Wow am I pleased to see what passes for civil discourse.

Do you have anything constructive to add?

Ed - truly the best (you) in Monday Morning QBacking!!! And, your solution???

Ed, I agree with you 100%
Bob

Ohh Ed, I think you have more than enough hate and bitterness in you to last well past election day...savage selfishness? Hate filled donut?? What else has Rachel Maddow told you? Maybe you should learn to think for yourself, Ed....it would, at lease, be a start down the road to your "recovery", lol.
Here's some of Ryan's "hate filled" rhetoric...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs

Hate filled donut?? Savage selfishness? What's next Ed, "worst person of the week"? Geez, I thought Keith Olbermann was obsolete. You should probably back off the Rachel Maddow pills for now and learn to think for yourself. It would be a healthy start down the road to recovery for you. In the meantime, here's some "hate filled" Ryan rhetoric (that's Liberal code for "fiscal responsibility")...watch and come to your OWN conclusions...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs

Ed my sentiments exactly. It really galls me how the hard right conservatives, are the first to judge what someone writes. Write your own opinion. No need to comment on any one elses with that phony holier than thou tone. Like conservatives would know a "civil tone" if it hit them in the head.
I listened to the talk radio, levine, limbaugh, hannity and no wonder we have a level of political discourse that is unbearable. I could not listen to more than a minute or two of their hate-filled rantings and dribble and their listeners are the people who are going to tell liberals how to behave. I don't think so!!!

I tell my kids to stay away from beings such as you.. Consider moving away from Fairfax County.

I tell my Kids to stay away from beings such as yourself. Stay away from Humans

Paul Ryan is political suicide for Romney. I cannot trust someone who stashes money in offshore accounts. Make it known, transparent.

Finally, someone who will address the deficit! He is a classy individual who is definitely in touch with what is going on. Unlike Obama, he cares about democracy and capitalism rather than socialism and totalitarianism. Good choice.

Typical left leaning liberal: he accusses other of doing exactly what HE does (but they are unable to see). There are many (millions of) americans who shall support the ticket, but people such as this (ignorant of their fascist behavior) are unable to recognize it with discoursins like this.
The only thing I wished -- if BO gets reelected -- is to see what these poeple have to say four years from now! They'll probably blame Bush.

I cannot help but laugh at such "hate filled" adjectives being used by someone identifying someone else as "hate filled"......Ryan is great for Romney....I like him better than Romney....and McDonnell will do just fine.....

Ed - I might tend to agree...but your post doesn't get into specifics and only invites similar natty natty boo boo insults from the right wing. (As I'mnoting having read this late in the game.) You say "He will take away a century of social gains and labor law at his earliest convenience:" Be specific, what will he take away and how? "Just another hate filled donut"? Who or what does he hate? If you suggest he hates the Constitution of the US and the evolution of our democracy since 1861 be specific....

Ok, so the Patch asked for opinions. Ed gave his opinion and because they don't agree with Conservatives, you Conservatives climb all over him and ask him for a solution to the economy. Patch didn't ask for solutions to government problems. It asked for opinions, and Ed and those of us who don't like Ryan have just as much right to express our feelsing about it. Wasn't this a free country?

Can every one please treat others as you would like to be treated?
It's such a simple thing.....

Keith Olbermann is NOT obsolete. He's just one of the few who still has both of his and is not afraid to express his opinion whether you like it or not. He is a moneymaker if those who bring him on can take the time to do some personal reflection and get their own house in order.

Instead of addressing Obama's failures to reduce the mushrooming federal deficit and the sorry record of the Obama administration in addressing the fate of unemployed American workers, Ed Hart resorts to name-calling, invective and ad hominem attacks on Paul Ryan. The sad fact is that this is all he can do, and all the Obama campaign can do. Certainly they cannot point to Obama's record. The only tact they can take is to deflect attention from Obama's failures by negative attacks on the Republicans. Pathetic.

Ed had a bad cup of cool aid! Ed tell us whom is less selfish? The government, you, me, everyone else. Surly not the Obama admin. All they wish to do is take everones resources and dole it out to those that will support them. Listen Ed, we have a real problem in this country that you refuse to understand. We can't go on supporting the entitlements that you are totally dependent on. Do you understand that they way we are headed in 25 years entitlements will consume between 75 and 100% of what the federal govttakes in. even assuming the economy does not collapse under this constraint, there will not be enough revenue to cover other mandatory outlays ie, debt service. Your only answer is to raise taxes on the rich and full speed ahead with spending on your behalf. Get real we have some hard knocks to deal with thanks to Obama.

You go, Ed. You've really managed to rattle the cages for the right fringe knuckledraggers.

I try and take each election and each candidate as they are, and I generally try to vote for those who I trust most to do the right thing (and who have the credentials and intellect to understand what that is). Still, truth be told, I lean more to the left than to the right. Having said that, Ed, I don't think you did yourself or your political position any favors with your ill-conceived rant. Ryan may be a bit radical, but he's exceptionally smart, and certainly no "donut". He is most definitely NOT Sarah Palin or Rick Santorum, and it's a mistake to consider him as such.

Wow! Ed, talk about lack of civility. Is that the best we can expect from Democrats? I hope you seek help to try and curb some of the angst.

Ed... your comments are so harsh that they could be flagged as inappropriate. I have one question. Who's going to pay for all this spending? These deficits are stealth taxes. They have to be paid off some day. We need to get our house in order. We could impose a 100% tax the top 5% and still not make a dent in the debt the USA owes.

Best regards,
A Disappointed Democrat

Ed Hart didn't make those comments! Someone else made them for him!

Billboard of the Year!

http://weaselzippers.us/2012/08/25/billboard-of-the-day/

Something you might find interesting: '45 Goals Communist Party USA'.

Wow...based on the credentials you deem critical in determining "presidential quality", great hair, great complexion and snappy fashion sense, perhaps you should've nominated Justin Bieber, lol.
No wonder the Left is in trouble.

Uh no, Robme is in trouble.

Uncle Julio. Please take your insanity and leave town. Your a sick person!

Robme is in office now. He lied about health care and who has to pay--the "middle class"

Again -liberal name calling and no substance. How about a democrat chime in that can add substance to the debate even if it is opposition. I know there are many of you out there.

His goal is to loot your Social Security Fund, your Medicare Fund, your Medicaid fund, post haste It's yours, not his. PS: He still gets government funded healthcare for life, but he'll rob you of yours.

Hallelujah!! The BEST choice--a actual adult with sound character and intelligence, brilliant budgetary discipline and the ability to connect and communicate the clear, decisive vision to carry us forward and actually SOLVE the main problem facing our country--the runaway entitlement programs which are hurtling us over the cliff of certain bankruptcy. Go Ryan!! Yay!!!!

Honestly? How many terms has he had in Congress? His "service" speaks volumes. Thanks, but no thanks.

Here, Ed...try to digest a little FACT for a change....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs

Well yours, is one opinion.

>>Ryan is an honest, hardworking, serious man who wants to help make America even better for us and the future generations. <<

Find me a politician who wants to make our nation weaker. They ALL want to make our nation stronger. All public servants at least begin wanting to make things better. Sadly, some use their position to advance their own needs.

Now that Ryan has been selected, I hope that the ads will begin to focus on the issues and each candidate's opinion/record.

If thats so why is it members of his own party are speaking out against himand why are the Nuns on a bus calling him and Mitt out are they all crazy and you are the sane one

Ryan wants to make America into a story by Ayn Rand. Or at least that is what he says.

Ed Hart, Ryan has looted anything. It's Obama that has done the looting of medicare to the tune of $716 billion dollars to pay for obamacare. How do you explaing that to the Seniors without lieing to them that Ryan is looting medicare? Do Tell!
By the way there are no funds SSA trust fund. Hasn't been despite what Obama has said to you

Kris...given Ryan's lack of actual work experience..as defined by Mitt Romney...isn't he woefully unqualified to be Vice-President. I mean after all, other than a few summer gigs while in college (as a waiter and driver of the Oscar Meyer Wiener mobile)...he has none of the business experience Romney says is required...

Note to @ Ed Hart -

Social Security was raided in the 90s by Bill Clinton to balance the books.

Hi Don, We've reached out to a number of local Republicans this morning for a response and will certainly include those when we get them.

Hey, I'm in "independent" from a family of Indies and Libertarians and we're ALL in the tank for Romney!! When the media tells you Indies are leaning Left..DO NOT BELIEVE IT!!! On the contrary, I know WAY more indies leaning toward Romney, in fact, I don't know ANY leaning toward Obama and the ones the did vote for him (like some of my numbskull relatives) they're all going to Romney now.

Kris - here is an audio of Paul Ryan on his devotion to Ayn Rand's philosophy.

"I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are, and what my beliefs are."
"It’s inspired me so much that it’s required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff.
"But the reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand."

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/04/audio-surfaces-paul-ryans-effusive-love-ayn-rand/51711/

@Vasquez2 I love this comment. I had to work hard to talk some of my relatives last time not to vote for Obama last time and I still had some who did. I am curious if they will this time.
"in fact, I don't know ANY leaning toward Obama and the ones the did vote for him (like some of my numbskull relatives) they're all going to Romney now."

Haha, I wish I could +1 this comment.

Beth, I think Kris was actually responding to a link to a photo on a website that someone had posted, which now appears to have been deleted.

I was actually addressing that remark to the person who posted a link to gobackteam.com. I was not intending to imply anything about The Patch. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Like it or not, here is a short video of Ryan before he was being considered for the VP job, without teleprompter, focused on an issue of importance to many Americans:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs

Kudo's Kim to at least being open to hearing more about the opposition other then a head of hair. Substance is the debate not hair or dress.

Thank you. These are facts we can all use to make an informed decision.

He also voted for these things, all of which were not paid for and have been huge contributors to our deficits:
-The Bush tax cuts
-The Iraq War
-The Medicare expansion
He also voted against the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles recommendations.

Facts, courtesy of "demnewswire"...check your sources this year....it'll be more important than ever.

Thank you for posting this list. This is merely a slim sampling of Ryan's extreme beliefs and statements. Much, much more is going to come out in the next few weeks.

@V... I am sure all those "votes" you mention were just 'one line item' bills as you have seemed to boil them down to.

V, sounds like a good start. Where would you suggest we should cut spending?

Obama and Romney are clowns working for the "elite". Until we wake up and realize arguing for one over the other is ridiculous, we will always be "sheeple"!

What the alternative John Doe - anarchy?

Thanks V...Ryan sounds like the perfect choice for me.

Elizabeth, do you care to contrast the many trillions in deficit we face now with the relatively paltry deficit Clinton faced when the first GOP congress in half a century held Clinton's feet to the fire until he signed off on their budget?

Exactly Elizabeth!

@ Elizabeth Talbot...you may not like Ryans budget plan, but you must really dislike Obama's if all you can do it say that it is not as good as Clintons from the 90's. Clinton isn't running for president and Obama's plan for the budget is more dismal than than anything proposed from Ryan.

Clinton balanced the budget thanks to a republican congress that pushed hi in that direction. Obama hasn't had a buget in 3 years. The Democratic senate doesn't see the need to have a budget as it will impede their plan to spend spend spend. At least Romney Ryan have a plan. Seniros will have a choice in their medical care with the voucher system. Right now none of us have a choice in Obama care.

But isn't more like the Ryan plan and a continued Medicare System or Obamacare and seniors on Medicaid if they can meet the needs test? Obamacare removed 700B+ from the Medicare system guaranteeing bankruptcy. No fix and no explanation, already done. Ryan presented a plan that allowed the currently bankrupt program to continue to exist, and people attack him for it??? I am puzzled do we care about Medicare or not?

Agreed Elizabeth. Not to mention the whole 47% of the Country Romney isn't concerned about. Imagine, half the Country are moochers according to Romney.

Don, give it up and get offline. Your man would decimate the middle class in order to increase the wealth of the top 2% of the country. Ryan certainly is NOT what our country needs. Ryan does know we are in a tough situation budget-wise, but doesn't have the sense to advocate pushing for a tax increase on the most wealthy Americans. He proposes instead to cut their taxes, and pay for it by eliminating benefits currently going to the middle and lower economic classes. Stop mis-representing the damage Ryan and Romney would do if elected.

Bob, the socialist lies are falling flat. You cannot lift up the lower and middle classes by pulling down and punishing the upper class. We cannot pay for trillions upon trillions upon trillions in unfunded liabilities by confiscating the property of the rich, even if we took ALL or their property.

The way out of this mess is to reform the entitlement programs and to remove the stranglehold that government has on those who truly possess the wherewithal to generate new enterprises and jobs. Ryan is the one who has actually done the math on this. I know that, because I pay attention when he talks.

Economics is NOT a zero sum game. Just because I can afford to buy a large pizza doesn't mean Don is stuck having to eat the box....Liberal math and economics doesn't work. Never did. Never will. Mathematically, it cant!

Don: I assume you have forgotten the hardships Pres. Obama overcame during his childhood. I have, unfortunately, never had the opportunity to look "into his eyes" as it sounds like you have for Paul Ryan, but I do think Pres. Obama has genuine concern, vision, intelligence, compassion and virtuous character. Perhaps we should consult a psychic or a palm-reader?

Bob, you drunk the cool aid and can't you be more original then spouting the same ole lib talking points. Taxing the 2% is not going to make a dent in the mess that Obama has handed us. We need to make the had choice and deal with the entitlements that are breaking the economy - get real Bob.

Fixing a nonexistent problem. Ever hear of "If it ain't broke don't fix it." Once again I point out that even in prosperous times with declining deficits our proponents of dystopia still wanted to turn the US into Somalia: no Social Security, no Medicare, no teachers, no police, no fire department, and probably no running water either. After all a municipal water system is just "creeping Socialism."

I can close my eyes and see Col Ryan zooming around in his technical proclaiming his Second Amendment right to blast everyone he sees.

Haha, keep it up with such rhetoric, Richard. It will help the Romney/Ryan ticket all the way to their victory party on Nov. 7th...I suppose you're yet another of the endless parade of zombies that says we can soak the rich out of their billions in order to pay for the trillions in liabilities/handouts on the books...good luck trying to balance the books by imagining that confiscating billions can compensate for trillions of liabilities! Ryan has the plan, I strongly suggest you change your mind and get behind him.

So, Richard, if Ryan's plan is so "rapacious"....why did your prez even comment on it's legitimacy?? People...the great thing about the internet is you don't have to take someone's word for it anymore. You can actually see the words coming out of their mouths! Ryan speaks AT LENGTH about his budget. Got questions..do your homework...here's a tidbid to start with, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs

Lol all this said while current policies of our neonazi president guts the middle class with unemployment, inflation, and the denial of access to markets for things like energy and health insurance.

Bwahahaha the sounds of desperation and fear emanating from the desperate and flailing Obama camp

I agree. The selection of Ryan as VP candidate--moving to the right instead of the center (if there is one in the GOP anymore)--virtually assures Obama's re-election. In the end, most of us are centrist, and you can bet Obama will now move even more toward the center to pick up the votes Romney just gave away.

Yet, in the end, I expect no improvement in the way our elected government works--confrontation, stalemate, venality, corruption. That's not good for anyone.

Wrong, Norm!! Because there are a bunch of us who will make sure that, despite the media, the truth gets out. Speaking as a senior, it's not Ryan or Romney that scares me, it's the Obama plan. When you listen to both of them explaining your plan, it becomes obvious who provides the better (safer)
choice.

Vasquez2 - your right on target!

@Norman- I just read an article from a local priest who stated that Biden is a Cafeteria Catholic where Ryan is a real Catholic. So I do not think that Obama has the Catholic vote. I also have a friend who loves the Catholic radio station and she tells me all the time that they are leaning Romney.

Mandy, you're right about Ryan being the best pick, but the real looming problem is the trillions upon trillions in liabilities facing us in the runaway entitlement programs--social security, medicare, and medicaid. Ryan's plan FIXES THE PROBLEM.

Meant to add that GM has ramped up subprime auto loans in order to boost their lagging sales in hopes of being able to pay back the taxpayers. This is no different that offering home loans to people that can't afford them. From Investors.com: "GM Financial auto loans to customers with FICO scores below 660 rose from 87% of total loans in Q4 2010 to 93% in Q1 2012."

Ryan actually voted for some of the bailouts. Let's keep our eyes on the prize--reigning in the runaway entitlement cataclysm that will certainly send us hurtling over the cliff. Ryan's plan solves the problem.

The GM fiasco is just one more Obama socialist fraud; there should have been a managed bankruptcy, as Romney said, because GM went bankrupt anyway, and non-union workers were raped along with bondholders, etc. The lies pouring out from Obama's fecal orifice below his nose don't change the facts about what a scam GM is...Ryan's strongest suit is not his votes for TARP and the GM bailout, et. al., but his rock-solid numbers-crunching on the budget plan that will overall save our country from certain doom.

Don Joy, I don't fault anyone for voting for the bailouts or Tarp at the time due to the scare the country was going through but to continue to see this as an on-going option by the Obama administration has to be brought to the attention of the American people. I have a friend who votes Democrat and thought that GM has paid back their bailout. I was surprised how uninformed my Democrat-voting friend was about many things. I agree that all the entitlement programs must be reigned in and not increased as we have for the food stamp programs. The US citizen needs to have a complete different perspective on what the government can do for one and that the citizen is not entitled to these unaffordable handouts. The GOP believes in helping those that really need it and those that don't, should be working.

Agreed, Mandy! =)

GM bailout was a big mistake. I doubt we will get paid back and the only entity that was helped here were the unions. GM is still in the same hole they were in before just a delaying the enevitable - and was not able to work out the bad stuff if they had been able to go through bankruptcy proceedings.

Mandy - nearly half of GM bailout money has paid back. We don't know if we will get the rest, but so far there were many jobs saved. Most of the TARP money has been repaid, and it seems probable that GSE bailouts will also be repaid.

Lots of questions and comments, but I'll ask just one. Did you want Guantanamo closed? Did Republicans want Guantanamo closed? I guess that is two questions.

Lies ^^^^ up there ^, those are lies.

Sorry Don, that's the facts. Also note, just today Romney suggested privatizing The VA system while speaking to a group of veterans. Really out of touch.

I'm a service-connected 30% disabled veteran. I know that the private sector always does things better and more efficiently than the government. I'm open to discussion of reforms that involve private sector solutions to government torpor, bungling, affirmative action dumbing-down, and endless bureaucracy.

And what is the Democrat's budget plan? Headlines from an April 2012 article "Democrats punt on Senate budget bill for third year-Committee chairman to revisit Bowles-Simpson plan of 2010""Instead, Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, North Dakota Democrat, said he will use the next few months to try to breathe life into the shelved
2-year-old Bowles-Simpson deficit commission proposal....Mr. Conrad said he wasn't able to get enough Democrats to back a fiscal 2013 budget, much less reach a bipartisan agreement, and that he decided instead to
try to kick-start a longer-term debate." No plan or action by the Democrats except to portray the GOP as being the ones holding up everything which is just the tactic chosen by the Dems and Obama since they apparently have no plan.

See the link below for a snapshot of the Ryan budget by the National Priorities Project - an organization founded to help citizens understand budget issues. He says he has the answer to deficit, but the numbers don't lie. His budget would actually end up with a higher deficit than the alternative plan offered by the Caucus. Please do you homework on this guy. You can't believe everything that he says.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZTrhW41-xE&feature=player_embedded

Ed, you do understand that right now Medicare is a bankrupt program, so equating an attempt to innovate and fix the program so it can continue to exist with the programs destruction is like calling a birth a funeral.

You tell me who are the zombies--people who think that stealing billions can actually pay for trillions in handouts, or people who know that reducing the trillions in liabilities while incentivizing enterprise and production is the real way to solve the problem of the debt crisis and stagnant economy?

'Jobs plan'?

Service class is already here or haven't you been paying attention..

Now there is a sound basis for a political decision if ever I've heard one... because the attacks from both sides haven't been rampant on this thread? lol. I seriously hope that you are being facetious.

In the end, it has been mind-numbing politics as usual from both "sides". The real problem is that we still have sides, and the cavernous gap between them simply grows every election cycle. People become more interested in beating the other side than what they actually st out to do in the first place (which I presume is typically a noble attempt to make a difference for the better). Those who proclaim they are voting for a certain side in every election, at every level of government, are simply looking for the quickest and easiest way to make a decision...

If Romney had not paid taxes or done something funny with his taxes in the past 10 years, don't you think the IRS would have been all over him? After all, the IRS is the one government agency that seems to function very well when getting what is owed the government.

This is in reply to Many about Romney's taxes and the IRS. Mandy, if Romney took the tax amnesty in 2009, which I am sure he did, the IRS would not prosecute him. That was the deal.....you declare your Swiss bank accounts, which you had not declared before, pay the back taxes and they would not prosecute. That's why he won't release his taxes....plus he paid very low taxes anyway.

Romney won't release his taxes because he isn't going to allow the Democrat Party and President Obama to rift through them looking for some puny detail to blow into a big non-story and let President Obama get away with not discussing what he has or has not done. This is just another non-story developed by the Democrats to obscure their inept leadership. Don't you think you deserve more from your party than this kind of silly, unsubstantiated accusation by Harry Reid, who has done this before. Can you really not see through this ploy and demand more from the leaders of your party? I still want to see President Obama college grades and other info as to how he financed his college etc., but I gave up demanding that several years ago as we have to move on to more important matters.

Oh Mandy, Mandy, Mandy: What stupid comments. Most folks release multiple years of tax returns when they run for Pres.....as did Romney's dad. Both parties look through the returns, and you can bet the Repubs would be up in arms if Obama refused to release his. But if you have nothing to hide, why not release them? We all know Romney is fabulously wealthy....good for him! But if he hid money in Swiss bank acounts for years, don't you care? That is not a "puny detail." The mention of college grades, etc. is just ridiculous....trying to distract from the real issue....tax returns. Obama has already released his tax returns and his birth certificate .....Romney has done neither. So when Romney does, then perhaps we can go into the grades. Remember, Obama was editor of Harvard Law Review....you don't get there other than by merit. So RELEASE THE TAX RETURNS, MITT !!!!!

Mandy, no one ever claimed that Romney owed taxes and didn't pay them. To the contrary. Even you must wonder why he is not willing to disclose what every other president has in the past several decades.

It's guaranteed that if Obama had not disclosed his tax returns, you would have been crying foul the entire 4 years of his presidency.

"Romney won't release his taxes because he isn't going to allow the Democrat Party and President Obama to rift through them looking for some puny detail to blow into a big non-story and let President Obama get away with not discussing what he has or has not done."

Mandy - I do wonder if even you could believe your own story.

April, All president's reveal their taxes. I have stated why I don't believe Romney wants to release his taxes. And if I didn't believe it, then I wouldn't have written it. This tax issue is a non-story to divert attention away from important discussion of the country's problems and President Obama's lack of dealing with the issues. You certainly don't believe the little ghost story from Harry Reid do you? President Obama has done nothing but golf and campaign for his presidency. I believe he even beats Ike Eisenhower for number of golf games.

All presidential candidates release their college records, but Obama still refuses to unseal his. What is he hiding? Foreign student status, because he never officially relinquished his Indonesian citizenship from when he was adopted there by his baby-mama-daddy number 2

The whole tax return issue is a ruse so Obama can repeat over and over that Romney is rich (btw, so is Obama).

So you are saying that we in Northern Virginia care more about our home prices than our country or our children?
We all know that spending cuts should happen even if they affect our home prices in the short term.

A "giant sucking sound" as all the money runs to billionaires and Wall Street crooks. The Swiss will be very happy.

Well, Romney is now disavowing the Ryan plan. I do wonder what all the people think who were previously praising the Ryan budget and his Ayn Rand policies.

Maynard is right on here. If we don't fix this now, there is no tomorrow without some kind of dramatic default and monetary reset which will destroy the credit market and the value of everything.... Lol and you are worried about the price of your house. A little tidbit, right now there is no budget and sequestration is the result. $1.5T in cuts are already coming and those jobs you are talking about are already going and the value of your house is already too high and it was all done by this president and the 43 that came before him and this congress and 113 that came before them, but most of all it was done by a people who chose to vote for benefits that they had not earned through creation or paid for with effort...

Vs. the presidents plans in 08 & 09 which didn't exist or the budget he put forward this year that no one in the senate voted for?

Barbara, thank you for the informative and concise post. It was very well done.

Barbara, very well said. Thank you.

I'm going to the Obama Re-Election office in Leesburg on Sycolin to get a couple of signs for my and my neighbors yards. The goal is to keep Virginia blue for Obama and I think the Ryan pick has just made that a mite easier. I'm going to make calls and knock on doors and convince others to jump in. All hands on deck.

Good luck trying to cover untold trillions in unfunded liabilities by going after the billions in property of those you already overburden with the vast majority of taxes.

You do understand that a billion dollars is but a tiny fraction of a trillion, right?

No offense Don Joy, but you sound like another of our pointless politicians (that being all of them, on both sides). Keep repeating the same thing over and over...I believe it is called the broken record approach. Even if your math works, it makes your arguments look non-existent.

One key to teaching IS repetition, however I do not concede anything about being merely repetitive here.

It's always been this way. The Republican Party Leaders have historically tried to convince the dumb and ignorant of the middle class to follow them to the promised land of riches . . . it has not worked in the past and it won't work in the future.

Please speak for yourself Hector. You could use to introduce yourself to the more generous and loving in your neighborhood, you will meet lots of Republicans and Democrats who have shared their wealth and help to others who need a lift in life whether it is job training, food, car rides to and from doctors and hospitals and the list goes on.

Ahhh there we go...Liberal logic at it's finest. You folks are so well behaved....

Liberals, conservatives....neither side can stake claim to being well behaved. Especially in this thread. As usual in political discussions, ignorance abounds. Everyone speaks only in absolutes, when the best solution is always somewhere in the middle...

Mandy, Are you trolling for hate mail? To claim that you don't know what Obama's economic plan is would only demonstrate that you are not paying attention. That is probably not true. So why write that? Do you think writing it makes you more credible?

Mr T,
I really don't know Obama's economic plan so will you please enlighten me? And why is asking this question considered to be "trolling for hate mail". That you won't inform us reveals you don't know it either. It seems when I ask questions that demand an answer, suddenly the name-calling starts appearing from the Lefties.

Mandy,
I hate the tone of these comment threads. I'm a liberal who is sensitive to amped-up rhetoric and name calling, so I'm going to take you at your word that you're honestly curious and answer your question. The most concise answer to it I've found is here: http://usliberals.about.com/od/obamaoneconomicreform/a/Obama-Deficit-Reduction-Plan.htm

The gist of it is that Obama does indeed have a plan but knew he had close to zero chance of getting it through the Republican controlled Congress. Politically it was smarter for the Dems to just wait for the Reps to put up a plan and then attack it to shreds rather than put up their own plan knowing it would never get past the House. Maybe that's why you feel like you never hear much about the Dems' ideas, budget-wise. It's interesting to me that Obama agrees at least in part with Paul Ryan that there's no real way to balance our budget without cutting at least some portion of entitlement programs. It may be unpopular with many Democrats, but I think ultimately it's something we could get behind if the Republicans would be willing to compromise on their stance regarding not raising taxes on the super-wealthy. Alas, "compromise" seems to be an ugly word in politics.

Mandy, There have been several budget put forth from the Dem side, but they had zero chance in the House. Here is a snapshot comparison of one of them to the Ryan plan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZTrhW41-xE&feature=player_embedded

If you can't get there from this, you can find this on You Tube. It is entitled Budget Brief, A Tale of Two Budgets.

Leigh K...Is this your idea of non amped-up rhetoric? "Politically it was smarter for the Dems to just wait for the Reps to put up a plan and then attack it to shreds rather than put up their own plan knowing it would never get past the House." Attack it to shreds? Wouldn't it have been better for them to show their plan and highlight the differences?

I think Leigh was merely pointing out the problems with our system. It has gotten such that everyone makes their decisions based on what makes more political sense, rather than focusing on what just plain makes sense. Too many politicos will rip apart an idea that they might even be agreeable to with great venom, purely because it comes from the other side. This entire comment thread makes me realize even more why the politicians act that way, seeing as many of their constituents seem to take a similar approach. My curiosity is, who learned it from whom...

Liz: good point....I'm outa here :)

We had some reaction in the story from Northern Virginia politicians and the Virginia governor also figures into today's news. Sometimes these types of stories attract comments from readers outside the area.

Could you be just a little more condescending? Sheesh!! Yet...in a sense, I agree with you. I think we should hand everyone a checkbook with a balance and an entry...if they can correctly balance the book (unlike most Liberals) they can vote. Also, I'd suggest a few questions about the constitution. Finally, I'd as the most important questiom...may I see your driver's license or gov't issued photo ID...

While I tend to agree on most points, shouldn't we also exclude seniors deemed to be senile, or maybe just those who we determine are not smart enough to vote?

My suggestion is a list of questions, similar to those "which candidate is most like you" blind surveys on many news sites. You answer 5-10 policy questions, giving them an importance factor, and your vote is cast for the candidate which best fits your views. Seems silly, no? That is the trouble, it is probably the most logical process, yet it just sounds utterly ridiculous as well. So many people vote blindly along party lines, or for a name they recognize (in smaller localized elections). It makes campaigning follow a totally different path in the end.

Dillusional

Your vulgar term of referring to the Tea Party as "Tea Baggers" shows me how distressed the Democrat voters are becoming. Then referencing my comments as "stupid" by another. The comment of "keeping it local" and "attracting readers from the outside". Outside of what, your snobby, Democrat Socialist views? You have your beliefs and I have mine and may the American people make the decision this election day. Peace be with you unhappy folks.

Jeez, I can't figure out who is "unhappy" anymore...it seems like everyone.

What I like most about Democrats is how they always let you know how tolerant they are of others. This comment really shows the tolerance.

What I love most is when one side or the other claims the moral high ground in the name of their party...in our current political environment, no one is entitled to it.

RUBIO??

All the Repubs say it is Maddow's talking points....aren't the others generally repeating Limbaugh/Hannity jargon? Essentially, isn't everyone just spouting something that they heard somewhere at this point?

There is no way any of these crazies will respond to such common sense. Watch,

I'm by no means a Romney advocate, but I believe if he had a deferment from the draft he spent the two years in France doing Morman missionary work - emphasis on "work." I've known Morman missionaries and by no stretch of the imagination are they "on vacation." Romney simply for a variety of reasons and timing was able to avoid military service....He evidently, like Dick Cheney had "other priorities" than military service (as did Clinton to spread the blame in a non-partisan manner) this is the first presidential election in perhaps 75 years (I'm not sure) in which none of the Presidential and VP candidates have military service. Romney and Ryan didn't impress a lot of Veterans by kicking off their joint campaign using the USS Wisconsin as a prop...I'm sure the Dems have done similar. But don't knock Mitt because of his missionary work..

Martin has said it all...
Obama said "I will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term." result, a 2x deficit with no budget or planning. The Obama formula for understanding what he truly means is take the value of what he says he will end multiply by two and that's his target. Eg.

"I will end the patriot act." result extend the patriot act and give you NDAA.
"I will close Guantanamo Prison" result double the size and population.
"I will end the war in Afghanistan" result add troops and have UAVs kill anyone taller than 6'.
It goes on

I think a transcript from your kids would be better reading than this.

I think your kids may be better suited to figure out the problem than any of our chosen politicians...

Karen, it's this kind of silliness that makes the Left look pitiful, these days. I ALMOST feel sorry for you. Magic underwear? That's your argument? I don't care if he's wearing magic underwear or silk stockings...if he can turn our economy around, if he's got a good business head on his shoulders (and he obviously does), THAT'S all I care about. If the economy gets worse, the rest of this petty crap won't matter anyway. Besides, I thought the only REAL magic underwear was made by Spanx..

This is bigoted thoughts and statements. You really can do better than to knock a person's religion and dress. I guess you mock Muslim's and Amish dress also. Freedom of religion is what this country was founded on so please show some respect for those who don't believe like you.

I think separation of Church and State was an equally dominant principle in the founding of this country, yet so many seem to forget this these days. Even as a God faring Christian, I find peoples' shortsightedness often borders on the ridiculous, in my opinion anyhow. Unfortunately, we are left to entertain ourselves with the nitwits that make up the extremes on both sides of the aisle...

Dear Scarlett: Where were you when Bush got us involved in 2 wars with no way to pay for them? Gosh, those wars are expensive! And the one in Iraq was based on lies....no WMDs. Did you complain about that? And wasn't it Cheney who said you didn't need to balance the budget? We've lived for years with the Bush tax cuts....which benefit the wealth "job creators." And where are all the jobs they created? Hmmmmm. When you've tried something over and over and it doesn't work, if you don't change what you're doing, you're just stupid. Independent analysis has determined that Mitt's plan to balance the budget and reduce the deficit just doesn't add up. It's smoke and mirrors. Plus, when is he going to RELEASE HIS TAX RETURNS????

I think you both make the same points, while claiming to be vehemently on opposite sides...none of the budget plans have math that works. I believe Bush used the term "fuzzy math", and it has applied to every budget plan I have seen for decades. Where we sit today is in very dire straits, and neither side has any interest beyond making sure they get re-elected. No one has the ability to promulgate the changes we need. At this point it would take control of the WH, and a super-majority in the House and Senate to get any of these plans through. Fiscally, we as a country have been irresponsible for well over a decade now, and that has come from both sides of the aisle.

Well said. Sadly, everyone feels the need to "win", and in the end, we all lose because of it...

David Fallen criticizes Ed Hart with, among others, the following comment: ".....and the idea [quoted from Mr. Hart] that Mr. Ryan intends to 'take away a century of social gains and labor law at his earliest convenience.' Do you Obama supporters really believe this tripe?"
Yes, we do believe all of this (which it's nice to learn you believe is "tripe") because Mr. Ryan and Mr. Romney have said so, over and over......that dismantling past social legislation is part of their "plan to save America." (They don't reinforce that this plan is to make the wealthy even wealthier than they already are, however). To dismantle Social Security and Medicare, and "do away" with other social and labor legislation that has benefitted almost all Americans (even the very wealthy collect social security and medicare benefits), but which are crucial to the well-being of the middle and lower economic classes.

@ Bob Condit...do you believe that Social Security and Medicare are financially sustainable?

At the risk of being attacked myself, I fail to see it any better than the rantings I hear from the right side of the aisle. I long ago lost count of the times I heard Obama is a Muslim, or that he isn't even eligible to have been President in the first place. In the end, all of these people focusing on the other people are failing to do much of anything but incite further. As I said earlier, anyone who claims the moral high ground for their side is clearly just talking to hear themselves do so...

Yes Obama has big ears, Bush couldn't speak even remotely well, Clinton was clearly less than faithful to his wife, and the list goes on...what does any of it have to do with running this country? I'd love to hear someone make an even remotely valid point to that end.

I love how he uses GM as the basis of success, yet they still owe $40 billion or so. Having that as a basis for success gives me no confidence in Obama policy, nor my vote.

T - I sincerely thank your graciousness and resonableness. I agree with a everything you've stated. It does come down to your value system and what kind of America we want for ourselves, children and other Americans, Those values are what makes America great. It's what keeps folks willing to die to get here. The social programs need to be corrected to remain sustainable but to suggest there is nothing that we can do short of gutting the programs and making the weakest members of our society pay for them while we dole out welfare to the oil companies and people who don't need it is simply disingenuious and unjust.

Well stated. In the end, this is what has turned off so many to politics in general, and what is ruining our system day by day. Compromise is an unheard of, dirty word. Politicians would more happily see their legislation defeated than make logical concessions to see it through, or otherwise tack on totally unrelated items to "buy" votes. Our system is ridiculously flawed, and the adversarial method that everyone chooses to follow (not just during a campaign, but year-round in every discussion) only serves to continue the issue.

Ryan's manner may be sober, honest, disciplined and workmanlike, but it's his policies that I care about. Austerity is not what is needed to get the country back to economic growth and health. The fact that he wants to achieve his vision on the backs of people least likely to carry the weight troubles me greatly. His plan is not a plan that is humane.

We can save the integrity of entitlements without gutting the programs and/or changing them into voucher programs. We should work to make the programs solvent. This country has spent billions of dollars on Wars, entitlements to big oil and other industries that need it the least and we can't find the money to keep sacred programs like SS, medicare and medicaid solvent. Why???

Ryan's plan is intended to avert austerity measures that WILL be necessary unless we heed his urgent warnings and act upon his advice to head off the disaster.

I strongly suggest you watch the video I provided, and observe where you are mistaken in your assessments about the real percentages. It's a very clear and easily digestible presentation, even for someone who might not be a number cruncher or budget wonk.

Oh, and by the way, as things stand now, virtually the entire federal orgy of spending is paid for by the top earners and the "filthy rich" already; the tax code already hits them up for almost everything, while the middle class pays a small portion and the 50% below the median pay NOTHING. This nonsense about the orgy of spending being paid for "on the backs of those least likely to bear the weight" is a bunch of nonsense--especially when you look at the reality that they are the ones enjoying the orgy of other people's money in the first place. What is truly humane is the idea that we might begin to get back to personal responsibility, thrift, protecting property rights, encouraging work and savings, not cranking out illegitimate babies left and right and demanding that others pay for them, and so forth. Morality and humanity is not about demanding that others pay for one's own consequences of an endless orgy of license and consumption and boozing and so on...

Excellent video, Don Joy as it shows the cash flow problems our country faces and MUST deal with. Thanks for sharing.

My pleasure, Mandy! We need to keep on trying to educate people!

Don, Educating a liberal is impossible. I love to read the bigoted liberals who make comments about a religion's garb (Mormon underwear commnets for those too dense to understand this is bigoted). These same hateful people would never think of making a comment about Muslim or Sikh or Amish dress (I guess that is as long as they run go against their Democrat mantra). I also re-read many of the comments and see a familiar fear from liberals is that they are afraid they might lose some money or house value in this project of getting our country's economics back in order. Another thing I notice is that when you ask them to explain the Dem policy or any statement as to what they think should be done, there is silence for the most part. Only response is they want to tax the rich. They don't comprehend there isn't enough money to expect the rich to pay for all they feel they deserve. There has been a study that once taxes reaches a certain percentage then the rich flee or move their money to off-shore accounts. Even if Romney had an offshore or Swiss account, so what. There are many Democrats in Congress that have off-shore accounts. High taxes make this occur. I never see the Dems mention GE not paying any tax and yet Immelt is one of Obama's economic advisors. There are over 70 Democrat Congress people that admit they are Socialists and look at how Socialism is working in France. France is thinking of raising taxes to 75% and the wealthy are fleeing. (Continued)

Look how much Joe Biden gave as a charitable contribution before he became VP. Only $200 and his reason was that he volunteered so much of his time. Look at John Kerry hiding his yacht in another state so he didn't have to pay taxes. Democrats just love to spend other people's money. The problem is the other people's money is running out. We have so much in this country and yet people still expect more and more. We can't afford to keep living on credit. "Useful idiots" is the term Lenin used and it explains so much about the Democrat Party these days. I am glad to see so many Conservative voices on this section as it gives me hope that our country will be able to withstand the major cuts in our life-style that will have to be made. We will still have a lifestyle that many the world over will wish they had. We need to stop being so greedy and hateful and be thankful that we have men such as Romney and Ryan that are willing to make the sacrifice to lead our country out of this swamp of debt. Thank you also Don, for your thoughtful comments.

Well said, Mandy, and glad you are on the team. We are the real liberals, anyway, because we are about liberating America from the oppressive slavery of socialism--meanwhile, the Left are the truly backwards conservatives, because they want to keep things as they are and have been for decades, on a doomed course of fraud, waste, abuse, and wreckage. We want real change, they want more of the same division and delusion.

Ah, more people claiming that their's is the only real solution. I love when everything in the world can be a simple black and white issue...unfortunately, that is never the case. I do worry about home values, etc., and how it will impact me and my family (it is only natural to do so). But it almost makes me want to consider ignoring politics altogether watching both sides make these ridiculous claims of stewardship, being humane, and moral, while claiming everything from the other side to be cataclysmic, runaway, hate-filled, etc. I particularly find it annoying when people decide that those who believe differently than they do or have a different opinion on matters are either in need of being educated, are benefiting from the entitlements, or make other unfounded assumptions about the people to whom they are speaking.

Congrats to you all, as you have all become "sheep" in the following of our eternally flawed adversarial system, not to mention that you come across as less than nice people with whom I would probably never want to entertain a meaningful conversation of any sort. This is probably why the only place I will discuss politics is on the internet, because too many people are incapable of seeing things any way other than their own, and I'm sure that includes some of my friends and co-workers, with whom I'd rather keep a decent relationship... sad, isn't it?

...and never mind about 42 months of horrible unemployment, stagnant economy, racial division and class warfare, disastrous 'green' crony scams, advocating the Muslim Brotherhood terrorists taking over the entire Middle East, removing the work requirement from welfare, pushing food stamps and disability and unemployment checks and dependency as an endless way of life to buy votes, non-stop vacations and golf outings with not a single meeting with his so-called 'jobs council'...BARF and you democrats are focused on Romney's underwear? Romney gives away 19% of his fortune (that he earned, mind you, after giving his inheritance to charity) to charity, and you people dwell on his IRS forms. Meanwhile, Obama's treasury secretary cheats on his taxes, and the democrat leading the fake charge to unseal Romney's ancient tax filings refuses to release HIS OWN tax records! Pretty craven and unworthy of re-election, I'd say.

Lilguy: Thoughtful post. Also, about a week ago, both the Tax Policy Center and the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities....both non-partisan.....said Romney's tax policy plan was mathematically impossible. It just doesn't work. And an economist at George Mason University said: “The proposed Romney fiscal policy just doesn’t make any sense.” These are complicated issues and I think most people need to dig into the details more.

Personally, I think both sides would be well served to focus on why/how their policy will work, rather than on how the other sides policy won't. Maybe then they would all be forced to accept that neither will stand up on it's own two feet, without some additions from the other side....I had better be careful, or someone will have me committed for such crazy talk, I know...

So what will they pay when Obama ends Medicare and replaces it with Medicaid?

Like.

Don: How about that "endless orgy of spending" Bush saddled us with by starting 2 wars with no way of paying for them? Oops.....guess you'd rather forget about that. Oh, and one of them...the one in Iraq....was based on lies.....no WMDs....remember?

In the interest of full disclosure: The Canada Free Press seems to be a Newsmax publication. Additional stories include Cheney having a secret that will be Obama's downfall, Murdoch thinks Ryan is pick is perfect and others of the same ilk. I, for one would like a bit more confirmation of the truth of your statements.

Neither side has nor will outright lie (at least directly from the candidates), but they will (sadly) make creative edits and selective reports of the facts... The outright lying will likely be left to Maddow and Limbaugh, and various others of a similar ilk...

Care to try to refute the hard facts and hard numbers contained in Whittle's excellent presentation?

Oh, and if you can provide anything even remotely close to as clear and convincing of a presentation regarding the topic, I certainly urge you to do so--can you?

One more thing--Obama's buddy and economics guru of the Left, Paul Krugman, is a Nobel laureate in economics (based on his work on international trade, mind you), who , as a die-hard Keynesian zombie, insists that spending, spending, spending, and more spending will get us out of this bottomless hole...(!)

Might I suggest that Bill Whittle has been boning up instead on the Austrian school of economics, as has Rep. Ryan? Are you at all familiar with the Austrian school? No? How about Marshall? Hazlitt? Sowell? Williams?

T-- those were my exact thoughts. I saw the video and right away it raised flags for the reasons you noted. Non-partisan references will go along way to prove a point.

I would gladly point out that both sides are equally capable, and vigorously employ all of those same tactics. The fact that each side thinks they are on the moral high ground, and the only one stating reasonable facts, just goes to show how ridiculously split our country has become. Both sides have relevant facts, opinions, and points, as well as those unable (or unwilling) to carry on a meaningful discussion of same. All of them utilize the same strategies (and indeed buzzwords and vitriol at the extremes). To fall victim to those folks only serves to further degrade the discussions at hand.

Ad hominem tactics are mere evasion, T. Why don't you respond to what Bill Whittle actually presented so compellingly? Can you?

...and how exactly can you allege that Whittle's analysis is not real?

I love that he asked you to refute a comedian. How do you participate in civil discourse when you can't eve agree with reference points? And then dares you to participate. Just empty, banal dialogue. It's no use.

It's all no use, from where I sit...both sides have made themselves look foolish IMO.

Exactly, David.

I believe you are missing the point. The same facts can be presented in many different ways. It is the conclusions you make from how they are presented that are in dispute. Mr. Whittle may be using facts, but his analysis and conclusions are questionable.

Karen, I invite you to refute Whittle's findings in any way.

It is inherently impossible to refute what someone concludes from a set of facts. Polls, statistics, data can be collated and manipulated in a way as to make them say almost anything (that is a simple fact of statistics).

I do find it funny that people keep chastising others for "attacks", while inferring (or outright stating) that the person is down-right uneducated because they do not see things the same way.

Calling someone uneducated can be either an insult or a statement of fact. Credentials and facts can be checked. When a blogger writes about things that they have no expertise in, saying that is a statement of fact. When someone makes alarmist claims over a period of years and the claims never come true, saying that is a statement of fact. If someone does not like reality and calls people who do not share the delusion names, that is insult.

Go ahead, stick with Krugman and avoid what Bill Whittle so crisply presents in his video. And good luck to you.

By the way, every single time capital gains tax rates have been cut, the result has been more revenue into the treasury, not less. It's called the Laffer Curve.

Karen, I suggest we focus on the facts facing us:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u24nH03NccI&list=PLABCC53F051B98328&index=5&feature=plcp

Healthy economies are not the result of redistributing wealth at gunpoint. Some are not poor because others are rich. A rising tide lifts all boats. Bigger boats will always have perches that are far above the seats of dinghies.

You cannot improve the lot of the lower and middle classes by pulling down and punishing the upper classes. Even if you could, it would be utterly criminal to do so. That is why what we have now is a government of criminals. Socialism is organized crime against the fundamental rights of individuals.

To clarify, I think you meant "CEO salaries at 400 times the average worker" Karen...400% would not be all that bad. :)

The Laffer curve is associated with supply-side economics, where its use in debates over rates of taxation has also been controversial. The Laffer curve was coined by journalist Jude Wanniski in the 1970s, with Wanniski naming the curve after an idea sketched on a napkin in a restaurant by Arthur Laffer. Laffer later pointed out that the concept was not original, noting similar ideas in the writings of both 14th century Muslim philosopher Ibn Khaldun (who discussed the idea in his 1377 Muqaddimah)[5] and John Maynard Keynes.[1]

If you tax income at a rate of 100%, as Obama's alleged father advocated in his paper entitled "Problems Facing Our Socialism," do you honestly think those of ability would bother to produce or even stick around for very long? The outlook for such a scenario in and of itself proves The Laffer Curve. Is that your idea of a dream from someone's father that ought to be enacted here in America?

The only thing the 1%ers are producing is money. They aren't making any goods or services and they certainly aren't producing jobs.

Connie, this brief and crystal-clear, simple presentation proves you wrong:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u24nH03NccI&list=PLABCC53F051B98328&index=5&feature=plcp

...and by the way, the only reason we had a balanced budget at the end of the Clinton era is because the first GOP congress in over 50 years held his feet to the fire and enacted reforms.

I think we only had a balanced budget because the economy was cranking into the digital age, and it would have been impossible to spend all the money that was rolling in...

Seriously though Don, I may agree with you on many points, but the way you are touting Bill Whittle makes it seem like you think this is a way to increase his viewership or something...his video is not the response to every statement made in this thread.

The point and the value of his video is how crisply and clearly he illustrates that we have a spending problem, NOT a revenue problem, and that it is virtually entirely a problem of runaway entitlements--he debunks many leftist claims about defense spending, etc. It should be hammered home and spread as far and as wide as possible. Did you digest it?

Again, it's value and need to be shared are your opinion...not shared by all. His statistical "debunking" could be prepared by the other side (by someone more statistically savvy than myself) to thoroughly debunk every conclusion Mr. Whittle has said. No one has seen any use in debunking him yet, which basically says he is not very relevant overall...

As for the facts about what we spend and the debt....none of us will ever know how bad our economy may have been the last few years had we not spent that money, nor how good it might have been had we not spent it/or spent more....it's all supposition in the end.

Methinks you just refuse to face facts. Spin away from it all you want...it's a phenomenal video and the more people who see and grasp its implications, the sooner we sober up as a nation and accept leadership from sane adults like Paul Ryan.

Btw, anyone who demonstrates not only friendship with Cloward and Piven but also a track record of getting into power by practicing their strategy over his entire career should not only not be anywhere near the White House, but deserves to spend the rest of his days in a deep, dark dungeon for what he has and his ilk have done to this country.

How is it that the the private property rights of the wealthy being somewhat marginally protected is "destroying everyone else in their wake"? For example, Romney's role in creating Staples and Sports Authority and countless other successful enterprises that employ thousands has helped put food on their tables and roofs over their heads, clothes, diapers, TVs, cars, vacations, health care, and so forth...not to mention the many, many millions he donates to charity each year...yet you say he is destroying those he puts to work and charitably aids with his entrepreneurial skills and efforts? By the way, your video of the intellectually vapid Robert Reich is and has been playing as I have been typing all along. I've seen it before, too. I am thoroughly familiar with Reich's wrongheaded approach.

Thank you, T.

Reaganomics, I must remind you, is what catapulted us back to prosperity after the malaise of the Obama-lite economic policies of Jimmy Carter, which brought us stagflation and despair and malaise and torpor.

No, the mess we are in is the result of rewarding counterproductive behavior and subsidizing it, by endless egalitarian schemes that privatize gain and put losses onto the backs of future generations and current taxpayers. Forcing and encouraging banks to make loans to those who they'd otherwise steer clear of in the name of "equal opportunity" and "social justice" has been part of the overall recipe for disaster, as with the runaway entitlement programs that can never be even remotely funded even if we confiscate ALL of the property of those you vilify.

US Dept Education. Don Joy left this off as one of Jimmy Carter's inventions. And we have been in a downward spiral ever since. Long, long ago, European countries have left us in the dust on education and producing the best and the brightest. And we continue to think the answer is to pour more and more money in the bottomless bucket. And I wore tennis shorts and a s/s rugby shirt to work everyday because Carter had a summer Federal mandate that ALL thermostats were set at 80 degrees.

You dispute that Obama's purported father put that in his paper? He did, in fact. Sudy up.

"Alleged" father, "purported" father....now you have officially lost me with ridiculously unnecessary things like this...lol.

The birth certificate has been proven to not originally have had any information in the space for "Father." Get up to speed on this. Now tell me, looking at pictures of Barack Obama Sr., juxtaposed with pics of Barack Obama Jr. and Frank Marshall Davis (who snapped and published pornographic shots of Obama's mother), who is more likely to have been Obama's actual father?

Factual or not, it does not make you any less inflammatory for putting it. If a family agree to whom is a person's father, then you have no basis (or need) to question it, other than to serve your own purpose by trying to belittle them in some way.

How dare you point this all out!! ! 100% straight-up racialistic racialism!! You're just a right-wing Teabagging hatemonger who can't stand the idea of a black man as president!! You want to give tax breaks to the rich and pay for it all on the backs of the poor and middle class!! You want to destroy the middle class and ship jobs overseas and start wars and kill children and old people!!

By the way, where is Sports Authority now?

I have no information other than that Sports Authority is doing fine, given the relatively stagnant economy overall...do you have other information?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs

Incidentally, the video provided is merely Ryan's assessment of some aspects of Obamacare, not his overall budget plans to save our otherwise doomed fiscal future.

That's funny, I saw and heard Ryan very politely and patiently going through a very detailed, accurate description of the itemized financial gimmicks and deceptions employed by Obama and Pelosi and their flying monkeys in order to try trick the CBO into giving Obamacare a better score than it deserved.

As far as the Ponzi scheme/Bernie Madoff comparison, well, if the shoe fits...

Of course you saw something different. You're not drinking the kool-aid. :-)

Everyone here seems to be drinking Kool-Aid, just that some are drinking Orange, and others are drinking Grape...it takes a big man to admit that they do not know it all, apparently there are alot of little men in this discussion...

What I find funny, or more sad really, is how many people think it is acceptable discourse to demean and belittle others with rude comments and characterizations. Demonizing people because you dislike their plans, or comparing them with Madoff, or belittling their Father, or claiming they hate others....all of it adds up to most here being not much more than blowhards. Until we all realize that it is not he who screams loudest or makes the most shocking statement that solves the problem, but the ones who are able to actually work with both sides to gain a reasonable solution...we are doomed to repeat this cycle, with even greater amplitude to the peaks and valleys I fear. Everyone who proclaims "this is the only solution", has no hope of ever solving the problem, because they are too close minded to ever work it out.

Except that all the Supreme Court did was rule that Gore trying to steal the election by recounting only cherry-picked, heavily democrat counties in Florida amounted to a violation under the equal protection clause. Not to mention that all major media outlets in their follow-up reporting and analysis agreed that Bush won Florida fair and square, after all ballots were exhaustively counted and recounted and recounted. Get over it already.

Now, for real election fraud, we need look no further than Al Franken in Wisconsin--177 vote fraud convictions so far, 66 cases awaiting trial in ONE election alone!

http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1099-felons-vote-in-race-won-by-312-ballots/article/2504163#.UCgMVZ2PVLN

So now you're the arbiter of how I spend my free time? Or is it simply that you are disturbed that someone takes the trouble to debunk leftist propaganda here?

LOL +1. And responding to your own posts is a serious breech of netiquette. Because the far right is outnumbered, I think they feel they need to be louder and post their propaganda constantly. That's the republican MO; Tell the lie and keep repeating it.

Point out one lie. Prove it's a lie while you're at it.

Why should I bother? You've demonstrated 50+ times in this thread that you are intellectually incapable of critical thinking. You are unable to waver from the dogma of the right. When the independent Tax Policy Center called Mitt's tax plan "mathematically impossible", it gets discredited as biased. Rmoney's latest ad saying Obama gutted welfare for work has been proven false by every fact checking organization, but I'm sure you have a link to some right wing blog that proves that it is a completely true allegation. You are an ideologue, Don; you can't be reasoned with, you can't be debated. Your truths are THE truths. Mine are dismissed if they don't agree with yours. Tell you what, on election day, let's just go vote and, just like every other election, we'll get the president we deserve.

Don Joy, Don't you feel like you head is ready to explode after dealing with this site?
Give it up as people just have their minds set and refuse to listen to anything other than what they are watching on TV. I bet they even believe in Harry Reid's secret buddy so you just have to let it go. I admire your grit to hold in their and give what for to the libs on this site but they eventually have to get personal and attacking or else admit you have many valid points. And I leave you with this:
Countdown until Obama leaves Office
160 Days, 19 Hours, 03 Minutes, 20 Seconds.
Peace my brother.

I just wondered about that very same thing. And, he's got the right wing spin down pat. It's really quite entertaining.

Absolutely incapable of responding with critical thinking. I've watched people actually listen and respond to him and he has discounted every response with been there did that, or with some talking point I've heard somewhere on television. Amazing.

Haha, Skipper... You'll find more and more people willing to debate/debunk your (I'll be nice here)..."ideas" in this and many other forums nowadays. What does it matter if Don posts all night? Why should he get help if he enjoys a lively debate? See, that's whats wrong with you Libs, you just want people to agree or shut up and go away. It doesn't work that way, though. The far right very well may be outnumbered...by moderates and indies like me even, the main point is, we'll be joining them in Nov. if only for one day to share our support of Mitt Romney (or disdain for Obama, however you wanna look at it).

Don Joy is a paid blogger. Or mental. Perhaps both. You decide.

Obama DID gut the welfare reform that both parties worked on so hard and so long in the 90s to finally get Clinton to sign, after he vetoed it 3 times. Obama DID remove the work requirement. Deny it all you like, it's a fact.

I realized discussion was not occurring here after 2 posts...did it really take this long? Virtually everyone here sees their point of view as the only possible point of view, otherwise you surely are insane/uneducated/etc. Instead I have gone along commenting on how useless the "discussion" has become...

Quite a compliment, that my efforts are seen as professional-quality.

I've heard this several times, but can find no confirmation. Do you have a source?

Working for the govt is a bad thing? I wonder if the rest of the DC metro area knows that....thanks for the wake up call...

BINGO. Ryan has fed at the public trought his entire life. He has never, ever, once held down a job. His family is literally a bunch of welfare queens, all of them living off a combination of OASDI and tax breaks. And that's the way he described others in his family's position.

If what you say is true, then maybe that explains why Ryan has been working so hard burning the midnight oil (spent his free time poring over the federal budget since he was a teenager while others were out partying), and now coming to the fore to try to SAVE our entitlement programs from certain bankruptcy?

Sorry Buddy but you misunderstand what social security is. It is NOT and never was a retirement fund. Your payments went to the retirees that proceeded you. Your payments are coming out of the taxes on the currently employed. No one ever guaranteed you a government check. The Romney plan is to reduce social security payments and replace Medicare with a government subsidy to be used to help pay for whatever privately funded health care you pick. So, you did not earned Social Security or Medicare, you simply paid taxes on them. And that tax revenue is long gone. Better read up on Ayn Rand an start learning how to survive on your own.

GetReal has a rather good point there, despite his somewhat condescending presentation. I have been paying SocSec for 20+ years, and what do I expect to see from it in the end? When it comes to planning, i go with nothing, as that is most likely closer to reality than any number I could through out there...

That said, anyone who is getting it now is entitled to it as well, based on the current legislation, and I would not label them as "on the dole" for accepting it.

I am too David! I've voted for republican presidential candidates 5 times in my life; exactly half. I really believe that most people are "live and let live", no matter their religious or political affiliation. By far right, I mean just that. The hard core,uncompromising 20% (?) that wants to legislate their morality and their dogma onto the rest of us. I have a real problem with that and what happened in Richmond when the GOP took complete control is a very frightening lesson.

Fortunately, the far anything will always be greatly outnumbered, despite seeming much larger in numbers than they really are, by being the loudest, and most offensive on either side of the discussion. I personally think having parties has been the worst thing to happen to our democratic system overall. If we had a bunch of individuals who were primarily focused on representing the small portion of people who elected them, they would vote accordingly, without pressure from their party to support this or that.

Totally unnecessary, Alice.

And if someone said that about your president and VP, you'd call them a racist. Leave it to the Left to fire off a comment so infantile that the only logical response is "I know you are, but what am I"...

It has nothing to do with "left" or "right" (remember Limbaugh can be just as, or far more, infantile), but rather with the integrity of the individual (and the ability to remain anonymous on here, which I wholeheartedly disagree with). I've seen plenty of pics of Obama with big ears, and even seen "alleged" used in terms of his lineage in this thread...it really isn't all that different. Either way, it is not only unnecessary, but makes the poster look totally ridiculous.

What is truly scary and big is what will happen if we don't heed Ryan's prescriptions. Have you even seen the charts?

Sorry about your rent check. The CEO wanted another $10,000,000 raise to pay for the island he is buying in the Caymans. Everyone in your division is fired. Too bad Romney/Ryan eliminated unemployment insurance so you would be more motivated to work. Your health coverage runs out in 30 days. You don't qualify for Medicare -- nobody does anymore. Food stamps? You must be kidding. Your savings? Oh what a shame your bank made some risky investments. So sad that the FDIC was closed down along with the Depts of Labor and Education. You will qualify for a $500 one time Social Security payment on your 80th birthday. Just hold on. Goodby. Have a good life. Pray a lot.

I'd sooner trust Bernie Madoff than I would Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et. al.!

Well that statement has cleared up plenty for my value on comments from Don Joy, lol

Agreed, that is why incumbents have such a horrible record in times of a poor economy..."if this isn't working, let's try whatever the other option is..." I think the Republicans may have given Obama a better chance with this pick, by going a bit too far left. Centrist Dems may have been considering Romney (he isn't so different after all), but this choice changes the game for sure, in one way or another...

You have made many thoughtful posts also Mr. Fallen and this last one about worry if one can pay their rent is such a real problem for so many these days. When someone says that things are getting better I am shocked. I'm no spring chicken but I have never known so many of my friends, relatives and acquaintances that have been out of work in the last few years. The price of groceries has increased drastically and I don't mean by a nickel or quarter but items like laundry soap sky-rocketed up by a $3 or more. Gas is out of this world and one can just drive by and look at the empty commercial warehouse and corporate office buildings. I don't knew an economist to tell me things are rotten. I, and many I know are living it. Interest rates are nothing and therefore, the retiree is taking the biggest hit of this economy. I pray that people wake up and realize that, yes maybe their SS may not increase as it has in the past and maybe we will have to pay more for our Medicare. Many living in this area have big federal pensions and yet it seems we have the biggest screams coming from those that can afford to pay a little more. Thanks for a reasonabe voice.

Mandy said, "...yet it seems we have the biggest screams coming from those that can afford to pay a little more."

You say that the haves should pay for the shortfalls of the have-nots. Ayn Rand would not have approve of such quibbling. Quit whining and do something to improve yourself. Government is not the answer. Walmart is hiring. Get a job. Hell, get a second job.

Joe, You misunderstood me. I meant we may have to pay more for our Medicare in the future under the Ryan plan but people in this area that can afford to pay more are the ones screaming. I did not mean for the rich to pay more in taxes. I now have to leave and go to my job but it has been really interesting and fun reading and responding to these comments. Have a blessed day everyone.

Keep the government out of my medicare!

If we take the government out of "your" Medicare...there will be no Medicare...

uh huh...

He deeply admires Ayn Rand, and his life has been influenced by her of course, as he says. But Ryan is NOT an Objectivist. He is a Catholic. Do you know where they overlap and where they are mutually exclusive? Know your stuff before you spout off.

Ayn Rand did NOT disapprove of voluntary altruism, she disapproved of government based on altruism, because altruism using the force of government gunpoint is not good and not altruism at all, really--it is slavery and spiritual cannibalism. Forced altruism is what Marx and Engels and Mao and Castro and Che and Pol Pot all put into practice, and what Obama and Sean Penn and Hugo Chavez advocate. You want that?

Ayn Rand escaped the horrors of communism, managing to emigrate to America from the Soviet Union. Thank goodness we have a leader from congress who is now our VP nominee who grasps and appreciates Ayn Rand's intimate and brilliant debunking of the evils of forced collectivism.

‎"Another area where Ryan parts company with Ayn Rand reveals a key difference between them. Rand was a vehement opponent of religion — all religion — as well as its moral strictures. But Paul Ryan is a committed Catholic. As he stated in the quote above Ryan has never signed onto her anti-religious ideals. Ryan’s compassionate Catholicism is what makes it impossible for him to be a full-throated Randian.

Still, the left claims that Paul Ryan’s budget policies are intended to throw grandma out on the street and that he intends an Ayn Rand-like destruction the welfare state. But the truth is, his Roadmap For America’s Future goes out of its way to save the welfare state by paring it down to an economically sustainable form. Ryan is not proposing any end to the welfare state.

Ayn Rand was not nearly so kind. She called the welfare state an imposition of complete immorality on a polity and opposed its construction. What ever you think of her philosophy there is no evidence that Paul Rayn ever signed on to all of her ideas.

So, it just isn’t true that Paul Ryan is some wild-eyed “objectivist” ready to tear down grandma’s safety net. Paul Ryan is clearly a fan of Ayn Rand in many ways. But he is not a Randian objectivist. And he never was."

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/48743

Donnie - Ayn Rand outright rejected ethical altruism. That means she did not believe individuals have a MORAL obligation to help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary, at the sacrifice of self interest. She believed that people should be able to keep all of their own wealth. She also thought people should rely on their own resources. As a side note, she rejected all forms of faith and religion and supported abortion rights. Read up!

Ms. Rand came from Russia where government abuse was central to her life - even though she was from a wealthy class. Rand's fiction was poorly received by many literary critics, and academia generally ignored or rejected her philosophy.

Any Rand believed that people have no obligation to spend any of the time effort or treasure on anything that does not represent their beliefs or values, aka, you should not be able to impose your beliefs on my life.

If I don't want to give to the poor, I can go buy a TV. If I don't want to pay for your healthcare, I can buy a Mcclearen F1 ( I like fast cars).

It's more appalling when the government, the only body which we give the power of coercion to, is used by groups to impose their will on others.

Patch is not encouraging the hate, A Thibeault. It shows, in part, what a deeply divided country we have, and Patch reflects that, not causes it. I wish we'd all maintain civility instead of degenerating into name calling and nasty zingers when someone disagrees with us. Patch provides us an opportunity to educate others to our point of view. Fellow Patch-ers, by all means disagree but lose the nastiness.

Well-said, Carol. We all want a prosperous country with protections of people's rights. These forums are highly useful for hashing out amongst ourselves, the rank-and-file, just how we achieve that. It's worth having to wade through the nastiness of some here and there in order to have such a great venue for discussion.

Don Joy's Greatest Hits, Part 1:

News Flash: The races are not equal.

egalitarian race-hustlers should just STFU

Oh, I see, no such thing as race. Gee thanks for enlightening me. Now please go inform Eric Holder, Brokeback Obongo, La Raza, the NAACP, the SPLC, et. al.

The countries behind which we lag largely do not have the "diversity" undertow to contend with, dragging everything down...

the Black Panther DoJ

we have all come to expect this lopsided, biased reporting from the partisan, democrat-controlled media

slimy and tawdry

socialist lies

you're yet another of the endless parade of zombies

Bwahahaha the sounds of desperation and fear emanating from the desperate and flailing Obama camp

Obama socialist fraud

The lies pouring out from Obama's fecal orifice below his nose

Lies ^^^^ up there ^, those are lies.

they want more of the same division and delusion.

they want to keep things as they are and have been for decades, on a doomed course of fraud, waste, abuse, and wreckage.

advocating the Muslim Brotherhood terrorists taking over the entire Middle East,

pushing food stamps and disability and unemployment checks and dependency as an endless way of life to buy votes,

die-hard Keynesian zombie,

intellectually vapid Robert Reich

Don Joy's Greatest Hits, Part 2:

Obama and Pelosi and their flying monkeys

I'd sooner trust Bernie Madoff than I would Obama, Pelosi, Reid,

you are spewing a bunch of utter garbage.

typical underhandedness of the democrat slate/party

Communists (the democrat party)

the commie MSM

Obama's zombies can stuff ballot boxes with hope and change.

Democrats making sure voter fraud is a protected method of cheating their way into office

get back to me when you have a clue

---------
((And my personal favorites)):

Ad hominem tactics are mere evasion,

These forums are highly useful for hashing out amongst ourselves, the rank-and-file, just how we achieve that. It's worth having to wade through the nastiness of some here and there in order to have such a great venue for discussion.

I stand behind it all! =)

...and I am consistent. It IS worth having to wade through some nastiness to enjoy these forums, and ad hominem tactics ARE mostly just evasions. I've never claimed that I don't engage in nastiness here and there, nor have I ever claimed that I am above an ad hominem approach now and then. But I always back up my arguments with facts, and ask that my opponents do the same--which they often don't. Civility is desirable and I aim to increase it, and reduce the nastiness. Thank you for your help in that regard.

Oh, and Joe, if you think you've seen nastiness from me, you really have no clue what real nastiness IS. I'll respectfully decline to demonstrate it for you here. Elsewhere, maybe not.

...but there is one thing I said which is wrong--we don't "all want protections of people's rights;" socialists by definition violate/do away with individual property rights, so I stand self-corrected. Just what do you think is the appropriate way to deal with those who, by force, want to violate and do away with your basic, God-given rights at government gunpoint? Is being civil toward them the answer?

I never realized that a democracy where the majority rule (in theory at least) which instituted a policy was taking away your rights at gunpoint...it sounds to me more like you are in the minority, and just have to accept it and go along with the majority sometimes...

@Don, the trouble is that you view your fellow Americans as "opponents", rather than other intelligent, strong willed, and capable of helping parties. You view them only as ones to be educated in your theory, or disregarded if they refuse to agree with you. You are not alone in this tactic, but I am sure you are also not alone in being totally disregarded for taking this belittling approach with people.

I don't think the rudeness that has come out in this thread ever has a place in a discussion, if one hopes for it to reach any sort of reasonable outcome. Maybe that is because I am on the moral high ground, and you are moral destitute...or maybe it is just because we are different people living in this country, with different ideas and different opinions of how things should be done or interpreted...just a thought.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. If you think democracy is desirable, then you do not believe in individual rights, which are (were, really) the very core and spirit of our long-lost republic.

What is the appropriate way to express contempt and opposition toward those who want to use violence to take away your fundamental God-given rights (that IS what socialism amounts to, make no mistake about it)? Should we be civil towards them?

I believe that if the majority votes for it, you have 2 options, take it, or leave....sealing up your house and shooting those who come to collect your taxes is not a viable option...neither should verbal attacks of a personal nature be.

Unlike Carol, I do not stop listening, but I do begin to view your points as uneducated and comical in my own mind, even if they are logical and legitimate. When you use personal attacks, you are unable to win a verbal debate with even the best of facts, IMO.

We are talking about America here, and that is exactly how this country was founded--the shooting started when men decided to live in freedom from a government which taxed them beyond what they saw as legitimate. They set up a republic, not a democracy, in which government was intended to be severely limited by a Constitution which was written to restrict its role and powers, in order to protect individual rights. The founders knew that universal suffrage would result in endless mobs rushing to vote themselves the property of others, and that is what we have degenerated into. Paul Ryan represents a rather tepid and moderate attempt to mitigate the consequences of the depravity that is democracy, and possibly return us a bit to personal responsibility and a republic with respect and protection for individual property rights.

Sorry for the misunderstanding...I thought the Revolution started because men were being taxed without representation....not what they themselves determined to be excessive. Last I checked, you are fully represented per the Constitution when these taxes are levied.

It seems your entire platform is property rights, as you have said it many times over at this point. If you want more power than your single vote allows, may I suggest that you run for office, and sell others on your plan. That is the beauty of our country, and a right many men and women have died to protect. I think we all agree that government has gotten too large to be effective, but returning to the original Constitution? I doubt you would find enough support to there to win even your own district.

I did write, "taxed them beyond what they saw as legitimate." They actually did have a certain form of representation, just not the kind of representation they thought appropriate.

Today, we have congressional districts gerrymandered so as to guarantee the election of people of a certain race, we have the direct election of U.S. senators under the 17th Amendment where we once had them elected by the states' legislatures, we have mobs calling for and bills pending that would do away with the Electoral College, we have municipal elections wherein hispanics' votes can be counted twice if they wish so as to guarantee weighted representation based on race, we have all manner and a myriad of disintegration of the firewalls that were originally in place to create checks and balances that would keep the mob at bay, and protect individual rights. Serious students of our nation's founding and of the philosophers followed by those men, John Locke and Adam Smith, et. al., know that they held property rights as the very essence of a prosperous and prudent society which sustains itself over time. Unfortunately, knowing human nature and the nature of politics, the corrupting nature of power and of the have-nots to want to loot the haves, etc., they also knew it was all a doomed undertaking unless enough people fiercely understood and argued and fought to preserve the ideas and the republic. It is very late.

Maybe you need to study up on the fundamental basis of individual property rights as described in our Constitution, and how it was specifically the use of government force (violence) which the founders sought to strictly limit in order to protect those rights. Socialism involves the redistribution of private property, and the seizing of it, by government, at gunpoint from private citizens in violation of their rights. When people vote for socialists like Obama, Chavez, et. al., they are using the violent FORCE of government to take property away from some in order to spread it around to others who did not earn it or otherwise have inherit it, etc. Can you find anything in what I just said that is false?

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where the majority can vote to take away the rights of any minority they wish (the smallest minority is the individual, btw).

Our founders did not design this country as a democracy! They set up a republic, with protections, checks and balances, against the rights of the minority from being violated by a majority swarming to the polls to vote themselves more and more and more from the public treasury...we have lost our republic through the pandering of what are now full-time politicians to the seething, swarming masses seeking to get their hands on other people's property...all of the firewalls are about gone, and amendment after amendment have made us more and more like a democracy with each passing generation...

That was the most logical thing I have read from you yet Don, and without a single personal attack, i for one appreciate it. I can't say that I agree with it, because strict adherence to the Constitution (without those nasty little Amendments you seemingly dislike so much) would not allow most people to even vote at all. I think societies must still evolve, or collapse, therefore amendment is necessary. People can debate what amendments are needed at great length, but to not make any would spell the eventual end to our society entirely. Of course we do also have to be careful not to make too many as well...finding a fine balance is what everything is all about in the end.

Well, Jason, you're right that societies must evolve with the times and so forth, but if you watched the Bill Whittle video and have followed Paul Ryan's work over recent years, you should know that we are so far past anything remotely resembling a healthy amount of "change"...we have truly become a kleptocracy, where people are promised endless goodies and benefits (in exchange, of course, for their votes) so far beyond our ability to cover the costs--even if we confiscated all wealth from everybody--that bankruptcy is utterly certain unless we follow Ryan's prescriptions, or ones like his. Even Bill Clinton agrees that drastic measures are called for, and gives Ryan some support. Ryan's measures are hardly "radical" as so many exclaim, but even reducing the rate of increases in spending is a drastic thing to do in Washington. Notice I didn't say cutting spending, I said merely reducing the rate of increase--that is unheard of in D.C.! Reducing the rate of spending increases is what democrats call "cutting" spending!

Sherell,

It would be great if you would enforce your terms, please. Thanks.

Carol, first I just want to suggest using the "reply" button (at the original comment) instead of starting a new comment thread each time you want to respond to something someone says...

So please explain to me how we are "giving more money to gazillionaires"? I know, I know, you swallow the Obama rhetoric...you think that allowing the wealthy to keep some of the money they've earned and saved and invested is "giving" it to them, right? You think that not confiscating more and more and more of their property is "unfair" to those who don't even pay any federal taxes at all in the first place--which is 50% of those below the median, by the way! So how is it that allowing the bottom 50% to have no federal tax liability at all is "taking more money from us masses"? I'm not rich, by the way, but I am adamant about protecting property rights, because as we can see, once property rights are no longer protected, society and the economy disintegrates and falls apart. Altruism and taking care of the least among us is only virtue if it is done voluntarily. It is utterly evil if it is done at gunpoint by ballots and bullets. No one is suppressing anyone's right to vote by insisting that the integrity of elections be protected.

Ah there is the old Don back again...you don't agree with me, you are swallowing rhetoric...I knew it was too good to last :)

Sorry Carol, but I can't waste my time on someone who neither can even figure out the most basic comment posting procedure, even when it is spelled out for them, nor respects basic property rights (all communists have always gotten into power by their dishonest screeds claiming "fairness"). A flat tax is what would actually be truly fair. Here we are with a progressive tax system in the extreme, and with among the highest corporate tax rate in the world, and people like you still bleat on about "fairness." Ballots ARE bullets, for crying out loud--when you vote, you are deploying the armed force of government to enforce your will--what is so hard for you to get about that?

...and yes, altruism is a Christian value--but coercion and armed robbery is not. Using other people's money taken by force to pose as a do-gooder is not doing good at all, it is criminal and a sin. Use your OWN money, and don't tell anyone about it.

Last I checked, being a condescending, arrogant, _____ was not a Christian value either....not a sermon, just a thought ;)

Don - hopefully your disorganized anger is only temporary because it totally impedes logic. The Patch protocol only allows a reply to an original comment. It does not allow a reply to another reply. I had to reply to Carol just to leave a comment for you. I am not permitted to reply to your comment to Carol.

April, if you read further down you will see that Carol did eventually follow my instructions and figure it out. I suggest you do the same. You do not yet understand how comment threads/replies on this board work. Hint: Things are not what they seem when you first enter your text. When you refresh the page or re-open it, you will understand. It took her several false starts to get it.

...and April, elsewhere on this thread you said that all presidential candidates have released their taxes, etc--well, the same can be said of college records, yet Obama still refuses to unseal his. What do you have to say to that? Credible information points to Obama being registered as a foreign student, never having officially relinquished his Indonesian citizenship from when he was adopted by his mother's second husband there, etc. What is Obama hiding? As to your remark about making noise about it for the last 4 years, well, we HAVE.

Well said, Matty, I agree.

Bingo!!

Matty, I would love to know what you and others think about Romney's disavowal today of Ryan's budget.

A big salute to the realist!!! right on... and when Ryan introduced his spending bill he was shut down by .... yes the republicans.... that is why they need him... to kill off any progressive thinking. if you do not believe watch the simpson/bowles road show. ryan/romney ticket is a schizo choice: cut domestic spending and boost military&defense so the mayhem abroad continues. then make interest payments to china while trying to talk them down to currency reform.... laughable...

Didn't the House voted down President Obama's budget 414-0 in March 2012. That zero votes means the Democrats wouldn't even vote for their President's budget. There has been game playing on both sides because no congress person has the courage to address what needs to be done. This is why I admire Paul Ryan for having the courage to make a proposal (important word is proposal as there will be agreements/disagreements and adjustments by both parties to the proposal). Why did President Obama completely ignore what his Simpson/Bowles fiscal commission? Was it because he was serious about a budget fix also? We really need to make some changes in Congress on both side for these old-timers that have been in office for years and years. I find it alarming that both Democrat voters and GOP voters don't see that our government isn't doing their job but pushing the mess down the road for a future mess when they will all be retired on their big pensions and non-ObamaCare health plans.

Tell it like it is Betty! it's time for folks to stop depending on the money of others, get off their keisters and go to work. Any work is better then sitting at home doing nothing at all because of disinterest or it's not the work that you want to do. Time to be self reliant!

Betty.. If you think this is all to blame on the Dem's then you're looking through those red colored glasses for too many years.. Pork Barrel spending belongs to the entire Congress!

Robert Yes <R>'s are just as guilty, however not to the extent this Administration is flushing money. We The People are weeding them out too, look at the 2010 election for reference...Enough is Enough! That's why I think Ryan is a perfect fit..He's warned this was going to happen but no one would listen. Social Security will go broke soon if it is not fixed! so then what? Blame Republicans for that too? Although there is enough blame to go around These young men and women WILL make a difference!

Why don't you just follow the very specific instructions I gave you? There IS a reply button.

Well, Don I can't find the original post. I guess my computer skills aren't as good as yours. I"m so sorry. But I find I have one more question. You write that "when you vote, you are deploying the armed force of government to enforce your will--what is so hard for you to get about that?" And when you vote, what are you doing? Or do you not vote?

You did figure it out finally, Carol. Great! Replies at first show at the top of the reply thread, out of order, but when the page is refreshed or re-opened, they take their place in order on the thread. The location of the original post becomes moot if people keep starting new comment threads with their replies, instead of keeping their replies to an original comment within the same thread. You're far from being the only one...

So anyway, glad you asked about my voting...(cont')

When I vote, I do not want to take anyone's property away from them to give it to someone else to make myself falsely feel benevolent and generous--if I want to help others and do good, I just do it of my own accord, without violating anyone else's property rights. I vote so as to elect people who advocate the proper role of government, which is the protection of individual rights. I do not want to force my will on others, I want to limit government so as to leave others free to enjoy their God-given rights and flourish. That is what the founders so painstakingly spelled out as their intent for our republic--limiting checks and balances that would stand in the way of looters and moochers using the government to take what they did not earn from others, even if their motives are to spread it far and wide in the delusion that such sloppy slosh would actually increase the commonwealth. I do not vote so as to dictate to private businesses who they should hire, nor to compel others to provide medical insurance for others, etc., etc. Notice that rights are only such to the extent that they do not impose upon and violate the rights of others. Freedom of association is one key right that is almost utterly gone from our society.

So Don, in other words, you are fine with everyone else having an opinion, and a vote, so long as their voting does not impact you in anyway? Wow, I must find a home for sale in this Utopia in which you live (perhaps a nice foreclosure is available?)...

There are some things which should not be voted on. Ever read the Constitution? Most or much of it is comprised of sentences which begin with, "Congress shall make no law..." and "Congress shall not..." and so on. Article I, Section 8 lists the very specific, and very limited, enumerated powers of the federal government. Ever learned what the founders' real intent was in so carefully limiting the powers of the government?

Sure, but I would wager that my interpretations are not the same as yours, and that would just lead to you calling me uneducated and the like. So, based on your track record in this thread, I wouldn't even bother to debate with you, as it would be utterly pointless. That fact can't be debated ;)

Which part of the constitution are you referring to Don? The original in 1787, or one of the many amendments?

Since you are such an expert, surely you know that the original creators of the original document provided for the constitution to be amended. They understood they could not foresee the future on many t hings such as nuclear bombs, computers, cell phones.

The first ten amendments were called the Bill of Rights. You don't have to like the facts, or the laws that were enacted by a majority vote. But you can't change them.

Make up your mind, April. Either things can be amended or they can't.

Barbara, Ryan's plan is hardly radical at all, (nor do they "cut" anything at all!) unless you call fiscal sanity and responsibility a radical concept, which I guess it is when it comes to Washington and most Americans' mentality, apparently--people are promised endless goodies and benefits (in exchange, of course, for their votes) so far beyond our ability to cover the costs--even if we confiscated all wealth from everybody--that bankruptcy is utterly certain unless we follow Ryan's prescriptions, or ones like his. Even Bill Clinton agrees that 'drastic' measures are called for, and gives Ryan some support. Ryan's measures are hardly really radical as so many exclaim, but even reducing the rate of increases in spending is a drastic thing to do in Washington. Notice I didn't say cutting spending, I said merely reducing the rate of increase--that is unheard of in D.C.! Reducing the rate of spending increases is what democrats call "cutting" spending!

For crying out loud, his budget proposals rectify the situation by unfolding gradually and gently over several decades! Meanwhile, the Left screams about it, while offering no plan at all except to soak the rich. Yet we have demonstrated again and again that it's nowhere remotely near being a problem of revenue--it's a problem of spending. Confiscate all of the property you wish, it still wouldn't even amount to a splash in the bucket of the 99 trillion in unfunded liabilities we've promised people.

Public employees should not be allowed to organize, period. Having unions allows them to hold the public hostage to their demands. At least in the private sector, unions cannot compel consumers to patronize the business of the employer they strike against, etc.

Obama is plainly a communist at heart, he cares mainly about getting re-elected by pandering to the labor mob thugs, while he demonizes companies and says "the private sector is doing fine." He wants to cut open the goose, expecting to harvest all the golden eggs at once, not realizing he is killing the goose and will wind up with no eggs. He thinks that Wal-Mart would have been built by the rank and file workers themselves, even if Sam Walton had never troubled himself to think everything through and take the risks, etc.

I agree

People are very lucky to have a union. I had no idea as I spent my first 50 yrs of working life without a union. Then I joined a company that had one and can see just why they are needed. I think this is something you have to experience first hand.

I've been in a union, was in that job for several years, and while I agree that members are often very lucky to enjoy the benefits of unions, those without a conscience are the best off. I have a conscience, and it bothered me that I was essentially involved in a shakedown racket, especially since it was a government contract situation. I feel better making less money while being part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

It is very important to understand the starkly special evil that public employee unions entail. Private sector unions are nowhere near as malevolent, often merely troublesome.

I think the better question would be why we actually need a union to ensure that our public servants (teachers and first responders primarily) receive fair treatment. We have plenty of government employees who are dramatically overpaid (in my opinion), with little to no fear of ever being let go, whether they work or not, yet teachers and first responders remain some of the lowest paid career options out there. If we spent some money there, maybe we could lessen the need for some of these entitlement programs...

It's just that not posting replies to previous comments in the same thread as the original comment that started the thread makes these forums very messy and hard to follow the sequence of replies. Come on.

Yes, and he did not fare well in his constitution comments.

I didn't start the thread about unions, I merely replied to it.

Besides, neither of you were able or willing to discuss just why it is that the founders of this country were so ardent in their efforts to limit the powers and reach of the federal government.

Mr Obama though has a performance problem. Its called failure.

You mean, less of other people's money will subsidize her poor choices in life. Unless she's a widow (and even that circumstance wouldn't rule out poor choices on her part), she's a single mother because she made poor choices.

Subsidize something, you get more of it. Tax something, you get less of it.