claims if we just follow their plan, nobody is going to feel pain, and we will wake up the morning after we elect them, and be in Shang-ri-La!

Cal, it is an old trick that politicians use--------------> if they told you that some non descript program was running out of money, most people would shrug and so, "sayanara!" And so, they have to tell everyone it is something they care about to allow our dear friends in Washington to raise taxes. It is also why when there is a problem in a state, the 1st things they say are going is------->police, firefighters, and school funding. We should all kind of laugh at them because everything is put into the general fund, is it not? So when they say these things, what they are actually saying is---------------> they choose to cut funding to these programs to scare the heck out of you, so you will agree to allow them to take MORE of your money. Consider---------> If the SS fund was not spent on everything else but SS by politicians, it would be in much better shape than it is. Politicians, instead of taking BACK the money where they invested it, now demand that we resupply the fund so they can spend it again......and again......and again, and it seems to work, doesn't it. It scares everyone, because most people have a stake in it, so they surrender. Sadly, the only solution is to put honest politicians in power, and we all know that isn't going to happen. Isn't it funny as an example.......that the current administration (or even the last administration) can create such deficits while increasing the national debt exponentially on give-aways and transfer of wealth schemes; but when it is time to pay a person who worked all their life, and that person was FORCED to pay into a system on a promise, the 1st thing they want to do is screw them. The people who did as they were told for the good of the country and system, pay the price. The people who scammed the system, never paid anything in, or just arrived from God knows where.........why they get everything, and want more; and will probably get it. How can many people on here say, "that America has not changed for the worse," or that "everything is getting better?" We see what they did to the veterans, we seen what they did to American kids by restricting school choice; so why should we not expect them to screw the older people too. We aren't the last to get screwed though, we are just the last of the 1st few.

I agree almost 100% with what Akirby has stated. There is a sweet spot that needs to be hit between the 2philosophies, and we have obviously gone to far to the left to be near enough to the sweet spot to grow. That doesn't mean we need go back to where we were 40 years ago, it just means we have over shot our target. Also, on income disparity. REAL WORLD AMERICA------------> does allowing uneducated illegal immigrants into the country, improve, or continue fostering the the problem? Once you understand the answer to that question; it becomes apparent that this supposed crisis is being created so that the person creating it can impose a political solution of his choosing. It would be laughable; were it not so sad, that Americans aree being arrested for protesting this policy on the border, while the ILLEGALS are being bused in, and not arrested. Doesn't anyone see this as a very large danger sign for our civil liberties?

I will remind you that progressives insist it is just republicans who make the rich, richer on Wall Street. Nothing could be further from the truth, because both partys get their warchests from very rich people. In fact, you don't acquire over a billion dollars to run for President, by people like you and I sending in 100 bucks to our party of choice. Do you, or anyone on here actually think, that we being situated in the middle income percentile vote for republican ideas because we like the rich better than the poor? That would be ridiculous! We vote for where we believe jobs are going to come from, and for people who will support the policies that will make this happen. We want MORE people on our side, so we want them working; so when the government comes to take more of what they earn, they say "no, oh heck no." Giving people something for doing absolutely nothing, is exactly how to destroy a country. And secondly---------> why would anyone believe what this guy tells them now? He has not only mislead the opposition, he has mislead his own constituents. I mean, let us be real here-------------->with all their computers, wisdom, brilliance, and past knowledge........they bring in a number like -.9, only to be revised to -2.9! Geeze, Arizona and New Mexico, along with Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, and every other Southern state must have had really cold, cold, weather; but how can you even attempt to say that, as it kinda doesn't fit into the global warming narrative either. You know what, go ahead and believe what you believe, this is America, so it takes all kinds to make her work. If after 5yrs you can't see the forest through the trees as things are in total malaise compared to what they should be, then you are honestly grounded in your beliefs that have failed, but I still wish you well.

Well Cal, and everyone else---------> people really need to pay attention. We can all support those that promise to give us what we want; but when you realize what has to be given up to make your wish happen, that is the time you need to put your big boy pants on. Big boy pants means---------> if you choose to continue down this path, you can no longer complain about the pain it gives you, and everyone else. You enjoy the pain, for your gain. There is always tradeoffs; has always been, and probably always will be. As long as the people choosing know what they will lose, and what they will gain, I have no problem. It is when they want their way, and proclaim it is someone elses fault that the problems begin for me. When anyone in power decides to use a "pen and a phone," most everyone else is along for the ride. It is up to them to make is sooooooo good by demanding that their wishes be carried out, that the electorate is a bunch of happy campers. If their ideas go belly up, then trying to point the fickle-finger-of-fate elsewhere is just politics at it's worst. I wish the man great success, because we need it at this point in time. But what I won't do is let him blame those that think he is in error. He personally chose his path, and if it fails, he has to live with it. Those who herald his success should be listened to, as well as those who point out the failures! As of this writing, even those who support this "transformation," would have to say.....fail.......fail......fail.

Hey, back on topic----------> update really shrunk 2.9% in the 1st quarter. Harumph, sure was a lot of snow.

Bottomline-----> While it was awful that 4 Americans died in Benghazi, Mr Obama might have been able to side step that. What he can't side step is (nor his administration including Hillary) after finding out about the phones, along with everything else that has consistently pointed at their lying, with the phones just being icing on top of the evidence cake; no American can believe anything he says that is important when you add every other mistruth he has put into the mix besides this one. Where was President Obama, and what was he doing when all of this was going on, before he got on his plane to Nevada? The media won't ask him because I am sure it is against the rules, and he won't tell us anyway. So he won't tell us what is fact, but he will tell us everything that is made up. Heck of a way to run a country where as of this moment anyway, these people work for us and we pay their salaries, don't you think.

Akirby is right, this is about Benghazi. And if we narrow it to just that, and QUIT responding to anything about Bush since he is long gone, the progressives do not have a leg to stand on! Mr Bush is not in office, not running the federal government, has nothing to do with Benghazi. It falls squarely on the shoulders of our current President, Barack Obama. Now then...............from the phones and every other fact in evidence, we now know absolutely, positively, no doubt about it, that this administration knew with 100% clarity on the VERY EVENING of the event, that this attack had NOTHING to do with any film, youtube video, santa claus not coming to town, or the easter bunny dropping the wrong colored eggs. This excuse was concocted to DECEIVE the American people, for whatever reason you want to make it to be. So progressives, give all of us a real good PROGRESSIVE reason why our President, Barack, Millhouse, Obama........again.......lied to the American people through surrogates........ and even he personally; with a straight face no less, executed the same lie a week later in front of the UN and all the worlds leaders. And after being caught in multiple lies that his party backs up with every progressive having a straight face while pulling it off, why ANYONE in this country should believe ANY of you again; since each and every time it comes down to something important that affects every American, you just, can't, seem, to tell, the TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you aren't embarrassed; we, as Americans who actually give a damn, are embarrassed for you. But, just in case you progressives can't let Iraq go while blaming it on Bush...........do you see Iraq now? See what is happening? How can this be? Who is leading this insurgency, this disaster in Iraq where all our treasure and blood was spilled! http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2014/06/we-let-leader-of-iraqi-insurgents-go-in.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fpemsz+(PrairiePundit) Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeellllllllllllllllllllllllooooooooooooooooooooo, your messiah let him go too! Just like the Bergdahl deal, Iraq now pays the price. Congrats on your guys foreign policy, and his domestic policy stinks too. His economic policy? ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look everyone knows the story the Whitehouse put out. We can debate it all day, and get absolutely nowhere because of "he said, she said." But what if I told you absolutely they knew as it was happening EXACTLY what was going on, because they were listening to the terrorists talk to each other? Now how could that be?!?!?!?!?!?! Well, try this out of the hundreds of links provided---------> http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/63752 If you would like a different one from a progressive, moderate, or conservative website, just tell Google you want "terrorists in Benghazi used state department phones to communicate." Then you can have your choice of links if you don't like mine.