The American Spectator : The Disgrace of the Ruling Class

Text Size

Political Hay

The Disgrace of the Ruling Class

By Peter Ferrara on 9.22.10 @ 6:08AM

For starters, we now have confirmation that Barack Obama truly loves poor people.

(Page 2 of 3)

In a desperate attempt to avoid that result, we now enjoy Venezuelan style authoritarianism from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Earlier this month, Sebelius wrote to the health insurance industry trade association America’s Health Insurance Plans condemning insurers for attributing their 2011 premium increases to ObamaCare, and warning that “there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases.”

As the Wall Street Journal explained on September 13, “The tone of Ms. Sebelius’s letter suggests that she doesn’t understand that money is exchanged for goods and services, and that if Congress mandates new benefits, premiums will rise.” Indeed, many of us warned from the beginning that Obamacare would increase health costs. Now it is just starting to do so, precisely as we predicted.

Recall the health care summit hosted by President Obama at the beginning of this year, just before Obamacare was rammed through Congress. Senator Lamar Alexander was trying to tell Obama that even CBO, under the authority of Congressional Democrats, had said that Obamacare would cause health insurance premiums to rise. But Obama imperiously disputed him as “not factually accurate,” and then launched into a confused and convoluted argument as to why CBO had really said health insurance premiums would be going down. He insisted that he was sure he was right, and that he had gone over and over this with CBO, challenging Alexander to resolve the issue publicly “before we leave today” because “this is an example of where we’ve got to get our facts straight.”

But Obama and the Democrats never did get the facts straight, insisting to this day that the Obamacare critics are just misrepresenting the truth. But the truth is that 2+2=4, and that is what the Democrats are continuing to deny. If they mandate additional benefits, that costs money, and it is just a matter of math that health care premiums must rise to pay for it. And if they create incentives to cause health care demand to soar, while causing health care supply to decline, as Obamacare does, the inevitable result is to increase health costs further. CBO just scratched the surface.

But the Democrat strategy is to demagogue these inevitable cost increases as the insurance industry’s fault, on their fundamental political assumption these days that the public is stupid and easily fooled and manipulated. Sebelius’s letter takes this a step further, to outright authoritarianism, threatening to run insurers out of business if they tell the public the truth about Obamacare causing cost increases. Indeed, Sebelius demands that insurers hide the costs by eating the losses rather than increasing premiums to cover them. The Journal continues, “In other words, insurers must accept price controls now or face the retribution of a de facto ban on selling their products to consumers four years from now. This is nasty stuff and an obvious attempt to shift political blame for rising insurance costs before the election.” This is exactly what is going on in Massachusetts right now, under their earlier adopted version of Obamacare.

But since 2+2=4, Sebelius’s demands do not add up. Insurers don’t survive in the marketplace eating losses. Ultimately, her demands will just drive private insurers out of business altogether. Smarter Democrats know, and, indeed, hope for that. For that will leave them with the complete socialized medicine they foolishly desire.

This manipulative authoritarianism, however, is not American. It reflects the emerging third world authoritarianism of the Obama/Democrat regime, which the American people need to remove from power before they lose the freedom to even do so.

The Death of Media Bias

The disgrace of what has been rightly termed The Ruling Class extends now to the Establishment Media as well. Following his Saul Alinsky rulebook, Obama has decided to demonize, mock and ridicule John Boehner, who would be the Speaker of the House under the new, emerging Republican House majority.

Right on cue, the New York Times follows this party line with a front page exposé featuring the new anti-Boehner theme. Bob Schieffer chimes in on CBS. The most they have got on Boehner is his excessive tan, and that as a long time member of Congress he has met with lobbyists representing industry. But they seem to think that is enough.

Anyone who is still looking to these old media dinosaurs for their news does fit the bill of easily fooled and manipulated. Media “bias” is dead, because bias does not remotely cover what these manipulators are up to. The New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC, CBS, ABC, are not journalistic enterprises with a “bias.” They are partisan political activist organizations posing as journalistic enterprises.

Even on the editorial pages, you can’t get analysis that reflects the real world. Witness E.J. Dionne’s column in the Washington Post on September 16. Dionne approvingly quotes Mike Castle just defeated in the Delaware GOP Senate primary as saying that the domination of a party by its most ideological wing “is a more extensive problem right now in the Republican Party than in the Democratic Party.”

The Democrats are led by the most left-wing President in American history, with a fully documented past of associating with Marxist extremists, and even worse, which he has never remotely disavowed. Their Speaker of the House is the ultra-left San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi. The Democrat House leadership includes the equally ultra-left Barney Frank from Boston, Henry Waxman from Hollywood, John Conyers from Detroit, Pete Stark, and David Obey, among others. Party councils are dominated by the SEIU, ACORN refugees, and the most extreme left-wing revolutionaries of the labor movement. And the Democrat Party has just nominated in that same Delaware Senate primary another self-avowed Marxist who supports all of Obama’s tax hikes, spending increases, record shattering deficits and debt, Obamacare, cap and trade, card check, etc.

But they tell us the domination of the party by its most ideological wing is a bigger problem for the Republican Party than the Democrat party. What most readers do not know is that Dionne himself is an unrepentant prep school Marxist, as reflected in the pages of the Harvard Crimson during his college days.

In his column, and the column by David Broder alongside, the Tea Party primary victories are explained by the assertion that so many people have left the Republican Party that it is shrunken down now to only its right wing. This is the same Republican Party that sports a record double-digit lead in the generic polls for Congressional races, where just an even split would imply a Republican House majority. Do these folks understand American politics today enough to even write about it? We will find out soon enough.

Page: < 12 3 >

About the Author

Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy at the Heartland Institute, General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and Senior Policy Advisor on Entitlements and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (300) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Denise | 9.22.10 @ 6:49AM

Larry Summers and the rest of the O financial team(s), know this all too well, yet those in the WH, dont have a clue about basic economics. Tax the wealthy but, heck how many people have gotten a job from a poor person? O is going thru financial experts about as fast and he and Michelle go through vacations.

mike chamberlain| 9.22.10 @ 10:34AM

How many people got their job taken by a rich man who moved the company somewhere where his payroll could be sjlashed by 70%.
We have to face the fact that were not gonna recover jobs-under anybody.
When the stock market collapsed companies trimmed all the fat that was left, allowing shareholders to regain alot of what they had lost.They're not gonna allow themselves to get fat again on purpose,no matter what the economic climate.

RICK| 9.22.10 @ 10:57AM

You don't think a corporation looking to make a profit takes into account ridiculous union demands and hyper-inflated benefits packages that price the American product (typically an inferior product at that) out of the competititve world market? No...either way you look at it Dems have created the problem and now they will pay the piper...

soljerblue| 9.23.10 @ 2:40AM

not to mention the insurmountable tangle of bureaucratic regulation, and the jacked-up corporate taxes levied by Washington to "protect consumers". All that does of course is add to the burdens heaped on my exorbitant labor contracts and feather-bedded payrolls. Why would ANY business stay here and take the Bravo Sierra that's destroyed U.S. manufacturing and energy production, and is now busy driving insurance companies, small business, and the medical and health care professions into the ground. Welcome to the United Socialist States of Obama.

Maddox| 9.22.10 @ 11:52AM

How many employers moved to other countries to escape high taxes, over reaching regulations, and the high cost of license fees for every step of production? Businesses operate to make profit to pay employees, their benefits, taxes, fees, and to make a living for those who own and operate them. Big Government Dems have created the monster that is eating our economy.

Mike| 9.22.10 @ 12:55PM

Since I work for such a company that works closely with oversees staff, I can tell you in our case that growth in those countries equals growth here as well. Growth here equates to investment and jobs. This isn't a zero-sum equation. Once you figure that out, I hope you'll understand where wealth comes from.

Jim| 9.22.10 @ 3:27PM

Great point.
This is the same argument the Luddites made against the industrial revolution, and more recently against the information age. Improving productivity may cause some short term pain, but over the long term it's more wealth and jobs for everyone.
How freaking hard is if for liberals to understand that if an employee is more productive & profitable you will hire more of them.

We created 100 million jobs in China at the expense of maybe 2 million in the U.S. Except the increased spending of 100 million Chinese should translate to 5 million jobs back in the U.S.
The only reason it's not happening more quickly is because our government is soaking up all this captial with the deficit. Foreign countries are buying "safe" government bonds instead of investing in U.S. enterprises.

spelchek| 9.23.10 @ 5:58AM

Who oversees the overseas?

Chicagoatty| 9.22.10 @ 1:19PM

It is still the fact that real growth, and real jobs are generated in the private sector, and only in the private sector, where 70% of the jobs are generated by SMALL business; 80% in a recovery. So, how do you make that happen? Not by taxing and regulating small business into the ground. Not by expropriating the "wealth" of entrepeneurs for the use of the government, and for payment of salaries to public employee union members at a rate almost double that in the private sector. This racket can't contine and the Democrats know it, so they are milking it now for all it is worth. When they leave power, there will nothing left but the rubble of a ruined economy.

Denise | 9.22.10 @ 1:22PM

M. Chamberlain, here is the drill, economics 101, if the govt mandates work place conditions, HC and taxes, then the only solution is to move business to a business friendly location. No domestic company wants to go off shore, but they are being forced to just to stay competitive. Unions and minimum wage conditions force this as well. Look, lets say minimum wage is $9.00 per hour, the employee only produces $7.50 per hours just by being slow or lazy, yet the business is actually paying as much as $12.00 per hour for that job, I know, I had a company with 8000 people. Lets try this, take a day or so and do some research and see just how un-friendly the govt is making it to do business in the USA. Ask those leaders in business just what the rational is for moving offshore, the answers will stun you. Am I mad about it? You bet, that is the world of govt we live in. Get govt out of the way.

A. Iwata| 9.22.10 @ 9:27PM

All of the arguments about government, taxes, and unions on this page seem to assume that most businesses can't afford to pay that pesky minimum wage, or provide health insurance, and that the only way for us to have any jobs at all is to let the owners dictate starkly pro-owner labor terms. Isn't this like saying that we shouldn't have gotten rid of slavery because it made cotton more expensive? Help me out here, because I would really like to understand. Where is the evidence that companies can't afford to make reasonable accommodations for the worker's needs, and give something back to the country that created them?

TR| 9.22.10 @ 10:06PM

So you are the self-appointed arbiter of what a business can afford.

And, like a typical liberal, bring up slavery.

Go back to your communist paradise the Soviet Union commie. Oh wait, even they realized that communism just doesn't work.

Workers of the World Unite - and March off a Cliff.

Paul Nelson| 9.22.10 @ 10:36PM

hmmm slavery was dying before the War of Northern Agression because the inefficient system of gang slavery could not compete with the relatively more efficient system of sharecropping.

Radegunda| 9.22.10 @ 11:58PM

The "country" did not create the companies. Bold and creative and risk-taking individuals did.

Are you one of those who assumes that all the money really belongs to the government, and whatever the government allows us to keep is a "handout"?

Businesses "give back" to the country first by creating goods and services that people need and want, and second by employing people. That's a lot more giving than the average leftist does.

Colin| 9.23.10 @ 8:50AM

You know you've won the argument when the race card is played.

JACK| 9.23.10 @ 3:33PM

If a company overpays for its production and benefits then it products aren't competitive in the market. If you can sell your product, you start to lose market share and eventually go out of business. This is a global market and to compete you must be able to afford to make your product, pay wages and benefits and make a profit. If you do not then your choice is to find another market where your production costs are lower or you can use technology to increase productivity, either way the U. S. worker takes it on the chin, but a company has no obligation to hire people just for the hell of it, the worker has to have some kind of skill or talent to enhance the future of the company.

Stammon| 9.22.10 @ 1:45PM

I spent an hour yesterday at the pool place where I buy my chemicals. Last year at this time they had a dozen young people working the floor and warehouse. This year, the only person in the building was the owner, and he went out of his way to wait upon me.
We talked about the economy, and the coming election. He was very polite, but he told me flat out that this economy has him scared. He has laid off everyone but his wife and cousin. They are working long hours, but they are trying to get everything under control so they can keep their family business afloat. He cannot even begin to see when he will hire anyone.

This is the true reality of small business in this country, This is why the Democrats are going to lose big this November. Anything else is a fantasy.
If you are a Democrat or a Liberal this is what you are going to get in November, whether or not you think you deserve it. I think you do.

bethtopaz | 9.22.10 @ 3:52PM

All I can say is that what you shared is powerful, and probably happening all over this country. When you punish the job providers you punish the whole country.

November cannot come too soon!

Will| 9.22.10 @ 4:44PM

I'm a Liberal and I agree wholeheartly with your assessment that we (meaning Democrats) are going to get what we deserve in November just like the rest of America is going to get what they deserve in November. From the looks of it the Republicans will be taking over the House and maybe the Senate so we can look forward to more tax cuts, after we BORROW more money from China to give so called small business owners tax releeif so they can START investing in America by hiring all the skilled workers out there.

I truly don't understand why we (Americans) still belive if you give the rich more money they will produce jobs. Me being a Liberal and all beleives it does not matter how much money the rich have that can't produce jobs if no one (menaing the middle class) is buying anything.

It seems simple to me being a Liberal and all, that our economy is a consumer driven economy, if the consumer (which is mostly the middle class) is buying stuff then the rich will have a reason to invest in America because they will have someone to buy their products.

Dai Alanye | 9.22.10 @ 5:15PM

Whereas if you take all the money from the rich they'll immediately be inspired to invest in America and give more people jobs. Thanks for clarifying that concept.

tonypal| 9.22.10 @ 5:32PM

Will, have you ever wondered how the rich became rich in the first place? The answer is that they invest their money in what they perceive to be profitable ventures. By the way, you can substitute the word risk for invest if you wish. It's the same thing. But the point is that an investment of capital will almost invariably trigger the need to expand. One of the main ways a company expands is through new hiring.

Capital is the root word of capitalism and the life blood of our economy. When the government places a tax on capital, it decreases the availability of capital, thus decreasing the pot of money available for investment. Again, investment drives hiring. Further, when you increase the cost of doing business through higher levels of taxation and burdensome regulation, you affect a business' bottom line. Now what do you suppose a business does when the cost of operating the business goes up? Do you think they pass that cost along to their investors?

Ultimately it is the consumer, the guy liberals tell us they're fighting for, who gets screwed every single time a liberal class warrior like Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi decides to impose their version of fairness. Fairness cannot exist in the way liberals wish because it is arbitrary and must be imposed. We free market capitalists recognize this as well as the imperfections of the free market. Free market capitalism isn't perfect and will always have it's peaks and valleys, but it's the most perfect system ever devised by man. On the other hand, demand side economics, the type liberals favor, has proven time and again to be an unmitigated disaster. If the history of the 20th century has taught us anything, it's that the government imposition of fairness is a recipe for widespread disaster.

Impeach Don't Wait| 9.22.10 @ 10:18PM

"...after we BORROW more money from China to give so called small business owners tax releeif so they can START investing in America...."

Well we shouldn't be borrowing from China either... But we're already borrowing from China under the Democrats, no? I doubt we'll borrow much less if the Democrats remain in power. Or are you really saying that if the Democrats stay in power we'll end up borrowing LESS than if Republicans free up business to invest, explore, and innovate (which is defined as finding those products and services people WILL buy)? You see, the real goal is to free up business to do what it does best: to seek out fertile ground for capital investment (= using money to make money). Tax breaks and less strangulating regulation will help, and capital increase should follow. No other way we're gonna see less borrowing from China.

My undereducated opinion.

Radegunda| 9.23.10 @ 12:07AM

What on earth do you mean by "give the rich more money"? What's the source of the money that you think is being "given" to them? The way you phrase the matter is symptomatic of leftist cluelessness about how wealth is generated in the first place.

Have you ever given any thought to all the things that rich people buy? Somebody is getting paid to produce and sell those things. Some wealthy people have a dozen or so individuals working directly for them, and that's just the beginning. Many rich people start businesses that employ many people.

If wealthy people decide they shouldn't eat out every night or stay in hotels frequently, people who work in restaurants and hotels start getting laid off. If wealthy women stop buying their very expensive handbags, the craftspeople who make them don't get paid.

It really isn't so difficult a concept if you get over the strange notion that all the money starts with the government, and it's a fixed-sized pie that can only be sliced up and doled out.

Ken Roberts | 9.25.10 @ 3:44PM

You seem to indicate that the only ones buying anything is rich people , of course I did not see where we had an explanation of being rich, but if the middle class in the country can not not afford to buy the goods and services then all the rich people in the world could not support the economy . I am talking about the old middle class not the 250,000 a year people the ones making 50 grand or less . If we got government out of the way we would have a much better life and could afford to pay a better wage than 7 bucks an hour , ever try living on that ? it is for inexperienced young people not someone who can carry the water . A good example of this would be the 60's, times were so good you could not do any thing bad financially it was all good . Government regulations is what caused the prices to soar over a 20 year period and when we as a people recognize that then we can get to work saving this country , sure the union demanded to much there should be a stopping place . We have got to stop bashing one and other before we can right this great ship called America.

Mike H.| 9.23.10 @ 8:52AM

What? I swear, liberals have become unintelligible. Which is it? Govt. gives money to the rich, or people using their goods and services provide the profit to employ people? The Govt. does print paper money, but gold doesn't come out of a press, which by the way, the Govt. had to buy from some business. Amazing.

JACK| 9.23.10 @ 3:38PM

How do we give to the rich? Do you mean letting them keep more of their own money?

Ken Roberts | 9.25.10 @ 3:54PM

I learned at an early age you do not tax companies it winds up raising the price of the product, sure we should all pay a fair share but what we have in Washington now thinks half is not enough . it has to makes sense . now nothing makes sense; but to play the lower income people against the higher income people is an old communist ploy and I see many here falling for it in the name of someone who wants the governement to stop giving money to business ,. they don't have money to give . the tax should be such that it does not inflate the cost of doing business it always hurts the worker in the end . You can not have a viable economy with taxes being so high on business that they seek other countries to do business in. It is not the workers fault this happened over a 20 or 30 year period and it was all governement taxing the b-jeebies out of business., we must stand together if we defeat this communist out fit we have today . If the other countries start taxing you will see a world wide problem that no one can fix

Delta | 12.14.10 @ 2:54PM

No it does not raise price. Do you know how many tax specialists are on the payroll of these corporations to pay as little tax as possible? Plus tax is taken AFTER all other expenses. So actually, if they raise prices, they pay MORE taxes.

san jose electrician

gwkimball| 9.24.10 @ 4:53AM

"I truly don't understand why we (Americans) still belive if you give the rich more money they will produce jobs."

The ignorance, authoritarianism and statism in this one sentence is breathtaking. Where would you even begin if you wanted to clue this person in? Rich people are 'given' money by investors who think they are competent to use it.

No wonder it seems simple - so does everything to a simpleton.

It's amazing... two years with Reagan and there was a real recovery from the last liberal mess underway, one that went on to create the greatest economic expansion in history. The trigger - tax cuts.

Two years of Obama, who inherited an economy far better that Reagan (I'm no Bush fan, btw) and we have seen huge tax increases and a staggering amount of money - beyond staggering - that has utterly failed to achieve its primary goal, employment increase.

WHY can't these stupid liberals ever see it? WHY can't they see that you cannot spend yourself rich? WHY can't they see the screamingly obvious just from Reagan and Obama?

Fredrick Ward| 9.24.10 @ 4:51PM

"if you give the rich more money they will produce jobs."

First off, that money you're talking about is their money to begin with. It is not the government's money, it is not your money. Therefore, why would we need to borrow from China for the job creators to invest their own money?

That is the major problem with Liberals. They all think that everyone elses things belong to them.

John Taylor | 9.23.10 @ 8:37AM

And they aren't going to offshore their pool business. I am the owner of a Construction Co. and all of us in the service community hire a lot of workers, or would hire workers here in America. We cant go overseas and we hire more than the big corporations that can go to other countries to remain competitive in the world economy. We are all under the thumb of taxes and regulations right here in the good ole USA. Unless you are illegally operating with illegal/ under the table workers. But thats another issue for another post.

vtwin| 9.22.10 @ 10:54AM

After 30 years of Reaganomics which has indebted the nation ($13 trillion), devastated the middle class, and as the author has pointed out increased the ranks of those in poverty we have no choice but to “tax the wealthy.”

Ghastlyone| 9.22.10 @ 11:17AM

Vtwin, please...just stop. Your posts are starting to make everyone here believe you're mildly retarded. It's amazing you leftists believe that horseshit.

Warrior | 9.22.10 @ 11:22AM

Mildly??

Anthony| 9.22.10 @ 11:58AM

I believe vtwin and Kylie, a blogger over at Jed's piece, are brother and sister. Question is, which one plays the banjo?

vtwin| 9.22.10 @ 11:23AM

Mom, Dad, “please...just stop,” there is a Santa Claus, I know there is.

Fredrick Ward| 9.24.10 @ 4:54PM

Uh, yeah, I'm certain he is completely mentally handicapped, and needs to be put into an assisted living situation with closely monitored access to electronics.

JeffW| 9.22.10 @ 11:33AM

Vtwin, you crack me up.
"After 30 years of Reaganomics which has indebted the nation ($13 trillion)"
Yet you forget to mention the national debt under Obama is greater than all the previous Presidents combined. I'll never understand you lefties. Bush high spending = Bad, Obama spending even faster = Good. Lefties = Delusional.

vtwin| 9.22.10 @ 11:39AM

The “national debt under Obama is greater than all the previous Presidents combined.”

Hello Mcfly, the national debt was over $10 trillion before the elections in 2008.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/.....histo5.htm

Tim*| 9.22.10 @ 12:51PM

"In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan."

vtwin| 9.22.10 @ 1:33PM

Obama inherited a national debt in excess of $10 trillion along with its accompanying $300 billion annual interest cost. A January 2009 OMB projected deficit of $1.3 trillion and because of the Bush recession we have both we have declining tax revenues and increasing unemployment insurance costs. Add to this Bush’s deficit creating tax cuts which don’t expire until the end of 2010 and Bush’s two wars.

Where you expecting surpluses?

Stammon| 9.22.10 @ 1:53PM

It was 8.5 trillion when the Dems took control of Congress, the purse stings of the Government. It is today 13.4 trillion, more than half again as much. So tell me vtwin, how is this all Bush's fault?
Oh, and do you even own a bike?

vtwin| 9.22.10 @ 2:36PM

When in January of 2001 Bush entered office and the Republican took control of the congess the national debt was $5 trillion and we were running annual surpluses. So from surpluses to deficits, from $5 trillion to $8.5 trillion debt is the Democrat's fault?

vtwin| 9.22.10 @ 2:37PM

Sorry, congress.

Tim*| 9.22.10 @ 2:24PM

Obviously , the hacked off voters didn't expect this ObamaBoy Apologist :

" It doesn't take a certified accountant or an MIT graduate to tell you the U.S. balance sheet isn't looking too pretty these days.

The Congressional Budget Office claims the U.S. national debt is hovering just over $13.5 trillion, about 91 percent of Gross Domestic Product. That's more than $120,000 per taxpayer and roughly $44,000 per citizen.

Moreover, the U.S. is projected to run a record $1.3 trillion budget deficit this fiscal year. Even by the rosiest projections imaginable, the national debt will continue escalating into the foreseeable future."

vtwin| 9.22.10 @ 2:45PM

I don’t disagree but the $13.5 trillion is monies we done spent!!!!!!!!!!

Tim*| 9.22.10 @ 3:08PM

Damned Straight it's Spent !!!!!!!!

That's why there' s a Voters Rebellion exploding for these Midterms .

jrjr| 9.22.10 @ 4:51PM

For those, including vtwin, otherwise known as vtloser, the biggest drags on our national economy are the programs of the Dimocrats. It stated with FDR, heavily influenced by his communist wife, who started the ride to nowhere, Social Security, TVA, WPA, and dozens more. Followed by Truman, JFK, LBJ. Clintoon, and Obama. Sandwiched in there was the spender Bush.

Photodude705| 9.22.10 @ 7:55PM

Tax cuts don't cause deficits, excess spending does.

"Hello, McFly?"

sickandtiredone| 9.22.10 @ 12:29PM

Oh, come on. Please be nice and understand. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Chicagoatty| 9.22.10 @ 1:13PM

Please give credit where it is due: to Michael Savage who coined the phrase (and wrote the book) "Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder."

vtwin| 9.22.10 @ 1:40PM

Of course he’s channeling Michael Savage. What is conservatism but 90% regurgitation?

Tim*| 9.22.10 @ 2:26PM

Obama's Keynesianism is regurgitation ObamaBoy Apologist

NateB | 9.22.10 @ 2:17PM

Jeff, I am not a lefty but you need to get your fact straight. The national debt is almost entirely due to the Republican party. We are our own worst enemies. We have this idea of reducing taxes for everyone and at the same time increasing spending. Every Republican congress and every Republican President has increased spending and increased the national debt since Nixon. Instead of attacking Dems, we should be looking at what Republican leaders have done. Dems actually do what they say they are going to do.

Tim*| 9.22.10 @ 2:40PM

Get these facts straight :

When the Democrats regained control of Congress and made Nancy Pelosi the first female speaker of the House of Representatives on January 4, 2007, the national debt was $8,670,596,242,973.04 -- that's $8.67 trillion.

In the less than those two years Pelosi and the Democrats were in charge under Bush , the national debt had grown to $10,331,139,000,845.92 -- $10.33 trillion.
Now under Obama Pelosi &Reid; the national debt is hovering just over $13.5 trillion, about 91 percent of Gross Domestic Product. That's more than $120,000 per taxpayer and roughly $44,000 per citizen.

Moreover, the U.S. is projected to run a record $1.3 trillion budget deficit this fiscal year.

JeffW| 9.22.10 @ 3:43PM

Nate,

I have no problem admitting the Republicans have not been fisically conservative. I do have a problem with Liberals such as Vtwin not understanding that it is congress that controls the purse stings along with the fact that they scream about how much Bush spent, but then tell me Obama has to spend even more and faster to fix it. If they are going to piss on me, then don't insult my intelligence and tell me its raining.

Mike H.| 9.23.10 @ 9:03AM

Which is tax the crap out of us, as if this encourages us to work harder, so they can get more. This math always results in less. Republicans have, in the past, been extremely naive, and even stupid, but their error was believing that we could all just get along with compromise. We have foolishly believed that you could make a deal. There is something in the water in Washington, and when people go there, they go blind. The thing that makes this country wealthy is the private sector. If you have any sense of what has happened in history, you know that when the Govt. believes it is the provider, it soon collapses. Insanity is continuing to do something that has harmed you, believing that the outcome will be different this time.

Joel | 9.24.10 @ 4:04AM

I thought it was playing with all the interns there that was making them go blind.

Fredrick Ward| 9.24.10 @ 5:13PM

That's kind of the point of getting the moderates out of office, and replacing them with real conservative candidates.

Maddox| 9.22.10 @ 11:55AM

Why not confiscate all the assets of the wealthy then? You seem to think that would solve the problem but it will not. What will be left to generate the economy? "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money."
Then who will feed you vtwin?

vtwin| 9.22.10 @ 12:25PM

Tax wealth to pay down the national debt?
I like it!

Paul from SA| 9.22.10 @ 12:55PM

vtwin,

Why do liberals not pay their fair share of gov't? Liberals are always saying we need to pay more taxes. Why don't you pay?

vtwin| 9.22.10 @ 6:12PM

I'm an artist, I shouldn't have to pay. The government owes.

vtwin| 9.23.10 @ 1:42AM

Not my posting.

JmsA| 9.23.10 @ 12:06AM

vitwin,

Care to venture a guess as to why the democrat controlled House of Representatives hasn't come up with a budget yet?

Mike| 9.22.10 @ 1:01PM

How about reign in spending instead? Taxing the generation of wealth... surprise... suppresses the generation of wealth. Without that, you suppress growth. Put in a little inflation and we'll all be "rich" by Obama's standard. Look at the Soviets, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, etc.. 100's of years of empirical evidence proves basic economic facts. You are either a partisan fool or dangerously naive to not understand this.

Paul Nelson| 9.22.10 @ 10:44PM

rein in?

Rick| 9.22.10 @ 1:15PM

Tax liberals, they spent the money. Split the country, establish Free America, free of socialism , and free of debt. Repudiate the US national debt, and assign it to the new liberal marxist utopia.

cl| 9.22.10 @ 1:20PM

please explain the meaning of "reaganomics."
also, which university granted you a degree in economics? or what business did you operate? how much do you report to irs /are you wealthy?
and how much do you pay in taxes? if you believe that we do not pay enough in taxes then you can pay more than you are legally obligated, you can also not take deductions and pay more, you can lead by example, if you really believe what you say.
another suggestion, go write/comment on the liberal sites with people that "think" like you. maybe you can convince them to pay more taxes. there is no law that you MUST take deductions and MUST pay the minimum legal obligation.

LeftCoastRightBrain| 9.22.10 @ 1:25PM

Silly, silly, silly.

Increase GDP and you'll reduce debt. Don't see BHO working on the first part of that equation.

Denise| 9.22.10 @ 1:26PM

vtwin, no point in having a discussion with you, there is rational thought to be included, but it seems it is one sided.

vtwin| 9.22.10 @ 3:39PM

Don’t worry sweetheart, just make sure when he comes home there’s something for him to eat and at least try to look nice.

Stephanie| 9.22.10 @ 2:19PM

Vtwin, put down the bong please. Goodness!

Helen| 9.22.10 @ 4:02PM

Vtwin, put down your bone please. Goodness!

Ramon 51| 9.22.10 @ 3:29PM

Nearly all of that $13 trillion is the result of liberal policies. Obama and his cronies have added more debt to out plate than all previous presidents combined. 'Taxing the wealthy' is just coded socialist language designed to stir up envy disguised as equality.

Dave C| 9.22.10 @ 10:07PM

Cutting taxes does not contribute to the deficit, spending increases do. The real problem is that no matter how high we allow governments to raise taxes, they spend every dime and borrow more. The only solution is to starve the beast. Sooner or later, people stop loaning to the government, and then spending actually falls.

Joel | 9.24.10 @ 4:12AM

I often believe that the only true solution is the one being played out as backdrop for the Heinlein novel "Friday". In which the US had been broken up into independent entities. Of course, 2 billion people died to precede that. Perhaps "Mindhopper" would be a better example of how partitioning the country could work. Only a billion or so died in that one. Oddly, both novels had as the premise for the initial conditions (neither book was actually about this directly), a relatively rapid shift in the political landscape in the US to a larger, more Marxist style of government.

JmsA| 9.22.10 @ 11:45PM

That's rich, vitwin. You're still lying about Reagan, whose policies brought the greatest economic growth in the last 50 years. Your ignorance is not surprising, after all what can anyone expect from someone who doesn't even know that actuarial analysis, such as Medicare and Social Security projections published by the goverment under "Actuarial Publications," require statistical analysis.

Convet| 9.23.10 @ 1:47PM

Grow up or GO AWAY MORON!

Stephanie| 9.22.10 @ 2:15PM

No Denise, I think, I feel it in my bones, they know EXACTLY what they , the White House occupants, are doing. It's all a part of the new world government. How many milliions in *ucking stoves to where? We're broke and we're sending stoves to third world countries?! "I" need a new stove Hillary! This all makes me sick to my stomach.

PolishKnight| 9.23.10 @ 5:05PM

Larry Summers' name brings back fond memories of him blurting out the truth at a Harvard (or is that MIT) gathering that maybe the reason why women don't succeed at Math and Science as much as men was... maybe men are better at it?

A woman professor apparently fainted in the front row at the heresy.

On the other hand, if he had said that women were better at science and math than men but were victims of discrimination, or that men are stupid, or that men are bad fathers and women are better parents, they would have given him a standing ovation.

Afterwards, Summers went on an apology tour trying to appease the rabble and they burned him at the stake anyway and he was fired. Then he somehow managed to get this gig with Obama. I guess he did his penance.

Shamus| 9.22.10 @ 7:39AM

Obama said he'd spread the wealth, but instead he's spreading the poverty.

vtwin| 9.22.10 @ 11:19AM

On the day Obama was sworn into office we were losing 750,000 jobs a month in this country. But the good news is; August was the 8th consecutive month of private sector job growth.

RCV| 9.22.10 @ 11:51AM

Don't try to confuse these folks with facts. It's the Fox-myth-world they live in.

Anthony| 9.22.10 @ 12:01PM

Vtwin and Kylie to RCV; "Pa, is that you"?

JmsA| 9.22.10 @ 11:51PM

How's this for a fact: We need to pass the stimulus so the unemployment rate doesn't exceed 8%. Funny, I don't recall anyone at Fox News saying that.

Ghastyone | 9.22.10 @ 12:33PM

750,000 jobs a month when he was sworn in. I don't see you putting any blame on the asshole leftists that had been running congress at the time for the prior 2 years? Democrats are "for the working man" we have all been told, time and time again.

And democrats are better able to handle economic situations, we were all told constantly.

It's absolutely amazing, you leftists still try and defend the track record, and epic failures of these people.

vtwin| 9.22.10 @ 12:45PM

Jobs created under Clinton 23 million, job created under Bush 3 million.

“Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record. “ -- Wall Street Journal

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics.....on-record/

jake scott| 9.22.10 @ 1:03PM

V... Clinton wasn't bad but he did have the fortune to be prez when the Internet/IT world took off. I know, I have been gainfully employed in that sector since 1992. Didn't matter who was pres then, TONS of jobs were create in the private sector with out any govt. help or influence. It was the Internet stupid.

Stephanie| 9.22.10 @ 2:21PM

And Algore invented it!

Joel | 9.24.10 @ 4:18AM

I will, from now on, refer to him solely as Algee. Former associate of the recipient of "An Inconvenient Stain". I can't believe they gave that idiot a Nobel prize.

Mike| 9.22.10 @ 1:10PM

hmm... what was it that Clinton said when he pivoted to be a centrist to work with a Republican congress?? The era of big government is over??? yeah, that's it. Bush made mistakes in growing Government and you should rightfully chastise him for it... but then to pretend it doesn't matter that Obama is compounding that mistake a thousand times over is shamelessly dishonest.

Ramon 51| 9.22.10 @ 3:35PM

Clinton didn't create jobs. The Republican majority in the congress which restrained spending and lowered taxes created the conditions where job growth could occur. Bush was no conservative but when he was confronted with a free-spending Democrat congress in 2007, things began to go south. And 8 months of private sector job growth? Really? Compared to the Regan years the anemic numbers for 'growth' are laughable.

Jim| 9.22.10 @ 3:36PM

Not fair - it is congress who is responsible for government spending.
Neither congress nor the president is responsible for "job creation". Last time I checked we are still not communist. Job creation is a function of the economy.
Comparing Clinton and Bush is unfair since Clinton was one of the best Democrats ever and Bush is pretty far down the list. Maybe we should compare Abe Lincoln to Obama since Abe was the first Republican president and Obama will surely be the last Democrat.

John Taylor | 9.23.10 @ 8:50AM

I became a contractor when President Bush was in his first term, many of my friends did in the next few years, we all left the the ranks of the "workers" to become independent contractors. We all still work and we do not hire employees right now. This was happening all over the country, there was an explosion of entrepreneurism then and now it has been extinguished.

gwkimball| 9.24.10 @ 5:15AM

vtwin, fgs party affiliation does not determine liberal or conservative, regardless of labels. Clinton was much more conservative than Bush as far as economic policy, which is why the economy did so much better under him. Bush was just another DC spender.

THEBOTTOMLINE| 9.22.10 @ 12:47PM

The economy was going to get worse no matter who won the 2008 election. This economic disaster was along time in the making. Things have to hit rock bottom before this before people in the this country wake up and start holding their elected leader accountable. But, as bad as it is now, America hasn't hit rock bottom yet.

Mike| 9.22.10 @ 1:07PM

THAT IS YOUR FACT??? Holy crap! Taking a static snapshot for the basis of your argument is funny. Your understanding of both history and economics is lacking. As already documented, the economy was recovering even without the stimulus. Then we spent nearly a trillion dollars and got nothing for it but dangerous levels of debt.

Tim*| 9.22.10 @ 1:17PM

Saturday, August 21, 2010:
"Throughout the first first term of President George Walker Bush, Democrats said he was the first president since Herbert Hoover to post a net loss in jobs, as the nation struggled with the recession he “inherited” as liberals say, and 9/11’s aftermath.

We had a net increase in jobs during his 8 years as president.

Now Barack Obama is president. How is that working out. From the Hill:

House Ways and Means ranking member Dave Camp (R-Mich.) on Friday released data complied by his office that shows 48 out of 50 states have lost jobs since the February 2009 enactment of the economic stimulus bill.

“While Democrats promised their 2009 stimulus would create 3.7 million jobs, the reality is far different,” stated a release from Camp’s office. “To date, 2.6 million jobs, including 2.5 million private sector jobs, have been lost.”

JmsA| 9.23.10 @ 12:01AM

vitwin,

Those 750,000 jobs a month were being jettisoned by employers as they realized what was coming under a just elected liberal executive with commanding liberal legislative majorities. When the democrats assumed control of congress four years ago, in 2007, the unemployment rate was 4.7%. Don't forget now, Medicare and Social Security projections are not business reports as you claimed, but are based on statistical analysis.

LeftCoastRightBrain| 9.22.10 @ 1:28PM

That's not all he's spreading ;-)

Dave C| 9.22.10 @ 10:11PM

As Beck pointed out,Obama is spreading our wealth to other countries. The fact that our per capita income and consumption is so much higher than the rest of the world to Obama is a problem. Another educated moron who thinks wealth isna zero sum game. The US create wealth whereverbwe do business, but our government thinks we do nothing but rape and pillage.

Impeach Don't Wait| 9.22.10 @ 10:41PM

"Obama said he'd spread the wealth, but instead he's spreading the poverty."

I was stunned to hear Glenn Beck say last night that the goal is to decrease the productivity (wealth) of the U.S. (e.g., prohibit and shut down oil drilling because it's "bad for the environment"), while increasing the productivity (wealth) of other countries (e.g., FUNDING offshore oil drilling in BRAZIL!!!).

Yep, equalizing the wealth globally by decreasing the wealth of the U.S. and transferring it to other countries.

How anybody can let this guy remain president is beyond me...

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 9.22.10 @ 7:42AM

Welcome to the beans and franks society!

You'll have less, and when you question the ruling class as to why you have less they will sputter forth the great benefits of programs they have created. Even, in fact, if those programs do not help you one bit.

It's all gratuitousness wrapped in elitism promoted by hubris, but eat hearty my fellow citizens!

Those beans and franks will be especially tasty as you conjure up visions of fat cat bureaucrats eating steaks and traveling around the nation to attend diversity training. Well, you have diversity, beans and franks. The diversity comes in when you choose the condiments: mustard, ketchup or relish. The ruling class and Obama have provided you with some choices so quit complaining.

While members of Congress hit Ruth's Chris Steak House in the company of lobbyists your payback is to hit your backyard and grill those franks and cook those beans.

While members of Congress get the best health care in the world, you'll have the advantage of knowing your health care problems will be easier to diagnose from all that sodium you're taking in with your diet.

In essence, the ruling class has now reduced America to a beans and franks society. When you object you will be painted as an extremist, a nut or a slut. Who else eats a steady diet of beans and franks?

What we need is a beans and franks holiday commemorating the destruction of the Constitution and gradual destruction of America to a beans and franks society. Eat hearty! You belong to the newest and biggest political party in America. The Beans and Franks Society.

Don't believe it? Here is a question and Obama's answer from a recent town hall where Obama's answers not responsive.

Barack Obama held a town meeting on CNBC and here was the first question:

"I'm one of your middle class Americans. And quite frankly, I'm exhausted. Exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for, and deeply disappointed with where we are right now.... My husband and I have joked for years that we thought we were well beyond the hot dogs and beans era of our lives, but, quite frankly, it's starting to knock on our door and ring true that that might be where we're headed again, and, quite frankly, Mr. President, I need you to answer this honestly. Is this my new reality?"

Obama's response:

You are a parent who has children. If your child, heaven forbid, had a pre-existing condition, before I took office you were out of luck in terms of being able to get health insurance for that child.

Now insurance companies have to give you health insurance for that child. And by the way, that health insurance company can’t drop you if you get sick.

So there are a whole host of things that we’ve put in place that do make your life better. But, the bottom line is, if your 401(k) is still down substantially from where it was a while back, if you haven’t seen a raise in a long time, if your home value went down, depending on where you live, all those things still make you feel like, gosh, I’m treading water.

And so my goal here is not to try to convince you that everything’s where it needs to be. It’s not. That’s why I ran for president. But what I am saying is that we’re moving in the right direction. And if we are able to keep our eye on our long-term goal, which is making sure that every family out there, if they’re middle class, that they can, you know, pay their bills, have the security of health insurance, retire with dignity and respect, send their kids to college, if they’re not yet in the middle class, but there are ladders there to get into the middle class if people work hard, get an education and apply their selves, that’s our goal, that’s the America we believe in, and I believe we are on track to do that.

Roy| 9.22.10 @ 8:22AM

How does a child get a "pre-existing condition"? A "pre-existing condition" means one you already had before you got insurance; meaning, it requires that your parents didn't bother to get you insurance when you were born.

vtwin| 9.22.10 @ 12:04PM

“How does a child get a "pre-existing condition?”

Your child acquires an illness before or after you lose your employer provided healthcare. And your new employer doesn’t provide healthcare insurance so you have to enter the private healthcare insurance market.

SeaHunter| 9.22.10 @ 9:37AM

Beans and Franks? Nope, sorry Bill, franks are on the banned foods list, we're gonna get stuck with just the Beans.

Rick| 9.22.10 @ 11:01AM

Until the EPA rules that Methane gas from beans will be outlawed. Pretty much, you're just stuck with the fork...er...spork.

Ryan| 9.22.10 @ 12:29PM

Then forks will be outlawed because they are pointy and can hurt someone.

vtwin| 9.22.10 @ 12:39PM

YOU WIN!!!!

Sea Hunter made a dumb comment; Rick made a dumber comment but Ryan yours is the dumbest.

chaz williams| 9.22.10 @ 1:05PM

plz visit vtwin's website at www.retards-R-us.com

Ramon 51| 9.22.10 @ 3:38PM

Like most of you ilk, you have no sense of humor. Sad...truly sad.

JmsA| 9.22.10 @ 11:55PM

How about this for a dumb comment: Social Security and Medicare projections published by the goverment under "Actuarial Publications" are not statistics; they're business reports. Statistics are used in political polls. Remember who said that, vitwin? It was you. Talk about dumb.

vtwin| 9.23.10 @ 1:50PM

I really feel great talking this tripe while my good friend George Soros pays my bills!

Joel | 9.24.10 @ 4:29AM

On the subject of Methane, and since taxing carbon emissions is so high on the list of to-dos for the WH to keep us all from dying out over global warming.. why aren't we regulating methane? It is a much, much more powerful "greenhouse" gas than CO2. I would dearly love my government to save me from this horrid gas by regulating it. Congress and all the WH staffers should personally see to its regulation by, again personally --- since this is such an important issue --- inspecting and managing on a day-to-day basis, the main producers of methane. Namely, cattle. Finally, we might gain some productive work from the government. It certainly couldn't HURT the planet.

Stephanie| 9.22.10 @ 2:27PM

And while this woman spoke to him, he laughed. Arrogance, and no empathy. Like Clinton, but not as nice, he is a sociopath.

JFGalt| 9.22.10 @ 7:46AM

Try getting private medical insurance for a kid now - all the insurers are bailing out of writing new policies-they will flat out tell you its because of Obamacare. Costs will go up. Thanks a lot OBAMA!

megapotamus| 9.22.10 @ 1:30PM

There are only two explanations for this result: either Team O wants this to happen or they are stark morons. I incline to the latter. Let us take one example. With tomorrow's sun the lifetime limits on total benefits will be prohibited. Shortly the annual caps will likewise be illegal. So now any malady or indeed every breath of every covered person exposes the insurer to.... infinite liabilities. The Lefties have introduced infinity mathematics into the public fisc. Certainly among the prodigies of Obama's advisory council there is someone who experienced one of those "rehab" operations where they treat you for booze and pill addictions until your insurance runs out. Couple that with mandatory parity for mental and physical ailments et voila! The medical culture, infrastructure and business we have known so long has just taken a fatal blow. Prepare yourselves for a long, long night and whatever you do, don't get sick.

LeftCoastRightBrain| 9.22.10 @ 1:34PM

Yet Sebilius will write another letter to the InsCos telling them that they can't do that (blame ObamaCare) because she has the facts and the InsCos are just playing politics. Quite a hoot, actually.

Jenny| 9.22.10 @ 7:52AM

I have a chronic condition known as "terminal cancer". I am currently on COBRA, with an extension to tide me over until I get on Medicaid. I am scared that my lifeprolonging treatments will be cut under Medicaid due to the fact of my incurable cancer. After all, why spend precious taxpayer dollars merely to proglong the life of a woman who is expected to die in a year? Death panels, anyone?

Thanks, Obama.

scythe| 9.22.10 @ 8:30AM

It is precisely because people like you are my neighbors and friends that I and many others, at considerable expense and time, did all we could and wish we could have done more to stop this abomination Obamacare from becoming our new reality. We now have frank 'n' beans medicine. I have lost several people I love, over the years, who died from terrible illnesses such as yours, but their lives were extended considerably because of our great medical care. That we have currently in power, a group of people, who regard other human beings as budgetary items beggars belief, but it shouldn't surprise since we have been heading that way for decades. I hope everything works out for you and I am beyond incensed thinking that OUR VERY OWN GOVERNMENT has put you in this position. It is monstrous. God Bless.

PJ| 9.22.10 @ 9:09AM

Jenny,
Go straight to the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture all the drugs you are taking for the cancer. Many of them have programs that distributes their drugs at a major discount or for free to people w/financial difficulties. To name 1 example, I believe Merck has such a program. Good luck!

vtwin| 9.22.10 @ 11:07AM

The solution is a Canadian style health care system cost less per capita and everyone is covered.

TR| 9.22.10 @ 11:17AM

Yeah, that's the ticket. Canadian medical plan, with eternal waiting lists, with rationing, with taxes so high that it is a nation without dreams.

I have personally met and talked to dozens of Canadians who have come to the US to get their needed care because of the abysmal state of their own disasterous system. Canadian medicine care? An oxymoron.

vtwin| 9.22.10 @ 11:31AM

And for the want of health care insurance or “lines to wait in” American have died.

Maddox| 9.22.10 @ 11:59AM

Not true. The poor have always had medicaid.
You know, that wonderful system of care provided by the government you so admire.

vtwin| 9.22.10 @ 12:14PM

“More than 18,000 adults in the USA die each year because they are uninsured and can't get proper health care [government study finds in 2002]” -- USA TODAY

http://www.usatoday.com/news/h.....deaths.htm

don| 9.22.10 @ 12:29PM

USA Today!!@##? No wonder you're an idiot.

vtwin| 9.22.10 @ 12:34PM

OK, “Having no health insurance means an early death to almost 45,000 people in the United States annually – almost two-and-a-half times the number previously estimated” -- American Journal of Public Health 2009

http://news.newamericamedia.or.....5fa28f5cfe

jake scott| 9.22.10 @ 1:10PM

again ,why did PM Brian Mulroney come to USA when he needed heart surgery?? Canadian plan must not have been good enough?

Maddox| 9.22.10 @ 1:30PM

So you are saying government run m e d i c a i d is a failure?

LeftCoastRightBrain| 9.22.10 @ 1:37PM

I don't post here often, but OMG you are an idiot. Not being insured is NOT the same as not having access to healthcare. I've worked in healthcare for 25+ years and have NEVER seen one of my physicians turn away a patient in need of medical because they don't have insurance.

And I'm really, really, really sorry to bring this to your attention but health care is NOT a right.

Joel | 9.24.10 @ 4:35AM

To be more precise, health care is a collection of services. Coupled with goods. Supply and demand. That whole basic economics thing. Learned this in 8th grade. Some people must have been sleeping that week.

Don | 9.22.10 @ 2:13PM

This "fact" has been trotted out time and again as a rationale for non-market based, government controlled health insurance. It is based on a non-longitudinal study with deeply flawed methodology that looked at uninsured Americans at one point in time and proceeded on the assumption they remained uninsured. As Charlie Brown would say, "tell your statistics to shut up." Also, you seem to equate health care with health insurance. they are not the same thing. Health care is how you live your life, health insurance is a product you may or may not choose to buy. Further, hospitals and doctors treat indigent patients all the time, the only place you will die awaitng treatment is at Martin Luther King or County-USC Medical Center (umm, those are "government-run" facilities in Los Angeles county, in case you were wondering). The only things that will help 'bend the cost curve down' are market-based solutions that detach health-insurance from employment. And you are still an idiot.

Convet| 9.23.10 @ 1:52PM

Notice all the useless drivel I present as facts? You and I both know these statistics PROVE NOTHING! I'm just trying to do an Alinsky.

Jim| 9.22.10 @ 3:47PM

Yeah, 2.4 million died who DID have adequate insurance. And 300 million didn't die at all.

18,000 is a pittance for a country this large. We're going to spend 1 trillion dollars to save 18,000 people? We could cure cancer with that kind of money. You liberals just get tugged around into any kind of bleeding heart foolishness no matter how ruinous the cost.

vtwin| 9.22.10 @ 12:17PM

Do you read anything besides TAS?

jake scott| 9.22.10 @ 1:11PM

just that seal on your mouth that says "Open other end"

Mike| 9.22.10 @ 1:27PM

So, you'd be willing to lower QUALITY for everyone, in order to cover a fraction of additional people at a gargantuan cost to everyone? Sounds like the Soviets are back.

"The median wait time in Canada to see a special physician is a little over four weeks with 89.5% waiting less than 90 days.[52]

The median wait time for diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans [53] is two weeks with 86.4% waiting less than 90 days.[52]

The median wait time for surgery is four weeks with 82.2% waiting less than 90 days.[52]

Another study by the Commonwealth Fund found that 57% of Canadians reported waiting 30 days (4 weeks) or more to see a specialist, broadly in line with the current official statistics. A quarter (24%) of all Canadians waited 4 hours or more in the emergency room.[54][55]"

Steve A| 9.22.10 @ 12:15PM

vtwin, I think you should go sign up for the maple leaf plan. I'll chip in for the moving costs.

jake scott| 9.22.10 @ 1:07PM

so why did former Canadian PM Mulroney come to usa when he needed heart surgery??? And yes that was when Canada had already established "free health care". C'mon vtwin THINK!

Rick| 9.22.10 @ 1:18PM

How about instead, you move to Canada? Like so many Canadians, we'll see you back here when you have a serious health problem and you don't want to wait 2 years to see a doctor.

Mike| 9.22.10 @ 1:19PM

Ok, now vtwin is just trolling. 65% of Canadians also have to pay for supplemental private insurance to cover the gaps in "free" health care. Canada's health costs have skyrocketed alongside the US. Of course it costs less per capita, because fewer people and a more generic demographic fit better into a cookie-cutter system. The US ISN'T Canada or any other country. It is the US.

Stephanie| 9.22.10 @ 2:33PM

Yeah, vtwin, that's why canadians come to America for their healthcare. The prime minister of Newfounland went to Miami for his heart procedure because they told him he would have to wait several months. You are an ignorant fool to believe that gov. run "healthcare" will be as good as what we have now. I pay dearly for mine and my husbands in premiums, but would rather pay through the nose and be able to see my doctor and have procedures or surgery in a timely manner. Why don't you move to canada?

Petronius| 9.22.10 @ 8:01PM

I hope you wind up in the ER on the day doctors walk out on strike.

WayneH| 9.22.10 @ 10:00PM

vtwin,
I'm a Canadian with a very ill elderly mother. Like tens of thousands of other Canadians, I can tell you definitively that our "universal" and "free" system is neither and that before you wish or plan for it you may wish to actually speak with someone who has lived under it (or the kin of some of those who have died because of it). Firstly, you should understand that our national government does not run the system (even us lowly Canadians are smart enough to realize that centralized/bureaucratic management of such a huge and important sector of the economy is folly). The system is administered and largely regulated at the provincial level and thus the political class and their edicts are much more accountable than they otherwise would be. Nonetheless, it is a bureaucratic nightmare. As just one example, my mother (87 years old) recently discovered a large lump underneath her left breast. Her doctor immediately recognized the need for further examination and booked the earliest possible ultrasound - FOUR MONTHS LATER. Luckily it was nothing serious and she survived that ordeal in order to suffer many since. It's a joke and most rational Canadians are looking for mean of introducing more market driven solutions, not marching the other way. Now you may hear from all kinds of Canadians that our system is wonderful. It is if all you're young and your only interaction with it is when you break a bone or or have other trauma care needs. But talk to people who need long term non-emergency needs - those at the real center of the market - before you spout off any more of your socialist drivel. Wise up, you and the rest of the socialist movement haven't a clue that you're in the process of giving up the best system the world has ever know.

Senior Daddy| 9.23.10 @ 10:47PM

Prescription drugs are not covered, for one. And you would have to check out the prices at grocery stores and the gas pumps. You get what you pay for, and you pay for what you get. Simple.

Jenny| 9.22.10 @ 7:53AM

Excuse me, I meant "Medicare" not Medicaid.

Eric Cartman| 9.22.10 @ 9:53AM

Unfortunately, Jenny, soon there will be no difference between the two. PJ has a great idea for assistance and there are many others - good luck and Godspeed.

Stillneedacoolname| 9.22.10 @ 10:32AM

Jenny...

We just lost a family friend to brain cancer... she was 11 years old.

I will be praying for you... Good Luck...

Petronius| 9.22.10 @ 8:09AM

Chicago, Chicago, that mob controlled town has turned macrophage. This years protection premium is 110%. Next year, 150%. After that, We are the worms of the earth: except the Teaparty who will face the lions of might. They do not care that we've all lost our jobs, while they vacation morn noon and night. We've lost our homes and the things we once owned, and the media says "this is right." But we've beat them before. And we'll beat them again, and we'll celebrate Election night.

Tim*| 9.22.10 @ 8:27AM

Obama is an economic gravedigger .

Take away his shovel .

Roy| 9.22.10 @ 8:40AM

Elect 60 Dems, and what do you get?
Two years older, trillions more in debt..

Stammon| 9.22.10 @ 2:03PM

Now that's good.

General Petraius don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to Obama's hope.

Clinton nee Publius | 9.22.10 @ 9:15AM

A bunch of liberal, big-government, saltwater economists say the recession is over because the government confiscated money from the private-sector economy that wasn't being spent the way the government wanted it spent and this is called an increase in economic output - even though the result of these measures was to increase unemployment, decrease business capital investment and decrease wealth.

Liberal economists exist for the sole reason of providing justification to the illegitimate premise that government spending is good for the economy even though government is structured as an endogenous stakeholder in our economy. It's like they know it is not possible, yet they still do it because they are corrupt, dishonest academics - the worst kind of policies and the worst kind of habits all in one and all being fed to our people as good ideas while we see them destroy our economy.

Emma| 9.22.10 @ 9:49AM

With re to obama's healthscare/medicareless cuts...you forgot to specifically identify the origin of those guaranteed medicare savings: it won't be very long before seniors begin dying (in what used to be called "unnecessary ways"...under the obama plan it's quite necessary) and, voila! savings galore, as medicare care for them will no longer be a factor.

Shuffle along, now, Grandma. Help out your grandkids and great-grandkids. Wouldn't want to be a burden now, would we?

He is a vile, evil man, both specifically and generally. He's also ignorant. Did I mention arrogant? Cold comes to mind. "unAmerican" is a given. Unpleasant. Self-centered. Dangerous.

Well, at least we have proven (to our own destruction) that it is a fact that ANYONE can become POTUS. Not everyone should.

Neanderthal| 9.22.10 @ 10:12AM

Emma, you are just right. On other forums dealing with the cost of, for example, chemotherapy drugs, there are postings from Obama supporters saying things like, "we just have to get over our fear of dying", or "how can we justify spending thousands of dollars just to extend someone's life a few months".

Of course everyone will be "covered" for ED treatments, or strep throat, but get something serious and it'll be sayonara.

Petronius| 9.22.10 @ 8:05PM

Top priority will be sex changes for shemales.

TR| 9.22.10 @ 10:56AM

Line up to die, old folks. It your obamacare duty.

SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!

noname11| 9.22.10 @ 3:50PM

Interesting, but death is expensive under Medicare: 2% of recipients die each year and consume 6% of expenditures. 70% of this latter 6%, or north of 50B$, is spent on the last 30 days of life. It's cheaper to keep someone alive, when they are old, than to oversee their death. So if palliative/curative care is denied, then more will die, using more end of life expense and the net cost to Medicare goes up. Funny how the Law of Unintended Consequences always bites those who don't think clearly ! (Not Emma, but the politicians who are "planning" for for our good!)

Roy| 9.22.10 @ 5:05PM

That doesn't make sense..they are going to die anyway, and still spend that $100 billion. Money spent on curative care, that pushes back the point when that happens, doesn't change that.

Note, I'm not saying it should be denied, but this argument doesn't make sense.

Eric Cartman| 9.22.10 @ 9:56AM

You have to look at the big picture, Emma. It's a great way to save money AND get rid of all those old white people in the Left's way. Who needs all these old, white bitter-clingers? Isn't that who the Lefty scum always blames for their failed legislation?

Joel | 9.24.10 @ 4:46AM

We could solve the administration's conundrum on this issue if we were to take a note from the old movie and euthanize everyone on their 30th birthday. Damn. I'm 35. I'm also a Libertarian. I will be at the top of that list as soon as they can pass legislation exempting Lefties.

Steve A| 9.22.10 @ 10:22AM

Here is the plan: Force Insurers to accept pre-existing conditions at standard rates. Insurers MUST then raise all rates to cover costs. Blame Insurers for gouging public. Public Option. Government control. Game over.

Kylie Estwick| 9.22.10 @ 10:23AM

I didnt have to read past the title. For anyone to suggest that "loving the poor" is somehow wrong has obviously never read the Bible.

People, THE RED WORDS ARE NOT OPTIONAL.
This new wave of CINOs (Christians in name only) makes me sick.

Tom| 9.22.10 @ 10:45AM

Kylie,
Ignorance becomes you.
Tom

TR| 9.22.10 @ 11:02AM

Wow. A post from KyLIE on two different articles in one day. That must really burden your liberal brain.

Having compassion for one who is less fortunate is one thing, and is honorable.
If you had bothered to skim past the headline and actually read the article (another burden on your vacuuous liberal brain) you would have read that the author stated that ObaMao loves the poor so much he is helping to create more.

You have such an empty mind...a terrible thing to waste. Go back to your bong, little girl. We have heard enough from you for one day.

dac| 9.22.10 @ 1:20PM

Jesus was a statist, redistributionist government-serving puke--who knew? Kylie knows, it must be the Duke Dipshit (or Hugo Chavez) version of the Bible, rather than the King James.
Liberation theology in all of its forms is an abomination, and as we all know, it's liberals who are the last to actually give of themselves to their fellow man. They're much happier forcing others to give, at gunpoint. Which is why they make such great concentration camp guards--they really believe they're re-educating people for the greater good.
I wouldn't feed the gutted entrails of the Kylies and Vtwins of the world to stray dogs--it might make the dogs sick.

Petronius| 9.22.10 @ 8:12PM

Gives them the runs too.

Jim| 9.22.10 @ 4:13PM

No one ever questioned your lib heart is in the right place.
We simply don't think what poor people need is more poor people to join them in misery.

Economic freedom helped the peasants of England a lot more than Robin Hood ever did.

Private charity does a lot of good, but the people who give don't get a lot of credit. On the other hand taking someone else's money by threat of force, giving it to a few favored groups and then going on a speaking tour to tell everyone how much you are doing to help people - yeah, that is real Christianity for you.

requiescat in pace| 9.22.10 @ 4:57PM

Sorry dude, but co-opting Jesus for statist economic schemes is about as valid as the medieval malcontents who slaughtered Jews (blaming them for the Black Plague) in the name of Christ.
Look at how poverty was abolished for millions in Taiwan & South Korea by instituting not redistribution but stable democratic governments and (capitalist!) economic growth models. Liberation theology is so retro!

Petronius| 9.22.10 @ 8:11PM

To bad you weren't in class the day Sister Superior slammed her stainless steel combat yardstick on her desk and told us all in No uncertain terms, "boys and girls, the world does Not Owe You a living!!"

Steve A| 9.22.10 @ 10:32AM

Sure thing Kylie. We all know how the Good Book is the blueprint for backing an agenda that increases the poverty & misery of society. Get a grip on yourself.

Tom| 9.22.10 @ 10:50AM

I will probably be called a closet liberal for this but Obama was not president during the majority of this recession. If it truly ended in July 2009 he had been in office less than 1/2 an year and his first budget not even enacted.

The blame on anemic post-recession growth can be squarely laid at the feet of Obama and the democrat Congress. These are their policies being enacted and the benefit and blame are theirs. But I think it is a bit weak to blame Obama for the length of a recession that started long before he entered office.

TR| 9.22.10 @ 11:08AM

Tom, a closet liberal you are NOT. I have read enough of your posts to see you as a conservative logical thinker.

I question the method of calculating this "end of the recession". It appears, on the surface, to be a calculated push by ObaMao's people to try to sway his sheeple voting block, who are abandoning him in droves.

We know the Great Depression 2 has not ended, it is only getting worse. We see through the "chosen one's" methods of deceit and obfuscation. We, the producers, are being bled dry by the leech class, the sit-at-home watching Oprah crowd. When we are emptied of our resourses, the man-child will have nothing left.

Tom| 9.22.10 @ 9:15PM

TR, thanks, I would hope I was a conservative logical thinker.

This recession may be technically over but growth is awful. Businesses are too confused and scared to invest any profits they might have. Loaning money has become more problematic; who wants to loan money to a corporation when the feds can come in and tell you that you need to move to the back of the line despite the fact the loans you have made are secured by hard assets?

Rick| 9.22.10 @ 11:09AM

Don't forget about the two and half years the Dem Congress has been in power, and the fact that his Congress still refused to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd when they had a chance. Nor have we seen the last of this recession when Obama lets the Bush tax cuts expire. Don't worry, he;; get full credit for 3 years of recession...

Steve A| 9.22.10 @ 11:06AM

Tom, Valid point, no question. I voted for Bush 2 X & he SUCKED on spending. The crop of Repubs. who went along with him are equally at fault. Obama is Bush spending on steroids & the guy wants to sit there & blame the other guy 2 years down the road. Obama is like a relief pitcher asking for the ball with the bases loaded, coming in, giving up a grand slam, back to back doubles & 4 walks & then blaming the starting pitcher. Freakin grow up. The guy has no balls whatsoever. Plus he throws the first pitch like my grandma anyway.

TR| 9.22.10 @ 11:12AM

And when he goes bowling, it is gutterballs all the way.

This is what happens when an ignorant electorate votes for a man so they can be part of "history", electing a halfrican-american with no experience at all, and two "autobiographies" that clearly reveal him to be a marxist radical anti-american.

ET| 9.22.10 @ 11:37AM

Mr. Ferrara might assume that his readers are “stupid and easily fooled and manipulated.” But not all are fooled by unsubstantiated, intentionally twisted assertions.

Let the reader cast a critical eye on the following passage from Mr. Ferrara’s piece. “On Monday, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that the recession had technically ended in June, 2009. But with the average recession since World War II lasting 10 months, and the longest previously lasting 16 months, this sorry record above 32 months after the start of the recession only shows how badly Obamanomics has failed the American people.”

Mr. Ferrara even draws attention to his citation by placing the dishonest and untrue statistic in italics. Fortunately, he has been good enough to furnish the name of the National Bureau of Economic Research so that we can readily check the facts. Anyone can have a look at www.nber.org and find on the organization’s front page the beginning and ending dates and durations of the last four recessions. Unmistakably, according to NBER, the last recession began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009, a duration of 18 months.

By what sleight of cunning construction does Mr. Ferrara suggest to us that the most recent recession lasted 32 months instead of NBER’s clearly reported 18 months? How else but with slippery words. First, he talks about recessions. Then he elides into “this sorry record above 32 months after the start of the recession.” What “sorry record” is he referring to? The announcement by the NBER? Or the recession itself? Is “above” to be taken as the “aforementioned” announcement? Or should we understand it to mean above as in “greater than” 32 months after the start of the recession?

It so happens that the announcement on September 20, 2010 by the NBER did occur 33 months after the start of the recession in December 2007.

But surely such a policy wonk as Peter Ferrara knows that the official declaration of recession start and end dates by NBER lags those dates, sometimes (as in this case) by well more than a year. In fact, Mr. Ferrara demonstrates his knowledge of this widely known fact in the first sentence of the paragraph: “On Monday, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that the recession had technically ended in June, 2009.”

So he clearly knows how all this dating of recessions is done. And he clearly uses verbal slight of hand to deceive his readers.

The critical reader is left to ponder whether Peter Ferrara learned such tactics as an undergraduate at Harvard College or as a student of the law at Harvard Law School.

Fortunately, we do not need this sorry and cheap dishonest writing to convince us how badly Obamanomics has failed the American people.

Mimi| 9.22.10 @ 1:45PM

TROLLS...Hit the most powerful,profound, truth-telling AUTHORS on TAS.....The cock-roaches are coming out in droves. This indicates the left are scared...Of What?? The Wise and informed and fed-up PEOPLE. TROLLS....The cat is out of the bag..your way too late. They should have hired you a long time ago. The votes are all set in stone...choices made long ago. All your effort is for naught...IT IS OVER!!!!!

ET | 9.22.10 @ 6:58PM

Hey, ET is MY handle! You can't have it, especially if you're going to use it to push these types of critiques - am I now supposed to blame Peter Ferrara for the absurdly-increased debt under Obama, and the lies and obfuscations of Obamacare???
But you're right about one thing: we indeed don't need Peter Ferrara to point out how badly Obamonomics has failed us; all we have to do is look around.

John Taylor | 9.23.10 @ 9:21AM

Technically the recession was over in 2009 but does anyone out there think that we are not still in the grips of a severe downturn? This recession should be over and done I believe that was Mr. Ferrera's gist. The fact that we may slip back into another recession and or have not seen solid growth lays squarely at the feet of the Democrat led Government. The recession of 2000 started out a lot like this one in regards to GDP and growth and had more head winds against recovery and all the same fundamental fissures in the foundations ie: Fanny and Freddy, GWT, National Debt/ Spending our Future and somehow we grew out of that. Tell me, what is different this time?

frp| 9.22.10 @ 12:14PM

All of you here are a bunch of hypocrits! I may not agree with all the President is doing, you guys have forgotten that it was the starting of reganomics that got us where we are with "DE-REGULATION" and "DADDY BUSHS WAR" Self regulation dosesn't work otherwise health care costs & the banking industry put us here in the first place. If President Obama & the Democrats would not have done all that they did, "WE WOULD BE WORSE OFF" You people need to read more about how economics work. I also think the reason people are slamming the President is because you all woke up one day and said "oh no" we have a black president. Politcs will always be the way they are and shame on all of you for the dissdane of the President. You all make me feel like I'm living in a 3rd world country.

TR| 9.22.10 @ 12:45PM

We are OVERREGULATED. There is govt. strangulation of nearly every industry. The myth of free enterprise is just that - a myth.
It is easy to say "we would be worse off" if ObaMao and his minions had not done all they did. I say WE WOULD BE BETTER OFF IF THEY BUTTED OUT. You cannot prove or disprove my thought any more than you can defend yours. It is personal theory, not fact.

And you are a racist for bringing up the "messiah's" race. It is obviously in your mind all the time, and your projection onto conservatives is pathetic.
OH, and shame on you and your liberal ilk.

frp| 9.22.10 @ 2:09PM

As far as disproving & defending, I CAN look at where we are now.....HELLO!

I'm not sure why you are bringing up the "racist" thing? All I said is we woke up to find a black President to run our country, I would have voted for a woman, a latino or a white person. It was what he had to say that I belived in. So who's racist now? And OH back to you since I am a God loving spiritual person that says sham on you for being predjudice conservative.

TR| 9.22.10 @ 3:13PM

Any time a conservative mentions race in any context, they are immediately called "racist" so I made a decision that any time a liberal mentions race in any way I would simply dish back what they do. You don't like it either, eh? I haven't liked it for years.

You made a unfounded comment " you all woke up one day and said "oh no" we have a black president". I found that comment to be racist. I do not approve of Obama and did not vote for him for a simple reasons...

he is an empty inexperienced narcissist with no track record of success, that promised to "spread the wealth around".

That he attended a church for 20 years led by a vicious anti-american who threw out racially charged hateful comments and yet claimed he did not ever know it. How stupid doeas he think the public is?

That his mentors and heros are marxist revolutionaries. That he himself is comfortable around marxists, and his behavior shows me he has true anti-business and anti-american values.

That since he took office he has bowed to foreign leaders, that he has verbally attacked private American citizens, that he is quick to comment on current events without a foundation of actual events, that he has fomented class hatred and racial anger, that he is more devoted to leftist causes than he is to our Republic and Constitutional principles.

I could go on for hours, but my fingers are tired and he has so many flaws and inadequecies, poses such a great danger to our Republic that there are plenty of other posters that can expand.

And for your last comment - who's racist now? J'accuse. You accusing me of being a prejudiced conservative. Shame on you for prejuding me. frp thy name is Hypocrite.

frp| 9.22.10 @ 3:58PM

I hope the best for you. Like I said, I feel sorry for you that you have to resort to harsh judgements & name calling. Take care.

Tom| 9.22.10 @ 9:25PM

You implied racism as a cause for disliking Obama, you called people hypocrits (sic), and you feel sorry because TR resorted to harsh judgements and name calling?

When Bush II tried to regulate Fannie and Freddie the Democrats stymied any and every effort. The results are pretty obvious. Freddie and Fannie what filled the housing bubble and when they went belly up the results were predictable.

TR| 9.22.10 @ 10:17PM

Thanks for watching my back Tom. I wondered if anyone else would see the obvious bizarre illogic used by this govt. leech. Typical of a lazy non- productive bureaucrat. Probably did all of his responding on OUR time, using the computer WE paid for. It wouldn't surprise me at all.

frp| 9.23.10 @ 5:26PM

Like I said.....Hypocrits!

Mike| 9.22.10 @ 1:35PM

Can't argue your point well enough, so you have to justify your position by claiming everyone who disagrees is racist. I can't think of many things more intellectually lazy and pathetic. Hurl insults and hide behind them to avoid criticism. That's disgusting.

Seriously, are you arguing that de-regulation started under Reagan is the reason for a recession 20 years later?? It was Dodd and Frank who told us that the housing industry was stable and did not need regulation. They also called those who disagreed with them, racists... and I'm suspecting it is for the same reason as you... too wrapped up in ideology to think coherently.

Stephanie| 9.22.10 @ 2:44PM

You k now FRP, you stooooopid progressive forget that obama's mama was lilly white. HE IS HALF WHITE!!!! He's a mulato, not an african. So take your racist whining to another site. I'm sick to death of that tactic, that al sharpton tactic. It's all you libs have left and it has be over used, so much that it doesn't mean much any more. And that is sad. Now move along.

George S| 9.22.10 @ 2:48PM

Wait a minute -- I'm confused. In January of 2009, Obama's approval was somewhere in the 70's. Then over half these people who approved of him "woke up" and saw he was black? So that explains his decline into the low 40's? Please walk me though it. Slowly.

Now as far as deregulation is concerned, what specific regulation was removed that caused the economic collapse? Keep in mind that only Congress does the regulating. So was it the Republican Congress during Clinton? Then why didn't Clinton veto? Was it the Republican Congress under Bush till 2006? Then WHICH regulation was repealed during THAT time period? Or was it the Democrat Congress under Bush? Again, walk me through it slowly.

frp| 9.22.10 @ 3:24PM

#1) The 1/2 that approved of him was feared into swithcing sides or else.

#2) Deregulation: Health care cost, unfair banking practices, housing debacle, utility hikes, BP spill and so on......and as far as congress goes again I too don't always agree on what they do but unless you work in government.....please get it right.

Tom| 9.22.10 @ 9:29PM

FRP,
I re-read your post 3 times and it is still difficult to parse. Is English your first language?

Are you implying that 1/2 the people who claimed to approve of Obama were somehow coerced into doing so?

Point #2: What do you mean? You list a series of problems. Are these areas you are claiming were adversely effected by de-regulation? And what does "as far as congress goes again I too don't always agree on what they do but unless you work in government.....please get it right." mean?

TR| 9.22.10 @ 10:18PM

A govt. leech employee. English not required.

frp| 9.23.10 @ 5:29PM

Again, typical hypocrit responses.

Joel | 9.24.10 @ 5:11AM

Let's see.. where to begin.. pt. by pt.

1. What? Not sure I understand what you are trying to claim here. If it is that half os the people who changed their minds about him was coerced or intimidated, you truly are a fool. roughly 15% of 300,000,000 (half of the close to 30% decline) is 45,000,000 people. Ok, let's cut that in half (again roughly) to accommodate the fact that polls only take in voting age persons. so, now we only have to intimidate 22.5 MILLION Americans into changing their approval of the President.

Perhaps he intimidated them with his policies, the policies of his party, and the general disdain he and his party have for the people taking the polls (That would be the citizens).

Most of # 2 has been handled elsewhere, but specifically, the BP spill was Bush's fault? That's really stretching it. Even assuming the president is capable of micromanaging a company's oil platform over a thousand miles from where he is, it happened over a year into Obama's presidency. If there was some problem that Bush should have seen to prevent this (since you imply that it is his fault), Obama had more than enough time to reach that same solution before it happened. No, I don't blame him for the spill. I do blame him for his "who-cares" attitude after it happened. I don't expect him to scoop oil out of the Gulf. I expect him to give a damn and to make sure the right people in government are coordinating the response. Not making his normal golf round. Sometimes being presidential is about doing the right things. Sometime it is about looking and acting presidential when the country needs it, regardless of how popular it may be. Sometimes it is listening to the will of the people and getting the hell out of the way. This president has fallen down on the job in all three cases.

frp| 9.24.10 @ 3:42PM

Point taken. Take care

Petronius| 9.22.10 @ 8:39PM

Want to live in a 1st Class Country?
Step 1 Eliminate predators. Step 2. Banish perverts and parasites. 3. Restore Constitutional limited Government. The Government is not your mommy!! It does not exist to take care of you!! 4. Establish moral qualifications for full citizenship by requiring full comprehension of rights, responsibilities, and economic literacy before being granted the franchise to vote. 5. Accept and live by the Fact that the basis for all life on planet Earth is competition. Should anybody fail because of refusal to compete, the rest of us are not to blame in any case. Subsidizing character deficiencies through Affirmative Discrimination is uncalled for and detrimental to the overall quality of life. 6. Give We The People Our Freedom: All of it.

TR| 9.22.10 @ 10:20PM

Good post, Petronius. One more thing - call it like it is, Affirmative Action is Race-based preference. Officially sanctioned discrimination. Period.

Tim*| 9.23.10 @ 5:27AM

We are .
Under Presidente For life Obama , it's called New Kenya.

Steve A| 9.22.10 @ 12:18PM

frp (frail rational powers), UH, you will be living in a 3rd world country shortly if this moron continues to destroy the American experiment.

frp| 9.22.10 @ 12:32PM

Again, disrespect for The President of The United States. And no, if you read more on how politics work, you would understand that it would have not mattered who became our president (republican or democrat) they would have had to implement the same things. That is why President Bush did the TARP program because he knew what was coming. You must not have faith in our government to do the right thing. I'm sorry.

TR| 9.22.10 @ 12:51PM

Let's see..."disrespect for the POTUS"

You must be a middle school student. I have lived through 11 presidencies, and every time a Republican is in office he is treated with open hatred and complete disrespect by liberals and the so-called main stream media. The best President of the 20th century, Ronald Reagan was the subject of irrational hatred by you leftists every day. So my comment to you is "Hey kettle, this is the pot speaking. You are black."

frp| 9.22.10 @ 1:18PM

Black, No, White, Yes, and was republican but became independent beacuse you so called people are afraid of progress. You must also be conservative & and on the far right. Typical response. My whole family had to change parties because of President Reagans un-socialistic views. As far as "the leftyists" that spewed hatred against Reagan, if that was so I would have rememberd it to, so your just wrong! End of subject!

Mike| 9.22.10 @ 1:43PM

vtwin, you changed your name to frp

Yes, the whole founding of the US was to put faith in individuals and NOT the government to solve our problems. Apparently, your mind is so closed, you can't even conceptualize a life devoid of government intrusion.

frp| 9.22.10 @ 2:18PM

With people like you saying things like this, I welcome government, because with it, I would never feel safe living in this country.

Stephanie| 9.22.10 @ 2:48PM

I thought you were leaving~

frp| 9.22.10 @ 3:01PM

typical hater.....

TR| 9.22.10 @ 3:21PM

OOOO OOOO the new liberal response when thay can't argue with logic, call you a "hater" OOO OOOO

Gee, I guess they are tiring of calling everyone racist.

"You must be far right" Yep. Anything to the right of Karl Marx is far right to the current crop of liberals. Not to hard to measure that .

Had you head so far up your a** during the Reagan administration that you never watched the "big three" network news, or read the NY Times or Wash Post? They all called for his resignation and impeachment numerous times. You must have been in a drug haze for those 8 years, so I understand your not remembering.

Oh yeah, and one more great intelligent retort..End of subject.

You foolish liberals make it sooo easy...............

What an empty shell you are.

frp| 9.22.10 @ 3:33PM

TR, since I didn't resort to name calling there is no need for it since your response is so negative, you must not be a happy person. I'm sorry for you. I hope for the best in your endevors.

TR| 9.22.10 @ 4:22PM

Factual, not negative. Can't respond to the truth, it hurts too much, eh?

I will be truly happy when we send the domomarxists home in November.

And I'm surprised you didn't add an empty retort at the end like you usually do.

Now, give the computer back to your daddy, child. Your turn is up.

TR| 9.22.10 @ 4:23PM

make that DEMOmarxists.

Tim*| 9.23.10 @ 5:43AM

frp lectures We,The Great Unwashed Conservatives , "As far as "the leftyists" that spewed hatred against Reagan, if that was so I would have rememberd it to, so your just wrong! End of subject! "

Bullcrap frp !

Here's LeftyBoy Christopher Hitchens :
"The fox, as has been pointed out by more than one philosopher, knows many small things, whereas the hedgehog knows one big thing. Ronald Reagan was neither a fox nor a hedgehog. He was as dumb as a stump. He could have had anyone in the world to dinner, any night of the week, but took most of his meals on a White House TV tray. He had no friends, only cronies. His children didn't like him all that much. He met his second wife—the one that you remember—because she needed to get off a Hollywood blacklist and he was the man to see. Year in and year out in Washington, I could not believe that such a man had even been a poor governor of California in a bad year, let alone that such a smart country would put up with such an obvious phony and loon."

Steve A| 9.22.10 @ 12:52PM

Yes frp, You are sorry. We "had to" pass TARP, bailout GM, bailout AIG, pass the 800 billion $ stimulus, pass Obamacare, pass the financial reform act & give the govt. power to sieze companies that pose a "systemic risk", print & bnorrow $$ to pay for it all. ANYONE would have done the same thing. No, I do not have faith in our government to do the right thing, nor should I. This according to the founders. You must have skipped that chapter in one of your books.

storm front| 9.22.10 @ 4:00PM

Steve, if I remember my history correct, in 1836 president Andrew Jackson took the Federal treasury and spread it out amongst 7 different regional banks, which the media at the time dubbed "pet banks". What Jackson actually was doing was to prevent the first attempt at founding a Federal Reserve System. Any coincidence the Fed was founded at the same time the 16th amendment(income tax) came into existence?

Ghastlyone| 9.22.10 @ 2:11PM

frp...you really gotta be a goddamn moron.

Bush didn't "do" the TARP program.

The TARP bill was concocted by all those leftists that had been running congress for the last 2 years of his presidency. Seems all of you leftists always "conveniently" leave out congress when talking about Bush.

frp| 9.22.10 @ 2:22PM

Typical fear mongering person. That's why I switched parties, I got to see people like you come out of the woodworks.

He could've vetoed it.

Ghastlyone| 9.22.10 @ 2:32PM

Of course he could have vetoed it. If you or anyone else thinks Bush is actually a Republican, then you're pretty dumb.

frp| 9.22.10 @ 2:42PM

no need for name calling.

And I guess I'll be the dumb one when my optimisim proves we will come out of this rut were in. Good luck in your endevors.

TR| 9.22.10 @ 3:32PM

Oh man, frp, you guys are in REAL trouble when a liberal like vtwin calls you dumb for voting for ObaMao. I love watching the implosion.

frp| 9.22.10 @ 3:39PM

I feel sorry for you. Take care

TR| 9.22.10 @ 4:26PM

Well, since "feeling sorry" is a mainstay for non-productive liberals, then get busy. It will keep your limited mental resources busy for a long time.......

vtwin| 9.22.10 @ 3:24PM

No, dumb are those who voted for him.

Winston| 9.22.10 @ 12:21PM

The Dollar will collapse making this Nation an afterthought. The Gangsters in D.C will attempt to take entirely over. The day will come.

Steve A| 9.22.10 @ 12:26PM

Winston, Have no fear. frp has read several books on "how economics work" & has it all figured out. Just put him in charge.

THEBOTTOMOLINE| 9.22.10 @ 12:40PM

Peter,

You need to stop insulting my intelligence. You know as well as I do that Obama is the front man for a very small group of people that control 50% of the worlds wealth. The president doesn't control he economy. The big banking cartels control the economy, they dictate the policy, and they work with politicians (who suppose to be representing us) write the laws so they can keeping robbing Main St.

Don't think for a minute that Ronald Reagan, if he were alive today could save the country from an economic collapse. Reagan, like Obama, Bush and Slick Willey were puppets for the ruling class. Reagan policies in the 80's were a quick fix that hurt the country in the long run. His policies sent America's middle class in such a downward spiral that America's middle class on the verge of extinction. The only people that benefited from Reagan policies were his handlers.

IF ANYBODY WANT TO KNOW HOW THIS COUNTRIES GOT IN THE MESS, GOOGLE THE 'FEDERAL RESERVE ACT OF 1913'. This something that you history teachers in High School, and even college will never talk about. It's dirty little secret in American history that has been swept under the rug. I dare you to right an article about the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 Peter............... if your bosses let you of course.

The sandman| 9.22.10 @ 3:56PM

Bottom feeder-best thing that can happen to the federal reserve is if its ELIMINATED. Jeez, im wondering how we survived all those years without an Dept of Education(no eudcation) Deptof Energy(non-energy producers) The Fed has done NOTHING but lead to boom/bust cycles. Used to be a way of dealing with pond scum-drive them out of business by BOYCOTTING THEM. Now , we make scum like Soros and Sandler rich for STEALING from the system. get a grip.

oscar77| 9.22.10 @ 12:40PM

Vtwin: re: "losing 750,000 jobs a month in this country" Note that that number occurred AFTER Obama was elected, as business owners shed as many jobs as they could, knowing what was coming. Do you think that they are stupid? Before he was elected in November, the job losses weren't nearly so high.

re: "a Canadian style health care system cost less per capita and everyone is covered" As a physician, I can tell you that "everyone is covered" in a very basic manner which would be unacceptable to most thinking American citizens. And that coverage is subject to rationing by government panels. And there is intentional maldistribution and undercoverage by advanced technologies. And their cancer survival rates are not nearly equal to ours. If it were not for the stopgap of flying to the US to get care that has been delayed by the bureaucrats, Canadian care would fall flatter than it already has.

Jack Chaffin, MD
Boise, ID

vtwin| 9.22.10 @ 3:13PM

"Do you realize that somewhere in the world there exists a person who qualifies as the worst doctor? If you took the time, by process of elimination you could actually determine the worst doctor in the world. And the funny part is knowing that someone has an appointment to see him tomorrow." -- George Carlin

stormy weather| 9.22.10 @ 3:51PM

Doc-maybe this moron should ask UFC heavyweight champion Brock Lesnar about canadian "healthcare". Lesnar risked dying from diverticulitis , but told his wife to drive him to the US rather than get treated in Canada. he had it right.

frp| 9.22.10 @ 12:46PM

Sarcasim, typical. Again, I guess I'm wrong that I believe in our government.

Steve A| 9.22.10 @ 12:57PM

frp, Answer this question honestly. Would you "believe in our government to do the right thing," if Palin were president with Republican control of both houses?? Your position is lacking any depth of thought. Are you suggesting that ANYONE in government in a position of power is always going to do what is in the best interest of the country? If so, you are a fool.

frp| 9.22.10 @ 1:31PM

I guess I'm a fool :-) I always have faith in anyone to do the right thing because we need the government (no matter what size) to make sure our country doesn't become that 3rd world county you are claiming we will become. Infastructure, schools, highways, bridges, so on & so on. And the "systemic risk" came upon us because of "de-regulation" As far as "anyone" in our government to do the right thing? If you are not happy with the way things work, then maybe you should move out of the USA.

Steve A| 9.22.10 @ 1:51PM

frp, Sigh. I'll cry Uncle here, I give up. You can't afford to have me move out. Who is going to pay for all of your programs? I can promise it ain't you, pal.

Mike| 9.22.10 @ 2:03PM

frp... Really, infrastructure, schools, highways??

Who passed that evil de-regulation? Government.
Who oversees crumbling infrastructure? Government.
Who told us Medicare and Medicaid wouldn't cost much? Government.
Who sees fit to mandate how you sit in a car, what kind of mileage your car gets, how many kids you can carry and then makes it more expensive the more kids you have? Government.
Who is dictating ownership rules to ALL private businesses. Government.
Who is telling restaurants and cooks how to prepare their meals? Government.
Who wants to tax air? Government.
Who declared breathing harmful to the planet? Government.
Who has overseen spending that puts generations of children in direct peril? Government.
Who freaked out and passed overbearing speech laws because a nipple was on TV for 1/2 second? Government.
Who outlawed alcohol? Government.
Who gets paid more and has better benefits than the private sector? Government.
Who exempted themselves from the Healthcare bill? Government.

I could go on. Your blind faith in government means you wouldn't see the train right before it hit you.

frp| 9.22.10 @ 2:27PM

I see the train and since you don't work for the government......MOVE ON!

TR| 9.22.10 @ 3:35PM

We all work for the govt. for the first 5 months of the year..oh wait, that would be slaves to the govt.

So.... MOVE ON. You missed the train.

frp| 9.22.10 @ 3:44PM

NO....I mean move on because I DO work for the government, so if you don't like it then find another country to live in!

TR| 9.22.10 @ 4:30PM

That explains your absurd devotion to liberalism. You suck off the public teet, in some nameless govt. bureaucracy, getting in the way of real progress. Probably hired by ObaMao. And you think if a person is not a govt. employee leech, they should leave the country. Who would pay your obsese govt. salary? You don;t think too far ahead do you? What a mind you have.

"Those that can, do. Those that can't work for the government."

You are a waste of MY MONEY. Do somethiong productive. Oh, and just for good measure so you can point out my name-calling again....You Idiot.

TR| 9.22.10 @ 4:46PM

Oh, and now that I know you are a govt. employee leech, I am through wasting another minute of my time. Go collect your unearned paycheck, leech.

frp| 9.23.10 @ 5:49PM

I guess I'm not the only one here on work time. Unless your unemployeed and your collecting from the government run program. Oh well.

Petronius| 9.22.10 @ 8:47PM

A length of rope; a lamp post, and thou.

Joel | 9.24.10 @ 5:28AM

That systemic risk you mentioned was not due to "de-regulation" in which regulation was actually lessened. Some regulating laws were done away with, but the real problem, that lead to the collapse, was the government meddling in the first place. By tweaking the regulations to benefit some groups over others. Let us not forget that the Financial collapse in 2008 was caused by the mortgage industry collapse which was largely caused by the government-run mortgage companies collapsing after being mismanaged by people who were hired to do a job and then told how to do that job by the government. I will concede to you that a law from the previous collapse (after the scandals of 2001/2002), namely Sarbanes-Oxley, did some good. I know for a fact that it made EMC a ton of money selling specialized server appliances to publicly-traded companies who had to comply with the new laws, not to mention the money it made accounting firms and lawyers. Didn't do much that was useful for actually solving the problem. Typical of all such laws, history will show, but those "progressives" running things in Washington are only interested in their kind of progress. Facts mean nothing when we have blind-belief. Such people are loons.

frp| 9.24.10 @ 3:53PM

Again point taken, I guess it doesn't matter who runs the government, it will always have a negative affect on this country.

oscar77| 9.22.10 @ 2:26PM

frp,
The government is NOT the United States. People mix that up all the time. They are disposable representatives of the United States, which is "we, the people". If they do not represent us, we have the option of throwing them out. Which, if you haven't noticed, we are in the process of doing.

"Trust the government"??? That would be a truly insane thing to do. The Founders didn't "trust" government of any form. For you to "trust" it now is simply blindness. And don't assume that, once and if the "government" is controlled by Republicans, that those of us on here who suggest that the government shouldn't be trusted, will suddenly trust it. I didn't "trust" it under Bush and Republicans, and I don't "trust" it under Obama and the Democrats. You shouldn't either.

Professional politicians and life-time office-holders should be turned out regularly. They become too interested in their power, and that leads to them paying off whoever they perceive will keep them in power. I'd rather have the CEOs of the top 560 companies in the US as Senators and Representatives than who we currently have. (And turn them out in a couple of years, too.)

Jack Chaffin MD
Boise, ID

frp| 9.22.10 @ 2:36PM

Jack, you are correct not to "trust" our government, but I said I believe in it. I also know that our founders did the same, but, the went ahead and formed it to help regulate bad people from taking advantage of us.

Short terms for officials.....agreed 2 terms.

Thank you for not calling me names and making a statement about both sides.

TR| 9.22.10 @ 3:39PM

I believe in God and His Son Jesus Christ.

I do not believe in any human institutions. They are fundamentally flawed because humans are fundamentally flawed.

I respect the Contitution and the Republic. I respect the office of the President. I do not respect or trust the extremist current president and his crop of radical czars and advisors.

frp| 9.22.10 @ 3:46PM

Just can't help to hate respond to all my response even if there good. Good God you are angry.

TR| 9.22.10 @ 4:34PM

I feel honored to be called a hater by a marxist. I know I'm doing something right. Thanks for your support.

TR| 9.22.10 @ 4:49PM

Oh - for all of the other posters on this site - frp is a govt. employee leech. Kinda explains the marxist sentiment doesn't it? Works for ObaMao and is critical of dissent. Typical govt. employee.

JeffW| 9.23.10 @ 11:14AM

Tr, I agree wholeheartedly. After reading all of FRP's post I am beginning think this person also post under the moniker "Whatever". Their debate style is the same. Reminds me of a little kid responding with "I know you are, I know you are".

People like this give legitimate goverment employees a bad name.

frp| 9.23.10 @ 5:38PM

Again, angry person, wait till your old and need the so called government run programs. Take care.....

RCV| 9.22.10 @ 10:09PM

psssst......The Constitution and the Republic are human institutions. And we know already by your posts that you don't believe in them.

TR| 9.22.10 @ 10:22PM

pssssst....you don't know how to read. Idiot troll.

stormyweather| 9.22.10 @ 3:43PM

Well said Doc-if the founders trusted the government, there never would have been a bill of rights attached to it. I remember the old quote about Franklin-when asked about what they had done his reply was-"weve given you a republic maam-if you can keep it."

stormy weather| 9.22.10 @ 3:46PM

Wasnt it William Buckley who once said hed rather be governed by the first 400 names in the local phone book than the faculty at Harvard? how true.

brad| 9.22.10 @ 12:49PM

I am sick and tired of Obama and his Lib supporters still blming Bush. He has been on the job for 2 years. If I was still blaming my predecessor at my job after 2 years, my boss would fire me and get someone else. Remember people- the big stimulus package was supposed to cure the recession, but it didn't. It was passed so quickly so that the democrat congress could get busy on Obamacare. Obama and the dems put all their eggs in one basket and promply dropped them. Now all they can do is blame Bush. Grow up Obama and take responsibilty!

THEBOTTOMLINE| 9.22.10 @ 12:53PM

The president doesn't control the economy Brad, WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!

brad| 9.22.10 @ 12:58PM

Obama doesn't control the economy when it is bad, but you can bet your @ss if it turned around overnight, you and all your lib buddies would damn sure give him credit. You nedd to wake up, stop drinking the kool-aid, and smell the coffee.

THEBOTTOMLINE| 9.22.10 @ 1:02PM

Brad,

What make you think I'm a liberal? The President, not matter what PARTY HE IS AFFILIATED with doesn't control the economy, there handlers do.

stormyweather| 9.22.10 @ 3:41PM

I dont know what Pelosi, Frank, Reed and Waxman have been smelling, but coffee sure isnt it. Maybe more like Cocaine residue. These folks are on drugs if they really think Marxism works.

TR| 9.22.10 @ 5:07PM

Hi Stormyweather

Pinky Reid boxed alot when he was a kid, about 7 decades ago. He took one too many hits to the head, and it shows in his politics. He has brain damage.
He was raised in Searchlight, a small high-desert mining village about 60 miles S. of Vegas. His neighbors called him "Pinky". So I call him the name he was raised with...Pinky.

A can only conclude that Bugeye Pelosi, Bawney Fwank, and Nostrils Waxman were simply oxygen depreived in their youth, which could account for their brain damage.

LeftCoastRightBrain| 9.22.10 @ 1:44PM

One of the things I find annoying about the current POTUS is the whole "I", "my" and "mine" thing he does on every issue/topic. It's a great manifestation of his towering ego.

Most of his predecessors where either humble or savvy enough to use "our" and "we" when discussing their plans and accomplishments.

Hardcore realist| 9.22.10 @ 3:38PM

Zero is a colossal narcissist, thats for certain. And a dangerous one. With Soros money to help feed his oversized ego, this puke would be Mao Or Adolph if he had the chance.

Steve A| 9.22.10 @ 1:06PM

Bottomline, You may be technically correct, but, if it were not for Obama driving the train we would "possibly" not have: bailouts, 800B stimulus, Obamacare, maojr tax hike uncertainty. I say possibly because for all I know McCain would have done the same. He has no clue either. These are all a definite net drag on the economy, even if the FED calls the shots behind the curtain. PS: Gimme Reagan version II & I will take my chances all day long.

TheBottomLine| 9.22.10 @ 1:17PM

Reagan policies were a short term solution. Artificial bubbles is what got the country in this mess in the first place. But then again Reagan handlers dictated the policies, just like Obamas.

Steve A| 9.22.10 @ 1:31PM

I don't know brother. 1982-2007 was a pretty nice short term run in my book. The liberal push for "Affordable Housing" thru Freddie & Fanny along with massive entitlement spending is what got us here today, my friend. Not some secret star chamber behind a lead door wearing hooded robes burning candles.

Dave Williams| 9.22.10 @ 1:35PM

Don't feed the trolls.
Don't feed the trolls.
Don't feed the trolls.

Mimi| 9.22.10 @ 2:13PM

DAVE: AMEN..AMEN..AMEN!

Steve A| 9.22.10 @ 1:39PM

DW, That's funny. You made me laugh.

Goody| 9.22.10 @ 2:52PM

Why stop at Marxist? I was disappointed you didn't make the Obama-is-Hitler connection, it's the only thing missing from your piece. Or is Obama a lizard man / Illuminati instead?

My respect for Harvard just went way down. Bush soured me on Yale, so I guess we need a Princetonian in the White House to stop all the kids from bickering.

Jim O'Brien| 9.22.10 @ 3:25PM

No, Wilson the Princeton professor already took the prize. How about a Hillsdale College grad?

hard core realist| 9.22.10 @ 3:31PM

Goody-Zero is WORSE than Hitler. Hitler never hid his disdain for Jews and others. Zero would do everything Adolph did, except we have a 2nd amendment here and a strong military full of folks who dont have much use for Zero or Pelosi. Zero would like to have the moslems do his dirty work. Too bad-the moslems are too stupid to even defeat tiny Israel. So, Zeros daddys dream of destroying capitalism will not happen. Not because of Zero, but because we the American citizens wont let it happen. Zero the fraud is now exposed.

Jim O'Brien| 9.22.10 @ 3:22PM

Obama and his fellow Democrats have told us for several years that the Bush tax cuts only benefited the "rich". So how is it that some Democrats are now talking about (just maybe) extending the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date in January 2011, for everyone except the rich? How can the 2001-2003 tax cuts be extended for the non-rich if they never had their taxes cut in the first place? Could it be that the Democrats have been lying to us? Well shiver me timbers!

stormfront| 9.22.10 @ 3:26PM

The Black lady at the Zerobama "townhall" yesterday did a better job of showing the fool Zero really is than BSNBC and the ruling class media ever could. Velma Harts first four words "Im tired of defending you" said what most folks REALLY think about Zero. And this lady was a Zero SUPPORTER who has rightfully found him to be a fraud. bravo Mrs Hart.

TR| 9.22.10 @ 3:42PM

Did you hear how quickly the Obamabots got to her and she contradicted herself yesterday? She ran to the microphones Tuesday to defend the Zero. His brownshirts must be real scary if you are a liberal and don't toe the line.....

stormfront| 9.22.10 @ 4:04PM

Memo to stupid Libs/commies. Your hero Karl Marx, HATED the middle class. the reason was simple-the middle class kept the ruling class from overreaching. And yes-Karl squandered 3 inheritances, fathered 4 illegetimate children he never raised(hmm Baracks daddy?) and needed the multimillioniare Engles to live off of?

Silly Me| 9.22.10 @ 4:22PM

I thought you were referring to the scammers like Wall Street, Enron. Those who love to stack the deck in their favor and rip off others for tons of money. The good friends of George W. Forget the middle class. They are long gone. It is 98% poor and 2% rich, but you may not have noticed due to the shimmer of the bubble. Blame in on Obama. hahahaha

Bert| 9.22.10 @ 4:44PM

This is further evidence of the abysmal failure of Obama's undisciplined economic policies and how they've worsened the current and long-term economic condition of this country. It's time to turn the Democrats depression era attacks against Herbert Hoover and announce the emergence of Obamaville throughout the country.

NJK| 9.22.10 @ 4:50PM

The financial problems in this country all stem from two things. Violating the Constitution, and social engineering. The Federal Government has no business giving money to fund education, medicare, medicaid, unemployment benefits, etc. These people have had the war on poverty since the days of FDR, and we now have more poverty today then ever before.

We need to put people in office who are going to get back to the Constitution, and start dismantling all of the agencies that the Federal Government has unconstitutionally set up. Department of Education, Department of No Energy, EPA, and the list goes on. Unfortunately these people are going to have to look for work in the private sector. Guess what, there is none. The same social engineers who have started these programs have destroyed all of the jobs.

Don John| 9.22.10 @ 5:05PM

Even if Christine O'Donnell were an actual, practicing witch, I would eagerly vote for her rather than the nicest Marxist in the world.

DavisJohn| 9.22.10 @ 5:27PM

How can you tell when Obama is lying? When his lips are moving.

Is anyone else angry that they are spending our tax dollars on a propaganda campaign (including TV ads) to promote their failed health care plan?

dw| 9.22.10 @ 8:12PM

But it's Sheriff Andy Taylor.

The One We've Been Waiting For| 9.22.10 @ 6:42PM

We're buying shrimp, trolls. I can see that our new Red Bull program has had an effect on the exhaustion that was obvious over the last week. Now we have lots of activity but no coherence. Don't worry about it, you are Democrats. There is a concern though. I am sure you have heard about one of our trolls suffering from caffeine intoxication. There can be some bad effects for your loved ones. Being that they are your loved ones remember they have already suffered a lot. Push the summer of recovery, wind farms and the Chevy Volt. In your current mental state this is the best time to sell these items. I want you guys to strike like missiles from an unmanned drones on innocent civilians in Pakistan. Show no mercy. Remember that these racists are typical white people and shouldn't even be allowed to talk. Tell them they are stupid. That always has an effect. We can take terrorists attacks on every major city, baby.

dw| 9.22.10 @ 8:10PM

We, at least have the highest standard of poor people in the world. Much of ours have color t.v.s and air conditioning and cars, etc. So, if you're going to be poor, be poor in the U.S.

Roy| 9.23.10 @ 7:45AM

And their biggest health problem is obesity..

Jerry | 9.22.10 @ 8:18PM

Prior to retiring for the evening the PRC pays homage to Bill Clinton for turning their economy into the soon to be number one in the world. America must retrieve the manufacturing base we gave away to foreign countries who now threaten our very existence.

John Galt | 9.23.10 @ 1:26PM

RE: "...Tea Party victories are precisely rejuvenating and rehabilitating the Republican Party. They redeem the Reagan message from the 1970s, which I have struggled to advocate among a previously disheartened grassroots, that conservatives should not split off into a third party, but take over the Republican Party. That is what the Tea Party involves, a conservative takeover of the Republican Party, with far more force than even in 1980. By 2013, that force will be taking us well beyond even 1981."

This sounds like EXACTLY what needs to happen.
How do we go about making this happen?

Mike Rogers| 9.24.10 @ 8:01AM

Bang on Mr Galt!
Just look at the RINO cockroaches scurrying for cover - the light shone upon them by TEA partiers and Conservatives has exposed the Ruling Class for what it is - a bipartisan Progressive coalition.

How to fix? Suggestions for all conservatives:
Don't just attend TEA parties, but work tirelessly for the most conservative citizen-legislators you can find. Don't forget - all politics is local - fiscal conservatives in your town, constitutionalists in your state government, a real adult with respect for the bill of rights, especially the 10th for governor, and the nearest thing to "angels" you can send to DC (IE those who will try to limit the power of the Federal government).
I work the streets, hold signs at the polls, and financially support worthy candidates anywhere I can find them.
Don't forget, until we can get the 17th amendment repealed, YOU are just as entitled as George Soros to buy the best Senators around the country that you can afford - chip in to Jim DeMint's Senate Conservatives Fund, and Club For Growth.
Don't like government excess? Support Freedomworks and Americans For Prosperity to help spread the word.
Whatever you do, don't sit on the sidelines!

Ron Mulvaney | 9.23.10 @ 5:16PM

Ferrara is right, the ruling class IS a disgrace. But he picked the wrong ruling class to blame. The ruling class is the top six Wall Street banks. It all happened Oct. 3, 2008. It was a coup that nobody seems to remember. No, it was not the $700 billion of unregulated money that was given to Wall Street's biggest banks. It was the transfer of most of the country's assets to those six banks. Those six banks now hold over 60% of U.S. assets, whereas just a few years earlier they held less than 20%. Remember the Golden Rule? Whoever has the gold rules. They now have the gold. So, all you American patriots, half mast your American flag Oct. 3 and read about the flag-waving on Dequav's Welcome page.

Scubbysteve| 9.24.10 @ 10:13AM

Redistribution of wealth.....funny how it doesn't seem to cost any of the administration or congress a dime ! ....Obama sucks, his cabinet sucks, his 'czars' suck, and his flag-hating, anti-American, nappy- headed, wife sucks like a Hoover vacuum.
We need a new Government !

Latest Headlines

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|96 comments

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord|99 comments

Obama’s Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield|56 comments

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut|24 comments

The Woman Who Wrote Liberty Valance

Bill Croke|31 comments

Not Super, But Pretty Good

Aaron Goldstein|17 comments

The Loss of Trust

Thomas Sowell|32 comments

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin|88 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 6.18.13

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13

Pro-Life is Smart Politics

Rich Lizardo | 6.18.13

Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Are Young People Souring on Obama?

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

Boehner to Enforce Hastert Rule with Immigration Reform

Jordan Gonzalez | 6.18.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?