they seem to be pandering to the Tea party now. Talk about crazy the Tea party folks want to shutdown the gov't to prove a point of what extremes they'll go to get their way. Clinton successfully used the bully pulpit the last time lets hope Obama can get folks to see reason

Crazy? No. They see a debt of $46,000 for every person in the United States and realize you can't raise taxes enough to pay for it all. That means cutting things, just like families and people do when they have too high debt.

I wish Democrats would do what sane individuals do everyday in their personal lives and as they run their households.... Say to themselves "NO, I actually can't afford that. I'll pass. Thank you for the offer."

It's called willpower. Something that's absent with Pelosi/Reid/Obama and Company. Even RED China is saying we spend too much. When communists are admonishing you on spending, you know you have a problem.

Willpower is not having too many kids, bringing them into an uncertain world, and then gnashing one's teeth over how the looming economic crisis is going to crash in on them or their children.

Soft, you need to open your eyes and look at what's happening in muslim countries. And you need to look at the context of the 1st Amendment, when it was written, and for whom it was intended. There IS a separation of church and state (at the federal level), but there's nothing unconstitutional about state and religion. Yes, there is a point. You, however, are in denial.


lol...

and your own lol response.

We live in a secular society. The majority of people in the USA are.. get ready for it.. NOT christian. The government is
not allowed to interfere in religion, religion is not supposed to interfere in government. Federal, state or local level.

I am well aware of what religious nuts REGARDLESS of religion can do to people.

Sharia law: bad.
Inquisition: bad.
Burning times: bad.
bad bad bad.

Hyper x-tians run wild: bad bad bad bad bad.

The religious are welcome to add their voices to the government. The religious doctrines SHALL NOT become the defining forces.

That is evil.

I am not aware from good ever coming from a religious government. Monarchs have made misuse of them through out history. And of course, god is ALWAYS on their side.

I would really prefer if all the religious extremists could get together and fight it out until the end. Just leave everyone else out of it.

---

Janice

We live in a secular society. The majority of people in the USA are.. get ready for it.. NOT christian.

Another untruth.
Table 75 http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0075.pdf
2008 data
Total adult population 282,182,000
Total Christian 173,402,000
that's 61.4% Christian.

Gosh I'd expect that from Faux news.

---

"Soft, you have every right to be an atheist here in the U.S. And I'm ok with that. However, as an atheist, you do not have the right to deny other people their religious beliefs."

I did not say I was an athiest. I have no problem with others religious beliefs.
But I do have problems (as does the constitution) of being GOVERNED by other religions. Or ANY religion.



"You liberals have pointed out relentlessly in the past there is only a small fraction of Muslims who want to kill Americans, so why do you insist all Christians are evil? Why won't you admit there is only a small fraction of Christians who go over board?"

I never said all christians are evil. I did say EXTREMISTS are evil. Regardless of religion. Again, religious government in my opinion is inherently EVIL.

"You've made it quite clear to me you've never really looked at the founding of this nation. (the time line, the context, the reasons, etc.) You've also made it quite clear to me you've never really looked at the Koran."

I have probably read more of it than you have. I have read most of the protestant bible in several versions. Next?


"Both you and Es need to do some home work so you can at least try to substantiate some of your broad, sweeping, robotic, knee jerk, delusional statements. Try it. I know it might hurt a little to become aware of some facts and then realize the errors of your ways, but in the end, it'll be a mind expanding experience. You'll thank me for it later."

I have done my homework. This is quite a knee-jerk reaction from you. Anything you disagree with is delusional. (and.. somehow Glenn Beck is not?)


"Look at what billion and trillion is. Look at what inflation is, how it's created, and it's effect on society. Look at what public sector is and what private sector is."

Um... I have seen what and how it has been created. My perception is different than yours. I believe this is a sign I am sentient.

"When ever I substantiate anything I say, both of you ignore it because it doesn't fit your delusional state of mind."

Still not seeing anything substantial here. Again challenging my mental faculties is not good form. Nor is your condescending comments.


"Thank you Gary. That was too easy, wasn't it? Just because Obama said it doesn't make it true, does it? Hmmm, that makes me wonder what else he's not being totally honest about."


Considering the numbers counting "christians" include muslims, jehovahs witnesses, catholics, and many others you would not normally wish to consider "one of yourselves".. I find it amusing.

The fact remains, this is not a religious government. THANK GODS!!
This was very well laid out. It was laid out with room for every to have their
OWN religion, without the right to trample on others.

---

Janice

Considering the numbers counting "christians" include muslims, jehovahs witnesses, catholics, and many others you would not normally wish to consider "one of yourselves".. I find it amusing.

The number does not include Muslims. Please read the table again.

Since we have broken bread what religion do you think I am?

---

I can't wait for the responses LOL !

i'm with Chris this is very entertaining (although it probably should not be)

go get them ladies!

---

Tim

Considering the numbers counting "christians" include muslims, jehovahs witnesses, catholics, and many others you would not normally wish to consider "one of yourselves".. I find it amusing.

The number does not include Muslims. Please read the table again.

Since we have broken bread what religion do you think I am?

You are correct. But it does include Mormons.

While dealing with other issues, I had a typing seizure.

What religion you are.. I do not care.

The thing is,
if it is ok to build a church,
and it is ok to build a synagogue,
and it is ok to build a temple
then it is still by the same standards ok to build a mosque.

---

Janice

a bit of humor on the original topic. adult language used.

http://www.thebadchemicals.com/?p=611

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Considering the numbers counting "christians" include muslims, jehovahs witnesses, catholics, and many others you would not normally wish to consider "one of yourselves".. I find it amusing.

The number does not include Muslims. Please read the table again.

Since we have broken bread what religion do you think I am?

You are correct. But it does include Mormons.

I can accept the typo. That you would say this speaks about yourself.

While dealing with other issues, I had a typing seizure.

What religion you are.. I do not care.

The thing is,
if it is ok to build a church,
and it is ok to build a synagogue,
and it is ok to build a temple
then it is still by the same standards ok to build a mosque.

Was that a rhetorical question? Or did you expect some sort of knee jerk response?

---

I really would prefer to avoid knee jerk responses. If you have some reason to differ, I will read it.

My view (which seems to match law) is that if we have freedom of religion,
we need to have freedom of ALL religion. Including freedom FROM religion.

---

Janice

I really would prefer to avoid knee jerk responses. If you have some reason to differ, I will read it.

I also don't like knee jerks or button pushers. As to if religious structures can be built I don't differ with you. Content neutral.

My view (which seems to match law) is that if we have freedom of religion,
we need to have freedom of ALL religion. Including freedom FROM religion.

I may ask what you mean by freedom FROM religion. If you mean a government that does not practice religion I'd agree. I wouldn't agree if you mean that the government should ban the expression of religion.

I'm not a fan of "under god" in the pledge or "in god we trust" on currency.

---

Then we seem to be on the same page.

---

Janice

OK, this is what is insane...

1. The US Government can not continue to spend money that it doesn't have.
Using round-ish numbers...

Total US Govt. spending: $3,708,000,000,000.00
(Total US Govt. Defense spending: $964,800,000,000.00)
Total US Govt. revenue: $2,228,000,000,000.00
Budget deficit of the US Govt: $1,480,000,000,000.00

Percent of the budget in the red: 39.9%

To put this almost 40% figure in perspective, Defense spending is only ~ 26% of the federal budget. Yes, that is correct. If one totally eliminated defense spending, we would still have about a 14% deficit assuming everything else remained the same, which it wouldn't. For instance, the defense industry is a good portion of our economic activity. If it went away, revenue would decrease as well, making the deficit worse that the 14% figure.

We have a forest fire, and the Republicans want to throw a glass of water on it. The Democrats want to only throw a half-glass. Both parties have rectal-cranial inversion. In other words, both are looking where the sun doesn't shine.

What do we need to do? Well, there are two things we can do to get rid of the deficit. We can either increase revenue or we can decrease spending, or both.

Now there are problems with doing either of these things. Raising taxes will put a brake on the economy, hurting everyone. Cutting spending will hurt those dependent on that spending. Hurt all of us, or hurt some of us... To me, the answer is clear: Cut spending.

I propose an immediate, across the board 50% cut in ALL US Govt. spending. We can use (and will NEED) the extra 10% to pay down the nasty $15.1 Trillion total debt. This insanity must end.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

OK, this is what is insane...

1. The US Government can not continue to spend money that it doesn't have.
Using round-ish numbers...

Total US Govt. spending: $3,708,000,000,000.00
(Total US Govt. Defense spending: $964,800,000,000.00)
Total US Govt. revenue: $2,228,000,000,000.00
Budget deficit of the US Govt: $1,480,000,000,000.00

Percent of the budget in the red: 39.9%

To put this almost 40% figure in perspective, Defense spending is only ~ 26% of the federal budget. Yes, that is correct. If one totally eliminated defense spending, we would still have about a 14% deficit assuming everything else remained the same, which it wouldn't. For instance, the defense industry is a good portion of our economic activity. If it went away, revenue would decrease as well, making the deficit worse that the 14% figure.

We have a forest fire, and the Republicans want to throw a glass of water on it. The Democrats want to only throw a half-glass. Both parties have rectal-cranial inversion. In other words, both are looking where the sun doesn't shine.

What do we need to do? Well, there are two things we can do to get rid of the deficit. We can either increase revenue or we can decrease spending, or both.

Now there are problems with doing either of these things. Raising taxes will put a brake on the economy, hurting everyone. Cutting spending will hurt those dependent on that spending. Hurt all of us, or hurt some of us... To me, the answer is clear: Cut spending.

I propose an immediate, across the board 50% cut in ALL US Govt. spending. We can use (and will NEED) the extra 10% to pay down the nasty $15.1 Trillion total debt. This insanity must end.

We could have held out and allowed the Bush tax cuts to end and seen a massive influct of revenue. Unfortunately, Our president is still thinking like a senator and not president. Sometimes you just have to hold peoples feet to the fire. As far as staganting the economy we only need to look at the Clinton years to see that raising taxes on the wealthy actually stimulates the economy and reduces the deficit.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

So You want a 50% cut to Medicaid(Medi-Cal in CA), SSI(signed into law by President Richard Nixon a Republican in 1972)(Supplemental Security Income), Medicare, DOT(Need to drive or take a Train somewhere?), EPA(Clean Air & Water), FHA(Got a Mortgage?), FAA(Flying somewhere?), etc, etc...

Yes, that is what I said. 50% cut across the board. That is the only fair way to do it. Everyone has their own pet projects and programs. Everyone says cut everyone else's but leave *my* stuff alone... Either it must be 50% across the board on everything, or else meaningful cuts won't happen.

And You want It immediately? The US is not broke, As unemployment is not even close to being that high,

Yes, immediately. The US may not be broke, but the US Govt. is.

If You get disabled and could not work ever again, without SSI how would You survive? Especially If You have no friends(online does not count) and Your relatives either can't or won't help?

Ever hear of charity?

Cutting back by 50% like this all at once is irresponsible and would kill the economy... Too many interdependencies, A lot of private companies both large & small would cease to operate and unemployment would be massive... You buy a burger somewhere, they buy the meat from somewhere, the meat travels by rail or by road in trucks, the meat is inspected by the USDA, There are a lot of steps in between You and Your food, But hey go ahead, starve, I don't give a crap...

1. I never denied there would be some people hurting over the 50% cut. However, you are overstating its impact.

2. Oh, I am very familiar with the chain of events on food you mention. However, I won't be starving. Already, homegrown food is a significant portion of my food intake, and it could quite easily go much higher.

Oh and You can't include in the Federal Budget Social Security or SSDI as they are separate by law as they are their own budget and independent(FICA tax) as is the US Post Office(Postage)...

Well, Social Security (retirement and disability, etc.) has its own set of problems and will need either benefit cuts, tax increases, or both in order to survive. May as well lump it into the 50% cut of everything else.

Oh and some would like to attack AMTRAK and say no one rides Trains, In the NEC where Amtrak owns the rails they do make a profit and have limited airline competition, Elsewhere Amtrak operates is at a loss or at least breaks even as Amtrak plays second fiddle to the slow Freight railroads who make Amtrak Trains wait and who do not want Amtrak to succeed as they want the land all to themselves, Hence No wanting Amtrak to own It's own Tracks outside of the NEC, Private companies don't have the money to buy and build rail lines these days, But then all of the Freight railroads got their land for FREE in Land Grants back in the 19th century(Tea Party says otherwise on one railroad and is a liar, the railroad they quote merely bought an existing bankrupt railroad, Like I said railroad construction has never been cheap), But then without Government construction grants Your roads won't get fixed, Nor that New Bridge You need, None of It is cheap, If It were It would soon be rusting junk. Invest, Invest, Invest,

Whats all this about AMTRAK and 'tea party'?

And under Clinton Taxes on the Super Rich(top 1%-2% of income) was 26% and the economy was booming, Yet now It's 19% and the economy is barely recovering from the Wall Street and Koch Industries engineered disaster...

Why your fixation on Koch? Also, you seem to be fixated on soaking the rich for tax money. Well, the rich are already being soaked. Per the CBO, the top 1% of people ranked by household income pay well over 25% of the total federal taxes.

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/tax_liability_shares.pdf

In 2007, they paid 28.1% of ALL federal taxes, and 39.5% of the federal income tax. In 1993 (beginning of the Clinton presidency), it was 18.7% of all taxes, and 27.6% of federal income taxes. Their share of federal taxes has steadily gone up, not down, since Clinton. Get your facts straight.

And as to who is to blame for our current economic crisis, it was the Federal Government that is to blame, not big business or banks/Wall Street. Federal Government policy forced banks and others to loan money (give mortgages to) to people that could not reasonably be expected to be able to pay it back. Hence, all the foreclosures we see these days.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

the Koch brothers are the instigators and financiers of the so called grass roots tea party movement. They've created a monster. Perhaps the fixation is more of why the Koch brothers think they need these massive tax breaks and why they are willing to bankrupt the federal gov't to do it

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

the Koch brothers are the instigators and financiers of the so called grass roots tea party movement. They've created a monster. Perhaps the fixation is more of why the Koch brothers think they need these massive tax breaks and why they are willing to bankrupt the federal gov't to do it

Ok, thanks for the explanation. Since the Koch brothers are for a smaller federal govt., and lower taxes for everyone, this explains why the 'tax the rich' entitlement junkies hate them so much.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

the Koch brothers are the instigators and financiers of the so called grass roots tea party movement. They've created a monster. Perhaps the fixation is more of why the Koch brothers think they need these massive tax breaks and why they are willing to bankrupt the federal gov't to do it

Ok, thanks for the explanation. Since the Koch brothers are for a smaller federal govt., and lower taxes for everyone, this explains why the 'tax the rich' entitlement junkies hate them so much.

No the Republican lies about lower taxes for everyone is still a lie. THey want it for themselves. They want to perpetuate the BUsh tax cuts which if those cuts were eliminated could reduce the annual deficit by about 40%. Sure we need to be leaner but you can't do that when the economy is broken.

Read up on the year 1937. In that year the GOv't cut funding for social programs. The economy wasn't ready for the cuts and we ended up with another depression. Thus the term double dip depression. I understand the desire to cut taxes. It sounds great until you realize we are taxing people at the lowest rate since before the Korean war. We have very low taxes, now. If we insist on listening to the ultra rich whine about how they are over taxed and over burdened all the while buying another home in Aspen. It's bothersome to some its annoying to me that they complain about what is to much but they never give us a clue as to how much is just right. I think I know. The percent is 0. They would like to be taxed at 0%. So would I. The idea that a crybaby gets what it wants because it cry's long enough is silly. we wouldnt do that for our kids why do it for the people that least need it.

And no the ultra rich are not overburdened. they just complain more. nobody listens to the guy flipping burgers. He doesnt have a voice and he doesnt even understand that he's getting poorer every day.

we've already seen that the republicans only want to cut social programs. Fine. now lets start cutting some military programs. eliminate the V2, B2, and 1 navy fleet. Theres no need to have the biggest navy in the world when its bigger than the next 11 combined. Of those 11 most are actual allies.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

So You want a 50% cut to Medicaid(Medi-Cal in CA), SSI(signed into law by President Richard Nixon a Republican in 1972)(Supplemental Security Income), Medicare, DOT(Need to drive or take a Train somewhere?), EPA(Clean Air & Water), FHA(Got a Mortgage?), FAA(Flying somewhere?), etc, etc...

And You want It immediately? The US is not broke, As unemployment is not even close to being that high, If You get disabled and could not work ever again, without SSI how would You survive? Especially If You have no friends(online does not count) and Your relatives either can't or won't help?

Cutting back by 50% like this all at once is irresponsible and would kill the economy... Too many interdependencies, A lot of private companies both large & small would cease to operate and unemployment would be massive... You buy a burger somewhere, they buy the meat from somewhere, the meat travels by rail or by road in trucks, the meat is inspected by the USDA, There are a lot of steps in between You and Your food, But hey go ahead, starve, I don't give a crap...

Oh and You can't include in the Federal Budget Social Security or SSDI as they are separate by law as they are their own budget and independent(FICA tax) as is the US Post Office(Postage)...

Oh and some would like to attack AMTRAK and say no one rides Trains, In the NEC where Amtrak owns the rails they do make a profit and have limited airline competition, Elsewhere Amtrak operates is at a loss or at least breaks even as Amtrak plays second fiddle to the slow Freight railroads who make Amtrak Trains wait and who do not want Amtrak to succeed as they want the land all to themselves, Hence No wanting Amtrak to own It's own Tracks outside of the NEC, Private companies don't have the money to buy and build rail lines these days, But then all of the Freight railroads got their land for FREE in Land Grants back in the 19th century(Tea Party says otherwise on one railroad and is a liar, the railroad they quote merely bought an existing bankrupt railroad, Like I said railroad construction has never been cheap), But then without Government construction grants Your roads won't get fixed, Nor that New Bridge You need, None of It is cheap, If It were It would soon be rusting junk. Invest, Invest, Invest, And under Clinton Taxes on the Super Rich(top 1%-2% of income) was 26% and the economy was booming, Yet now It's 19% and the economy is barely recovering from the Wall Street and Koch Industries engineered disaster...

It isn't a matter of wanting. You are taking this personally. The resources are not there. It's that simple.

I could as easily turn around and state "You want an 85% tax rate on all earnings of future generations."

The U.S. IS broke. Wake up. We have a debt of $47,000 for every man, woman and child in the country and you could confiscate everything from the upper 50% and not be able to pay for it. Too many promises were made and can't be kept. The math is that bad.

The inspectors can continue at the FDA and the air traffic controllers can continue at the FAA. But we can't support the 50,000 bureaucrats behind them in cubicles who don't contribute to the mission, but are there as "support" and support can mean just about anything - and there's plenty of "support" that is nothing but jobs programs. Government should not be a jobs program.

Don't give us the "starve" bit. We had a government much smaller than this before and we did quite fine. A government under the Clinton years was much smaller and we still did just great. We can't support entitlement programs that take up 70% of the budget.

Roads will get fixed just fine without government land grants. Obama just gave us the BIGGEST stimulus ever in the history of the country and what infrastructure have we gotten for it? Nada. Invest seems to be a new term for spend. Let the states take care of most of it. They're closer to the local problems than a large bureaucratic federal policy person who never gets out of the beltway and dictates from afar.

People have a hard time conceptualizing very large numbers, so let’s give this some context. The current Credit Crisis bailout is now the largest outlay In American history.

Crunching the inflation adjusted numbers, we find the bailouts have cost more than all of these big budget government expenditures – combined:

• Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion
• Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion
• Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion
• S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion
• Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion
• The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est)
• Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion
• Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion
• NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion

TOTAL: $3.92 trillion



We're at almost 15 Trillion in debt today. We're debasing the currency. Enough already!

---