I'm going to try this one more time to post a poll.

Yeah uh, he's an employee doing a job, and one of the benefits of that job, along with a salary and retirement is healthcare. What he is asking for is no different then if he had asked when the first pay check comes in, this is blown so far out of proportion by the psychotic left winged liberal media it's really sad. And the fact that you can't see that says a lot about your liberal bias and blind faith of all things left.

If you can't see the hypocrisy of someone saying - I don't want the government to help you get health insurance but I want the government to pay for me to get mine - then you are the one with blinders and indicative of those who drink the kool aid on the right.

My tax dollars are going to pay for his health insurance but he doesn't want any OTHER government tax dollars going to the uninsured to help them purchase private health insurance.

Too bad we can't convert republican hypocrisy into money - we could pay down the debt and have a surplus.

How about we discuss the lovely democrat charlie rangel who was just found guilty of 11 ethics violations, and for some absurd reason gets to keep his job. I mean help me out here. This scumbag is found guilty of 11 counts of ethics violations. At one point, he was Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Oh yes...the same one that oversees all taxation, social security, unemployment benefits, medicare, and several other financial policies for our government.

After finding this scumbag guilty, the possible punishments include a vote to deplore his conduct, a fine, and denial of privileges. But he keeps his job.

He did not personally profit by any of the so-called ethics violations. After January, he will not be chairman of any committee. Yawn.

Mourning in America: Death of the Middle Class

Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 11:18:07 AM PST

The deficit commission report is another blow to the nation’s once-great middle class. For 30 years, rich conservatives have shirked their social responsibilities by successfully demanding that the middle class pay proportionally more in taxes and receive less in benefits. The result is a country whose 21st century robber barons, the richest 1 percent, take home nearly a quarter of all American income, while median wages for workers have stagnated and poverty has increased. The co-chairmen of the deficit commission complied with demands from the wealthy by recommending the middle class bear the brunt of the cost of reducing the deficit. The rich are killing the great American middle.

the deficit commission report issued last week is another Saturday night special pressed to the temple of the American middle class.

"Turn over your money and your benefits or your country will die," the report screams at workers. "You want your country to go bankrupt? No? Then you gotta delay retirement, get less from Social Security, pay more for health insurance and lose your precious few income tax breaks like the one that helps pay your mortgage while the banker is breathing down your neck right now."

For 30 years, rich conservatives have successfully threatened the American middle class this way, ever since that rich conservative Ronald Reagan converted the White House into a castle.

The result is a country with greater income inequality than during the age of corporate robber barons at the turn of the 20th century. It is a country whose 21st century robber barons, the richest 1 percent of Americans, take nearly a quarter of all income and demand that politicians relieve them of their obligations. The rich -- hedge fund owners who rake in billions, Wall Street banksters handed bonuses in the millions, CEOs paid eight-figure golden parachutes after they mess up -- insist that politicians place government debt burdens on the middle class, the unemployed, the elderly, the struggling young, people whose income has stagnated for three decades.

The co-chairmen of the deficit commission complied with that mandate from the flush when they recommended the middle class bear the brunt of the cost of reducing the deficit. Simultaneously, conservatives in Congress are acquiescing by insisting on extending tax breaks for the nation’s wealthiest. Those are the very tax breaks that contributed dramatically to creating the debt – the one that the deficit commission now wants heaped on workers’ backs.

This will be the death of the nation’s strength -- its successful working class. Without the slightest regret or hesitation, the rich are killing the great American middle, rendering it a casualty of their shirked social responsibilities. Their campaign has been abetted by Republicans since Ronald Reagan. The Gipper contended slashing taxes for the wealthy would increase revenues for the government. Republican George H. W. Bush rightly ridiculed Reaganomics as voodoo.

In the GOP years between the beginning of Reagan in 1981 and the end of Bush II in 2009, the federal deficit exploded as Republican presidents failed to control spending and repeatedly cut taxes for the rich.

Reagan reduced the rate on the richest first down to 50 percent, then to 28 percent. The resulting budget deficit converted the U.S. from the world’s largest international creditor to its largest debtor. And now, the deficit commission sends the bulk of the bill for voodoo economics to the middle class, not the rich.

While Reagan gave the rich those breaks, income inequality increased. The share of total income taken by the richest 5 percent grew from 16.5 percent the year before he took office to 18.3 percent the year before he left. In that same time, the share of total income that went to the poorest 20 percent of households fell from 4.2 to 3.8 percent.

Democrat Bill Clinton fulfilled a campaign promise by increasing taxes on the rich -- to a 39.6 percent marginal rate. He balanced the federal budget and left Bush II with a surplus.

Then Bush II squandered it. He gave the rich more tax breaks, accumulated debts larger than all those created by previous presidents combined and worsened income inequality. During his administration, from 2002 to 2007, the pretax income of the richest 1 percent increased 10 percent every year. Over that same period, the median income for working Americans declined and the poverty rate rose.

From Reagan through Bush II, more than four-fifths of the total increase in U.S. income went to the richest 1 percent. Hedge fund owners, whose income is literally in the billions, pay income taxes at 15 percent – lower than the rate paid by their secretaries, who earn far less in a year than any of the top 10 hedgers do in half an hour.

Wall Street recklessness crashed the U.S. economy, throwing millions of middle income earners out of their jobs and their homes. The banksters went to Washington and got politicians to hand them bailout billions, and now those Wall Streeters plan to increase their bonuses -- while unemployment remains stuck at 9.6 percent in the Main Street economy.

It is those guys, bankers grabbing year end bonuses totaling two and three times what middle class earners get for a year’s labor; it is the five-home wealthy demanding that the foreclosed-on middle class suffer for the deficit. The rich, who have received the greatest benefits from this society, have no intention of paying their share of this national responsibility.

The deficit, the Social Security shortfall, difficulties with Medicare – they could all be solved if the nation returned to taxing policies that existed under Republican President Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, when the rate on top earners was 91 percent. That was not even the high point. In the mid-1940s it was 94 percent. Generally it fluctuated between 81 percent in 1940 and 70 percent when Reagan began slashing it in 1981.

Those rates may sound confiscatory now, but it’s not like the rich actually paid them after they subtracted out all of their exemptions, deductions, loopholes, special deals, tricks and wiles.

The dozen years in the 1950s and 1960s when the rate on the richest officially was 91 percent is a time considered by many Americans to be among the nation’s greatest for the middle class, a period when American workers could afford to buy homes, send their kids to college and travel across American on vacation.

There’s no talk of that now. Raising taxes on the rich now is considered ludicrous. Ridiculous. The whole Social Security shortfall could be solved if the rich paid taxes on their entire incomes, not just the first $110,000, a break that means the wealthy pay a smaller percentage if their income toward Social Security than the impoverished. But the deficit commission didn’t propose that.

No, the rich have succeeded in eliminating as a possibility their paying an increased tax share. Now, the only consideration is cutting their taxes. They didn’t hold an actual Saturday night special to anyone’s head. The rich are snake oil salesmen slick, Bernie Madoff-style schemers. They sold voodoo economics to America, and now they’re intent on making the middle class pay for what that policy has wrought in deficits.

Reagan’s re-election ad was wrong. He didn’t institute "Morning in America." It was mourning for the once great American middle class.

dailykos

He did not personally profit by any of the so-called ethics violations. After January, he will not be chairman of any committee. Yawn.

Yawn? Really? If any republican were found guilty of any ethics violations you'd 47 new posts about it and how hypocritical republican's are and how sarah bill and glenn are all the devil. Yet when the shoe is on the other foot all you can muster is yawn? Sad. And who the hell cares what happens after January, he should have lost his job immediately.

Yawn? Really? If any republican were found guilty of any ethics violations you'd 47 new posts about it and how hypocritical republican's are and how sarah bill and glenn are all the devil. Yet when the shoe is on the other foot all you can muster is yawn? Sad. And who the hell cares what happens after January, he should have lost his job immediately.

Why is this REPUBLICAN guy still serving?

REPRESENTATIVE DON YOUNG

Representative Don Young (R-AK) is a nineteen-term member of Congress, representing

Alaska at-large. Rep. Young served as Chairman of the House Resources Committee from 1994

to 2000, and as the Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee from

2000 to 2006. In the 111th Congress, Rep. Young lost his position as ranking member of the

House Natural Resources Committee when House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner did not

support Rep. Young’s efforts to maintain his leadership role on the committee.

Rep. Young’s ethics violations stem from the misuse of his position to benefit family and

friends and to steer millions of dollars in earmarks to corporations in exchange for contributions

to his campaign committee and political action committee, Midnight Sun PAC (MSPAC). Rep.

Young is currently under federal investigations for (1) his role in securing a $10 million earmark

for a road in Florida; (2) assistance he offered to convicted VECO Corporation CEO Bill Allen,

and; (3) his ties to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. At one time Rep. Young was being

investigated for his financial relationship with convicted businessman Dennis Troha. Rep.

Young was included in CREW’s 2007 and 2008 congressional corruption reports.

I have no problem with whatever punishement the Ethics Committee gives to Rangle - they can expel, censure or fine him.

If you can't see the hypocrisy of someone saying - I don't want the government to help you get health insurance but I want the government to pay for me to get mine - then you are the one with blinders and indicative of those who drink the kool aid on the right.

My tax dollars are going to pay for his health insurance but he doesn't want any OTHER government tax dollars going to the uninsured to help them purchase private health insurance.

Too bad we can't convert republican hypocrisy into money - we could pay down the debt and have a surplus.

Healthcare for government employees who provide a service for the government, such as being a congress men, a federal police officer, or any other government(and here's the key word for you liberals) JOB is far different then handing it out to people who do nothing, and to people who choose not to have it, and for people who'd rather spend that money on a shiny new car. And even for people who may deserve it, but just can't afford it right now. That sucks, life's hard, wear a helmet. But to say an employee who is guaranteed something because of the hard work they are doing is being hypocritical because the government pays for it is ludicrous. Yeah your tax dollars pay for his benefits, they also pay his salary is he a hypocrite for wanting his salary and not wanting to give money to people on welfare too? I mean the government gives him his money, and tax dollars pay for it, why should he get it and not the bum who wants to sit home and smoke pot all day and play video games while he collects unemployment, he has the same right to it as a congressman doesn't he.

Healthcare for government employees who provide a service for the government, such as being a congress men, a federal police officer, or any other government(and here's the key word for you liberals) JOB is far different then handing it out to people who do nothing, and to people who choose not to have it, and for people who'd rather spend that money on a shiny new car. I'm beginning to see loserbob's point. You sound just like pattygreen. Most people who don't have health insurance have jobs or are recently unemployed. The poor have medicaid. And even for people who may deserve it, but just can't afford it right now. That sucks, life's hard, wear a helmet. But to say an employee who is guaranteed something because of the hard work they are doing is being hypocritical because the government pays for it is ludicrous. He hasn't done anything yet. He just got elected and hasn't been sworn in and he was angry that he would have to wait 28 days for his healthcare to kick in (part of his employee package - like everyone else) and said "What am I going to do without health care for 28 days"? Oh, boo hoo Well I have two answers: (1) Ask the 30 million who don't have it what they do and (2) subscribe to the bush healthcare plan - go to the ER. Yeah your tax dollars pay for his benefits, they also pay his salary is he a hypocrite for wanting his salary and not wanting to give money to people on welfare too? I mean the government gives him his money, and tax dollars pay for it, why should he get it and not the bum who wants to sit home and smoke pot all day and play video games while he collects unemployment, he has the same right to it as a congressman doesn't he.

Typical republican lies - welfare goes to families with children and some elderly - not to some guy sitting home, with no job, and smoking pot all day.

Typical liberal, reading what they want and ignoring the rest. I pretty clearly stated collecting unemployment. But who needs to read a whole post when you can read what you want and put some liberal spin on it.

Typical liberal, reading what they want and ignoring the rest. I pretty clearly stated collecting unemployment. But who needs to read a whole post when you can read what you want and put some liberal spin on it.

Same answer. We pay into unemployment and are entitled to collect it. Period. And no one needs to apologize for collecting it. But the healthcare they had when they were employed is not extended to them as unemployed unless they can afford the expensive cobra, which most can't. So, I have no problem with healthcare reform that allows them the opportunity to buy into a more affordable healthcare plan. Obviously you do. Typical selfish "I have mine but I deserve mine - you don't deserve it" right wing attitude.

Edited November 17, 201015 yr by Cleo's Mom

This is the future we could have had if the Supreme Court had not given the presidency to bush. bush squandered all of this on two unfunded wars, two unfunded tax cuts for the rich and a big, unfunded giveaway to pharma with medicare part D.

President Clinton: The United States on Track to Pay Off the Debt by End of the Decade

December 28, 2000

Today, President Clinton will announce that The United States is on course to eliminate its public debt within the next decade. The Administration also announced that we are projected to pay down $237 billion in debt in 2001. Due in part to a strong economy and the President’s commitment to fiscal discipline, the federal fiscal condition has improved for an unprecedented nine consecutive years. Based upon today’s new economic and budget projections for the coming 10 years from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB):

• 
  
  
• The United States can be debt-free this decade. By dedicating the entire budget surplus to debt reduction, The United States can eliminate its publicly held debt by FY 2009. The next Administration and Congress will need to decide what priorities to address: eliminate the public debt by FY 2010 and still use part of the surplus for responsible tax cuts, prescription drug benefits for Medicare recipients, and investments in key priorities like education and health care.
  
  
• The national debt is projected to be paid down by $237 billion this year. Under the budget President Clinton and Congress completed two weeks ago, the U.S. is projected to pay down $237 billion of the national debt in FY 2001.
  
  
• The 4 year total debt paydown will be $600 billion. Over the last three years, we have already paid down $363 billion in debt. Therefore, The United States is on track to reduce the debt by $600 billion over four years, the largest four-year debt pay-down ever.
  
  
• Record deficits have become record surpluses. This Administration has have moved the country from a deficit of $290 billion in FY 1992 to an expected surplus of $256 billion in FY 2001. Eight years ago, the Congressional Budget Office projected a $513 billion deficit in FY 2001. Thus, the fiscal picture is now projected to improve by $769 billion in FY 2001 alone.
  
  
• Nine consecutive years of fiscal improvement. FY 2001 will be the fourth year in a row of overall surpluses and the second year in a row of a surplus without counting Social Security or Medicare. It will be the ninth consecutive year of fiscal improvement, the longest such period in history.
  

ON TRACK TO ELIMINATE THE DEBT THIS DECADE

• 
  
  
• The U.S. is on track to eliminate the publicly held debt this decade. Under OMB’s new baseline projection, the public debt would be eliminated in FY 2009. This budget "baseline" by definition includes no new initiatives or policy changes and therefore the entire budget surplus is dedicated to debt reduction (including the Social Security, Medicare, and on-budget surpluses). A fiscally responsible budget that includes new investments in moderate tax relief, a Medicare prescription drugs proposal, and key domestic priorities could eliminate the public debt by FY 2010.
  
  
• Pay down of $600 billion in debt over four years. In FYs 1998, 1999, and 2000, the debt held by the public was reduced by $363 billion. The U.S. government is projected to pay down an additional $237 billion in debt held by the public this fiscal year alone (FY 2001). That will bring the total debt pay-down to $600 billion—the largest four-year debt pay-down in American history. In contrast, under the 12-year tenure of Presidents Reagan and Bush, the debt held by the public quadrupled.
  
  
• The debt held by the public will be cut in half ($3.2 trillion lower) in FY 2001 than it was projected to be when President Clinton took office. In 1993, the debt held by the public was projected by the Office of Management and Budget to balloon to $6.4 trillion by FY 2001. Instead, shrinking deficits—and then the growing surpluses of the last four years—will bring the debt down to $3.2 trillion in FY 2001, $3.2 trillion less than projected in 1993. In FY 1993, the debt held by the public was 50 percent of GDP and projected to rise to 68 percent of GDP in FY 2001. Instead, it will be slashed to 31 percent of GDP this year and can be completely eliminated this decade.
  
  
• Interest payments on the debt will be $166 billion lower than projected. In 1993, the net interest payments on the debt held by the public were projected to grow to $376 billion in FY 2001. Tough choices in 1993 and 1997 and a commitment to fiscal discipline have slashed this figure by $166 billion, a 44 percent reduction.
  

LARGEST UNIFIED SURPLUS EVER

• 
  
  
• Instead of a $513 billion deficit, there will be a $256 billion surplus this year. In 1992, the deficit in the federal budget was $290 billion—the largest dollar deficit in American history. In January 1993, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the deficit would grow to $513 billion by FY 2001. In fact, the unified budget will be in surplus by $256 billion in FY 2001—the fourth consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever, even after adjusting for inflation. Over 10 years, the non-Social Security surplus alone is estimated to be over $2.4 trillion. Not including Social Security and Medicare surpluses, the surplus is projected to be $1.9 trillion.
  
  
• Largest unified surplus as a percent of GDP since 1948. The 2001 surplus is projected to be 2.5 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP)—the largest surplus as a ratio to the GDP since 1948.
  
  
• The fourth consecutive year with a surplus for the first time in over 70 years. The FY 2001 surplus of $256 billion follows surpluses of $237 billion in FY 2000, $124 billion in FY 1999, and $69 billion in FY 1998. The last time The United States had four surpluses in a row was over 70 years ago, during 1927-30. The FY 2001 surplus will mark the ninth consecutive year of fiscal improvement. This is the longest run of consecutive years of improvement in American history, surpassing the pre-Clinton-Gore best of five straight years.
  

REDUCING SPENDING WHILE CUTTING TAXES FOR MIDDLE-INCOME FAMILIES

• 
  
  
• Federal spending as a share of the economy is the lowest since 1966. Spending restraint under President Clinton has brought federal spending down from 22 percent of GDP in 1992 to 18 percent of GDP in 2001, the lowest since 1966. At the same time, President Clinton has increased strategic investments in education, technology, and other areas that are vital to growth.
  
  
• The smallest federal civilian workforce in 40 years. The Federal civilian workforce increased from the time when President Reagan took office to the time when President Bush left office. In contrast, since President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, the Federal civilian workforce has been cut by 377,000—by nearly a fifth – and is now smaller than at any time since 1960.
  
  
• While balancing the budget, running large surpluses and paying down the debt, the Clinton-Gore Administration has provided tax relief for working families. The tax cuts signed into law by the President in 1993 and 1997—including the expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, the $500 child tax credit, the $1,500 Hope Scholarship Tax Credit, and expanded IRAs—have cut taxes for American working families. Federal income taxes as a percentage of income for the typical American family have dropped to their lowest level in over 30 years.
  

What Fiscal Discipline Means For The United States

• 
  
  
• Lower interest rates cut mortgage payments by $2,000 a year for families with a $100,000 mortgage. As a result of President Clinton’s policy of deficit and debt reduction, it is estimated that a family with a home mortgage of $100,000 might expect to save roughly $2,000 per year in mortgage payments, effectively a large tax cut.
  
  
• Lower interest rates cut car payments by $200 a year for families with a car loan.
  
  
• Lower interest rates cut student loan payments by $200 a year for someone with a typical student loan.
  
  
• Lower debt will help maintain strong economic growth. With the government no longer draining resources out of capital markets, businesses have more funds for productive investment. This has helped to fuel average real annual increase of more than 13 percent in private investment in equipment and software since 1993, including eight years in a row of double-digit growth. This compares to a 4.7 percent annual growth rate from 1981-92, a period that saw the debt held by the public quadruple.
  
  
• Rising investment has contributed to an increase in productivity growth. Non-farm business productivity has grown at a 3.1 percent average annual rate for the last four years and 4.8 percent over the last year. This compares to 1.4 percent growth from the 1970s through the early 1990s.
  
  
• Interest payments would be eliminated on the publicly held debt. Currently, we spend 11 cents of every federal dollar on interest payments. These payments, which were once projected to grow to 23 percent of all federal spending in 2010, could be eliminated by that time under a fiscally prudent budget.
  
  
• Prepare for the retiring baby boomers. Paying off the debt will create room in the budget for the increased Social Security and Medicare costs when the baby boomers retire. It will also free up funds for investment, help keep interest rates low, and boost workers’ productivity and incomes. This fiscal discipline is the best way to prepare the government and the nation to meet the challenge of the retirement of the baby boom generation.
  

Edited November 17, 201015 yr by Cleo's Mom

Lisa Murkowski has just been declared the winner in Alaska. I would have preferred the Democrat, but Lisa is a way better option than that dbag Joe Miller. Maybe after what Murkowski went thru in the Primary with all the outside Teabag money that was used against her, she might side with the Democrats and help get the DISCLOSE act passed.

Republicans hate women -but love their votes:

Republicans to Women "You're Not Worth It". Updated

Share2 0

Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 10:47:29 PM PST

Women fell two votes short on Wednesday to coming closer to getting paid the same as men for the same work. Senate Republicans decided that equal pay for women should not even be considered, as they blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act from moving to the floor.

Is it any wonder I despise republicans both intellectually and viscerally?

How any woman can even be a part of the 'conservative' movement beats the hell out of me.

Oh and what a f***ing surprise:

All Republicans voted no along with Ben Nelson of Nebraska, the lone dissenting Democrat.

Seriously who cannot support equal pay for equal work? Could it be republicans voted against it because satan herself Hillary Clinton originally sponsored the bill? They won't even allow it to be debated, shame on them.

When we only earn 77% of what our male counterparts earn equal pay would reduce the pool of cheap labor. Yet I see this was going to be the year of the momma grizzly, yeah right, how did that turn out?

dailykos

For those of you that missed Tina Fey's speech at her Mark Twaine award:

"And, you know, politics aside, the success of Sarah Palin and women like her is good for all women - except, of course --those who will end up, you know, like, paying ...for their own rape 'kit 'n' stuff, But for everybody else, it's a win-win. Unless you're a gay woman who wants to marry your partner of 20 years - whatever. But for most women, the success of conservative women is good for all of us. Unless you believe in evolution. You know - actually, I take it back. The whole thing's a disaster."

A must watch - Alan Grayson explains in terms everyone can understand what the tax cut to the millionaires can do:

Daily Kos: Alan Grayson Nails Republicans. And Their Tax Cuts!!

I am watching Fox and getting upset as usual! Why is Jason Altmire a dem? He's saying he wants to extend all Bush tax cuts permanently. He said he did not vote for Pelosi and will not vote for her in the future. The host actually told him he sounded like a rep. and he said thats how he feels. The reason Im so upset is he's in my area!