Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Coaxial

UPDATED!! Perry, Bachmann, Romney, Paul And Huntsman Skipping TRUMP DEBATE!!

UPDATED!! Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann declared Thursday that they would join Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman in steering clear of the Dec. 27 debate moderated by Donald Trump.

The only two candidates attending will be Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. Given how far ahead Gingrich is in the polls, it's now a no-brainer that Trump will endorse Gingrich. Which is likely bad news for Gingrich.

A recent Fox News poll indicates Trump's endorsement would actually hurt the recipient of that endorsement.

Trump, surprisingly, dismissed the Fox News poll as inaccurate.

The Gingrich-Santorum debate won't be that odd. Gingrich and Herman Cain had their own two-man debate on entitlement reform early last month. We'll see if Santorum gets more out of it than Cain did.

I applaud the five candidates who elected not to participate.

Trump, an unofficial candidate for the GOP nomination last spring as the last edition of “Celebrity Apprentice” was airing, described Paul and Huntsman as “joke candidates” after they refused to attend the Newsmax debate.

Neither did Trump seem too excited about the Romney snub. "It would seem logical to me that if I was substantially behind in the polls especially in Iowa, South Carolina, Florida, I would be participating in the debate, but I can also understand why Gov. Romney decided not to do it," Trump said.

Find Reuters’ story on the matter here.

Follow Herc on Twitter!!

Follow Evil Herc on Twitter!!

 


$49.99!! Cheapest LORD OF RINGS EXTENDED EDITION Blu-ray Ever!!



Hundreds of Blu-rays Under $10!!

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Dec. 6, 2011, 6:25 p.m. CST

    No interest in this.

    by Shermdawg

    But I would like to take this opportunity to mention that I still would like to see Russell Hantz on the next edition of Celebrity Apprentice.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 6:28 p.m. CST

    Blowhards for Blowhards.

    by shutupfanboy

    I think all of these guys have major flaws enough that I really don't see it being that close for Obama to win, but people are pissed and they need someone besides Congress to blame. Tea Party, Really? Everyone. I at least respect Romney, Paul and Huntsman for not giving into this farce. Then again, the GOP has a guy who was a Leno joke back in 1999 and also divorced his wife on her death bed, so who knows what these people consider legit.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 6:45 p.m. CST

    Well that's odd...

    by yubnubrocks

    I thought I was on AICN, but it looks like I was directed to crooksandliars.com.

  • insulting the audience, not as much as Trump is himself, shameless whore is shameless

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 6:51 p.m. CST

    Still fishing for readers, Herc?

    by Chris Moody

    Geez.

  • if i were huntsman et al id steer clear of this freak show.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:03 p.m. CST

    Can American politics get any more ridiculous?

    by Bobo_Vision

    Of course it can....it always can.....

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:27 p.m. CST

    flandersbum

    by Hercules

    I hereby forbid you from reading my column. Kindly seek your TV news from any of the miliions of others sites that cover TV. You are not welcome here.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:31 p.m. CST

    What the hell is this doing here?

    by Mugato5150

    Supernatural? Doesn't exist but a pseudo-debate full of retarded and psychotic GOP candidates? Cool news! I know, I know, I'm banned.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:38 p.m. CST

    Clown Asses.

    by Bob

    Trump being the biggest. Mitt is second (He's more of a Douche) The rest are a joke. Also. Why is this even here? I don't discuss politics here, nor do I care to online anyway. TV show news plz. K.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:44 p.m. CST

    mugato5150

    by Hercules

    You're not banned, but if you don't think "Supernatural" exists, you need to look a little harder at the Friday talkbacks.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:50 p.m. CST

    Good god, how I hate Donald Trump

    by Mr. Voodoo Potato Head

    He's as much a media whore as a Kardashian. I actually respect the candidates who refused this side show a little bit more. And the others, a little bit less (that being said, if batshit crazy Bachman shows up, I might flip over for the lullz)

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 7:53 p.m. CST

    Next up: The 2012 GOP Kardashian Debate

    by Doctor_Strangepork

    Herman Cain may get back into the race for that one.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 8:12 p.m. CST

    GOP Debates = Bottom Barrell Reality TV

    by DickBallsworth

    It should be painfully obvious to even the most die-hard Tea Bagger that the Republican party isn't even halfway serious about winning in 2012. This shit is comedy gold. All we can do at this point is keep the pressure on Obama and make him walk the walk so the next four years or the next four years will be the end of America as we knew it.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 8:19 p.m. CST

    GOP Debates = HILARIOUS Bottom Barrel Reality TV

    by NeonFrisbee

    It's AWESOME FUN watching these moronic, completely outta touch sociopaths implode EPICLY on demand.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 8:22 p.m. CST

    Obama ALREADY won.

    by NeonFrisbee

    Forget the fact that the country is doomed either way, I'm just saying. No Republican will vote for Romney because he's a Morman and they're all right-wing Christians. And they won't vote for Newt either because he's a philanderer and failure. Obama won and there's gonna be a massive turn-over in Congress. Kiss the tea-party goodbye. Of course, I say all this keeping in mind that the Dems are really not all that much better than the GOP. Basically, they're just as evil, corrupt, and insane, they're just better at pretending they're not. Enjoy the Empire's collapse!

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 8:39 p.m. CST

    everybodys losing

    by Bobby Brown

    republicans win, we're fucked. democrats win, we're fucked. politics is pointless. no ones ever going to agree on anything. no ones ever going to be happy without everyone else being miserable. we cant even agree on whats "right" and whats "wrong" in seemingly simple, ethical questions. whats the fucking point.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 8:41 p.m. CST

    THIS IS DISGUSTING!!!

    by JaredP

    what the fuck is trump doing hosting a debate? the guy is fraud and a moron. he knows nothing about politics

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 8:59 p.m. CST

    Obama is toast in 2012.

    by DoctorWho?

    Political commentary on AICN is the most silly, uninformed and willfully ignorant on all of the internets. Dance for me clowns.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:02 p.m. CST

    Incorrect theroman44

    by DoctorWho?

    Herc doesn't cover movies. He spends his life gaping slack-jawed at the idiot box. Noble work indeed.

  • Huntsman, Paul, and Johnson are in the wrong party and the fact that anyone would back the other "conservative" frauds or even think that a debate hosted by Donald "Hey, it's all about my ego and ratings!" Trump is a good idea for their party shows just how stupid, fractured, and dangerous the GOP has become. Reap the whirlwind, muthafuckas.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:15 p.m. CST

    Liberals are mad at Obama.

    by gotilk

    But most of these idiot pundits don't realize it's because he's not LIBERAL enough. If anyone thinks someone more conservative will get his votes, they're delusional. The only way he'll lose to this band of idiots, un-electables and ONE good candidate who would probably change the country for the better if he could do what he really wants to do (Paul: and he couldn't, sorry Paulophiles) is if Dems, progressives and liberals simply don't vote. And if you think Newt *I chew out young people for asking one silly question and have zero sense of humor while I cheat on my dying wife* Gingivitis~ is your saviour.... good luck with that. Not gonna happen, even if he ends up winning the nomination. But you watch, after Obama, I would put money on the Democrats having the same *lost in the woods without a viable candidate* problem in a few years. You're welcome. ~I've never been able to remember how to spell his name, and the effort is low priority.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:22 p.m. CST

    Who is going to beat Obama, Doctorwho?

    by Mugato5150

    And don't just say "anyone", really, who isn't either a complete psycho or absolute moron who is going to beat Obama? Huntsman is closest to not being either and he's dead last.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:22 p.m. CST

    I remember being just as irked when Gwen Ifil moderated a debate.

    by DoctorWho?

    She wrote a book about Obama which was recently out at the time. Crickets. I get it.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:27 p.m. CST

    I disagree with Ron Paul on a lot of issues, but I respect him.

    by Voice O. Reason

    Does ANYONE actually respect Newt Gingrich?

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:37 p.m. CST

    Anyone mugato5150

    by DoctorWho?

    But seriously, Romney will probably get the nom. People sense that he knows real world business and economics not some faculty room, theoretical, pipe-dream class warfare, horse shit that people aren't buying. Romney comes off as someone who can 'manage' the economy back to sanity. <p> And no, I don't watch Fox News. I don't even have cable. But I do watch the Matt Lauers' and the Terry Morans' et al of the world... and know how little substantive info you consume.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:44 p.m. CST

    And I feel bad about that truth.

    by gotilk

    I DO think Paul would be good for the country, if he could actually do what he wants to do. But he won't. He'll manage to dismantle any and all safety nets for those most in need while the rich would continue to do exactly what they want, when they want and how they want. While you and I continue to pay out our asses. Sure, deregulation would happen, the budget would be balanced with a surplus. Then your landlord would raise your rent by unheard of percentages at about the same time that your wages and benefits were cut, while your kids move home and you get stuck with grandpa's medical bills. Can't afford that dialysis at 20 grand a month? Well, at least you can choose which doctor lets him die. And what will be the response? You should have worked harder. How will YOU feel after a 7 day work week, being told that? Expect violence in that scenario. And rightly so. People can only be pushed so far. And not because they're owed something, but because they've lived a life being a PART of something they bought into, and paid into. I think most people are fed up, and not with regulation on *small business* (with millions in profit... heh... not exactly mom and pop stores). But you know what they say on Wall Street. When the going gets tough, the tough buy politicians. The rest of you... well you lost didn't you? You must not have worked hard enough. You must not have been smart enough. You must not have played by the rules. Isn't it sinking in yet? You were DUPED. You were told that the welfare moms, pimps and their hoes buying homes they couldn't afford through ACORN, and the *entitled generation* did this. If you can look at the profits, the jobs moved off-shore (and the incentives allowed) as well as the MONEY moved off-shore, after all the subsidies and the tax break games, the betting on loss with other's money, the bonuses paid out for failure,the selling of debt at a loss, and still say that crap... you're not even an American anymore in my eyes. I know that's extreme. But it's time you all wake up. The Dems may not bail YOU out, and most are just as corrupt, but chances are at the very least they won't kill your grandma or make it so that your children end up with 9 roommates in a 3 bedroom house paying cash to a slumlord, or worse... moving back in with you. And if you think for a SECOND that ANY of the Republican candidates will get away with taking ANYTHING away from big money in this country when it comes to *incentives* (free money) or subsidies, or bailouts, you're just flat out dumb. They will tell you what you want to hear all while YOU will continue to pay... while they cut ANY support system out from under you while you go through the austerity that they will surely bring UPON you.... and if not, those you love. But then again, you could always just abandon them like you did your country.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:50 p.m. CST

    Mitt Romney is that creepy uncle at the family reunion

    by Jon Snow

    that you don't leave the kids alone with--and he always shows up at Thanksgiving with his "friend" Lawrence. Get over it. Homosexuals can be pedos too. Equal rights for all I say. Bet you a million dollars the guy smells like Old Spice and folds his toilet paper before he wipes his ass with it. That being said, at least he isn't brain damaged, stupid, or an evangelical christian. The country could do worse if he won.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:54 p.m. CST

    LET THEM EAT CAKE!

    by Bill Clay

    We remember what happened to the last person who said that, don't we?

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:56 p.m. CST

    Gotik , such a long post...based on a single false premise.

    by DoctorWho?

    I could have saved you the time typing all of that.<p> Wealth is not finite. It is NOT a zero sum game. If I make a dollar... it doesn't mean you or someone else LOSES a dollar. If you get a big piece of the pie it doesn't mean that I or anybody else can't get a big piece too. The pie "grows" (or shrinks) depending of the state of the economy. <p> By the way. It takes work, effort and imagination to succeed in life. Don't blame the best system we have for failures... help those who need a leg up.

  • Pence, Huckabee, Barbour, etc. They knew the economy would be in pretty good shape by next year, gas prices would be down, wars would be over, and the tea party hatred over health care would have went away by then. In other words, only the stupid ones ran. Obama should win pretty handily--considering the Republicans have alienated everyone but fetuses and millionaires.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:57 p.m. CST

    You obviously have no idea what're talking about, theroman44

    by Mugato5150

    The OWS doesn't have anything against rich people. They're against the very real corruption that exists between the very few who have all of the wealth and the government they control. It isn't class warfare or envy. It's very real issues. It's the government lending $7 billion to the banks at .015 interest and borrowing it back from the banks at 3%. It's...you know, I don't come here to explain politics to people. Believe what you want.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:58 p.m. CST

    "...crying about the rich."

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    I like the part where people tell other people to just shut up, tighten your belts, and sacrifice. Except for the rich.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 9:58 p.m. CST

    True theroman44

    by DoctorWho?

    Apparently, these rich people just fell out of bed one day and BOOM...they were rich. I'm sure it didn't involve any hard-core effort, blood, sweat or from tears on their part. Nah. Just stealing the common folk blind.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:06 p.m. CST

    re: "Just stealing the common folk blind."

    by Bill Clay

    "Behind every great fortune lies a great crime." - Honore De Balzac, 1835

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:14 p.m. CST

    I'm convinced Trump is working for the Democrats...

    by MST3KPIMP

    It would seem Trump went undercover for the Dems by establishing himself as a birther to win trust from the GOP to which Obama merely appeared to be giving into. Then Trump proceeded to destroy theyre candidates one by one by taking them to dinner which made them all instantly irrelevant.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:15 p.m. CST

    Thank you bill clay

    by DoctorWho?

    For the clarity. Apparently the laundry-mat or restaurant owner who make 200k-300k per year are perpetrators off great crimes. Bastards.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:19 p.m. CST

    the media itself is the biggest joke. forget the so called candidates

    by DanielnocharismaCraig

    Its the media pushing clowns like Perry, Cain, Gingrich and all the rest with their coverage. They still wont admit that were in the midst of an economic depression! Choosing the outright comical "great recession" slogan.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:24 p.m. CST

    That's accurate Mr nice gaius.

    by DoctorWho?

    It sucks to be poor. I've been dirt poor. Rich people have it better. Better schools, health care, options etc. Some may find it odd but this does not generate feelings of envy and hatred in my being. <p> If you (or anyone) works their ass off to get their brass ring (house, car, cruise, big screen etc) I would high five you... not snark at you. One should enjoy the fruits of their labor and in turn give back.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:27 p.m. CST

    the media will never give ron paul a chance

    by DanielnocharismaCraig

    For the simple reason he is against Zionist aggression that targets iran.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:39 p.m. CST

    ''Zionist aggression that targets iran.''

    by DoctorWho?

    I was just knocked out of my chair by the stupidity of that comment. <p> Either that... or you're a Zen Master of sarcasm. (bows low)

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:48 p.m. CST

    doctorwho

    by DanielnocharismaCraig

    Why is telling the truth an act of stupidity? I can list facts to back up my accusations. Can you?

  • even MORE conservative than most, with some truly idiotic ideas like abolishing the EPA or the Dept of Education. I wish online doofuses would stop worshipping him because he wants to legalize drugs and stop the war. Well, so does Dennis Kucinich, and he supports gay people and is pro-choice! Lionize him!

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 10:50 p.m. CST

    DoctorWho?

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    So, you're saying that it's accurate not to ask the rich to sacrifice, just those who are struggling or dirt poor? Is that the cut of your jib?

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 11 p.m. CST

    Um, yes.

    by DoctorWho?

    But really, spare me links to your crazy conspiratorial, Jew hating websites and articles. <p> I'll make it simple... read the charter of Hamas and the endless quotes of Ahmadinejad...just Google 'em. <p> Better yet, go to MEMRI TV and watch some of the wonderful daily Iranian tv programing (complete with subtitles!)It's surreal. Especially the children's programing.<p> Now produce some equivalent of that from the Israeli nation/culture.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 11 p.m. CST

    oh yea there was no rape scene in the sopranos

    by jsfithaca

    did u watch the show? beginning of season 3 there was a brutal one to a main character. anyways, none of the gop candidates have a chance unless they all get behind huntsman which is doubtful. every time i here newt gingrich's name i start laughing. i can't believe hes winning the polls. he will NEVER be elected

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 11:05 p.m. CST

    Um, no. (the ''um, yes'' was for danielnocharismacraig )

    by DoctorWho?

    No, I am not saying that. I am addressing the envy that pervades those who view the rich with contempt. The rich DO have it better. They also pay more in taxes than I make in a year. <p> And why does no one think that 48% of people paying NO taxes is somehow fair?

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 11:13 p.m. CST

    The whole GOP field is a joke - and Obama's not great

    by slayme

    someone commented that people are pissed cause Obama has turned out not to be very liberal - and I agree. he was elected on his promise of Hope and Change - but the change part never happened - or is going reallllly slowly. enter Occupy Wall Street - which despite what people think of it - has sent a clear message to the president that NOW is the time to side with "the people." the fact that Obama WILL get re-elected - and you can take that to the bank yo - shows how far off the right wing deep end the republican party has gone. they want tax cuts for the top 1% and consistently deny science - how can anyone trust them or even take them seriously? i feel kind of bad for Huntsman and Ron Paul and even Gary Johnson (yes he is a Republican running for president - the media ignores him the most) cause they seem to actually stand for SOMETHING at least - but their party is full of crazy people now.

  • Dec. 6, 2011, 11:24 p.m. CST

    doctorwho, re the 48%

    by JerryAurora

    The 48% who do not pay Federal(they do pay state, local, and payroll taxes) do because they simply are below the threshold on a progressive tax code. In other words, they are the working poor. I'm not saying we should blame the rich, but the system has been gamed in their favor. There is mountains of data showing the growing gap between the poor and the wealthy. I am not suggesting we burn the rich, just make the system more fair for all the classes. When the wealthiest of this country can effectively buy government policy, the system is broken. Equality and access is key. Blaming the poor for not paying taxes is irresponsable and is just as much class warfare as blaming the rich.

  • This debate isn't about the candidates. It's about Trump! I wouldn't be surprised if Trump tried to pull on the air, "BTW, here's my new mix CD. Buy it now!"

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 12:46 a.m. CST

    doctorwho?, you can hardly compare Gwen Ifill to Donald Trump

    by oisin5199

    One's a respected journalist, the other's a narcissistic douchebag who happens to be talented at making money. Gwen Ifill never claimed to run for office. And her book was not about Obama. It was about black politicians and the connection between race and politics. It featured Obama, along with many others. Including, prominently, Colin Powell. Who, last time I checked, was a Republican.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 1:12 a.m. CST

    AINT IT 'WE GOT NOTHING REAL' NEWS

    by SpaghettiWall

    Thanks for this Herc.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 1:21 a.m. CST

    Jerryaurora, you beat me to it.

    by KnowItAllFromCali

    I don't think the majority of people view rich people with contempt. I certainly don't. It really is just a matter of looking at the numbers and realizing that if things don't change, the gap between the rich and poor will only get worse. It is not because people are lazy. It is because the rules favor people once they get past a certain rung on the ladder to the extent that they can continue to build their wealth to the detriment of people who have to work for a living.

  • micheal D higgins is now the 9th president of Ireland. best of a bad bunch. and the entire country voted for him. he managed to look presidential. throughout and he knew the job better than the others did... and 8th months after we voted fine gael and labour back in after 15 years, there really is not much difference between them and Fianna fail. the same can be said for all political parties the world over. Cowen was leader long enough to hand back to europe our economic sovreignty, which we had for 90 years. previously....

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 2:29 a.m. CST

    Huntsman is Mormon also

    by room23storeblogspotcom

    So is Harry Reid

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 2:34 a.m. CST

    I don't know that increasing the taxes of the rich is the best way to go.

    by little_lebowski

    A) It'll never get passed so long as we've got a bunch of rich guys in office. And B) It doesn't solve everything, just takes a chunk out of the national debt. And increasing the taxes of corporations is just going to drive up the prices of everything and cause them to cut jobs, making things worse. What I think we really need is an employment policy. In justification of the lower taxes they receive, any persons or companies that make over so much money should be required to maintain some kind of corresponding number of employees. (Hellificare what they have those employees do, so long as its legal.) I think that works. It's only for larger companies so it doesn't hurt small businesses. It stimulates the economy by actually giving people money to buy shit. And by taxing the paychecks of so many legions of newly-employed people, it also takes a large chunk out of the national debt. And the best part is, by modern computing technology plus the data the government already gets from taxing weekly paychecks, it's a requirement that could easily be tracked and enforced by whomever the task already falls to.

  • first it was Bachmann, then Perry, then Cain, now Newt - wtf is wrong with you republicans? all those people are either crazy or assholes. Cenk Uygur called it correctly on his show tonight about why he is no longer a republican - something to the effect of - how can any intelligent person see the horrible direction the republican party has taken and still be a part of that? answer is - an intelligent person can't.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 2:45 a.m. CST

    The Democrats have done the same flavor of the month thing

    by room23storeblogspotcom

    All parties do that when their candidate is not the one running for re-election.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 2:46 a.m. CST

    by shmu65

    You need to read more

  • The GOP should also hire Simon Cowell as a judge to whip the contenders into shape.

  • Cain is just another bullshit artist who never even had a legitimate proposal. (999? no more like 69 in which his mistress ho-bag performed on him.) And damn if he doesn't come off as belligerent. Calling the OWS protesters, lazy and they need to get a Job. Er, scuse me "Brotha" what-fucking-job? The Unemployment rate is still bottoming out at nine percent despite that slight "glimmer of hope" that it somewhat went down. Can you say "seasonal employment" as in temporary employment? Bachman and her F@g hubby does not bode well for the GOP Platform either. ("Blacks were better off as Slaves, because it kept their families closer". You dumb Cunt.) Oh, and let's not forget Rick Perry and his Niggerhead Ranch. Newt, well it's Newt GinGRINCH, the guy who had his then Cancer stricken wife sign off on his divorce papers. Yeah, real classy you Fat Fuck. Donald Chump is another dipshit and his reputation goes without saying. (Not to mention that's he stupid enough to believe that Wacko Jacko did not molest those Boys.) Mitt Romney: Two words: Mor-Mon. Their belief is worse than Scientology. (Magic Underoos? This shit writes itself as a Comedy, and a bad one at that.) Face it Tea Baggers, Neo Con-artists, Zealots and other dipshits, you will LOSE in 2012. FACT

  • ...and they bartender says, "Naw guys, the Republican debate is next door!"

  • They look crazy alike.

  • That's the pattern. When people aren't posting about TV (and thereforethe site isn't getting hits for the Amazon links) he gets political. The flame war begins and his hits skyrocket.

  • Democrats are nothing but a bunch of freeloaders who think they are entitled to things they didn't earn...on MY dime!!!

  • Not saying rich people don't work hard but I'd bet a majority came from money in the first place, like Trump.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 7:16 a.m. CST

    did trump ever disclose his tax return details?

    by rakesh patel

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 7:30 a.m. CST

    @ little_lebowski

    by Mugato5150

    You're falling for the "job creator" rhetoric? The wealthy paying less taxes does not create jobs. That was proven when the whole "trickle down" thing started in the '80s. Demand creates jobs. The super wealthy, I'm not talking about the rich, I'm talking about the ones who sign the rich people's checks, don't pay taxes because of massive loopholes in the tax laws and the fact that most of their income comes from capital gains which is hardly taxed at all. When the wealthy save money on taxes they don't run out and hire people they don't need. They sit on it. And that helps no one. Neither does raising taxes on the middle and lower class. But everyone keep up your bleating on about the OWS people as being lazy hippies.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 7:37 a.m. CST

    No, mr_x_

    by Mugato5150

    And it's my theory that he won't run for that very reason. I don't see him disclosing all his financial records as the law demands anyone who runs.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 8:03 a.m. CST

    Irony of the anti Goverment conservatives

    by Alientoast

    Republican state: We hate the federal government! They give money away, OUR money! Waste and debt! Rabble rabble rabble! *Hurricanes+Tornadoes wreck their state* Republican state: I can haz FEMA funds?

  • On top of state funds.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 9:08 a.m. CST

    Low corporate taxes are the key to an economic recovery

    by MG2112

    As a preface, I am a CFO with over 25 years experience credentialed with a MBA, MSA and CPA certification. That said, I strongly believe that the only way to save the middle class and in essence, our way of life, is to have next POTUS and legislative branch centrally focused upon creating a business-friendly climate. Many companies are maintaining record levels of cash on their balance sheet due to the nature of the current economic & regulatory climates. From a risk / return perspective, it is not a wise business practice to invest in job-creating capital projects due to projected low returns on many projects (due to largely to reduced disposable income and higher direct and indirect input costs such as petroleum & health care). Combine this with higher risks associated with the unknown factors of increased governmental regulation, tax rates, and the overall global economy and it is quite understandable why the US economy has stalled. The only way to rejuvenate the economy is to balance the risk / return equation and to do this, the return side must be addressed. Given the current economic scenario, the only way to effectively and immediately increase the return is by significantly reducing the corporate tax rate. A greater return should mitigate the risk factor associated with low disposable income and the consequent understanding that inventory levels would need to be increased. As more workers are hired to produce the inventory, their personal finances will advance beyond survival mode (paying past due mortgage, credit card, and other bills) and into a position of once again having disposable income. BTW, consumers being in "survival mode" is a key reason why bottom-up stimulus programs are not effective in our current economy. Assuming that one believes the historians who claim FDR's programs resolved the Great Depression, it should be considered that the abundance of credit and resulting debt have made today's personal finance environment much different from those who lived during the Great Depression. Combined with the dramatic increase in imports, one can see the tremendous leakage potential ($ going to debt and / or imports) associated with the current consumer base and thus why it is ineffective to direct Keynesian stimulus money to the end consumer. The big question is if the increase in disposable income will result in the purchase of American-made products. It should be considered that another benefit of lowering corporate tax rates is that the American companies, due to a decreased cost structure, will now be a position to lower their retail prices and thus be in an advantaged position with imports. So, assuming all things equal, the lower price of American-made products should be the enticement for increased spending of both domestic AND foreign consumers.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 9:19 a.m. CST

    Why is it bad?

    by Mr. Evolved

    What difference does it make if the gap between the rich and the poor widens? Being firmly in the middle class, this does not effect me. It also doesn't really affect the poor (which I used to be), because the struggle is the struggle. It is nice and convenient to blame the rich people for being rich and demand that they give more to the poor, but why should they have to? I know if the line for being rich was drawn below what I make and I had to give my money to people who had not earned it I'd be pissed, and so would all of you. Also, First! Because I'm probably the first black republican in this thread.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 9:23 a.m. CST

    mg2112

    by Michael Lunney

    Whatr a load of self interested bullshit you spewed. You are the problem....

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 9:27 a.m. CST

    Mr. Evolved:

    by MG2112

    Seemingly forgotten words of wisdom from the past: "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." - Benjamin Franklin.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 9:32 a.m. CST

    Mcgootoo:

    by MG2112

    Respectfully and in the interest of overall enlightenment (myself included), I am open to a civil debate concerning the merit of the points I addressed.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 9:49 a.m. CST

    Bar Stool Economics

    by MG2112

    A great allegory from University of Georgia professor Davis R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. "Suppose that every day, ten men go out for a beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth and sixth man would end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing. The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20, but he got $10.", declared the sixth man pointing to the tenth man. "Yeah, that's right!", exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I did!" "That's true!!", shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I only got two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute!", yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all! The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes (seem to) get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much or attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is friendlier.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 10:07 a.m. CST

    mg2112

    by Michael Lunney

    Given the current economic scenario, the only way to effectively and immediately increase the return is by significantly reducing the corporate tax rate. bold words - only one thing is possible in your scenario. Why should your faith based recipe for success work now, if it hasn't worked yet? It won't work. You seem to be ignoring reality. Just answer the question. No stat spew. Why not return the tax rate to what is was under Eisenhower? Everyone seems to be nostaligic for the 50s. How much do you make a year?

  • Thanks for playing tho

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 10:39 a.m. CST

    Mcgootoo

    by MG2112

    Thanks for the response. First off, no offense, but my earnings are no one's business but my own. Okay? Next, to further our discussion, we need to identify the key points inherent to my post and determine if we have agreement, and if not, why not. 1. Many business entities have record amounts of cash on their balance sheet. 2. Business decisions are made on the basis of risk / return. 3. Corporate taxes are a cost of doing business and are thus a component of the risk / return equation. 4. Disposable income is a key ingredient in measuring potential sales revenue associated with the risk / return equation (assuming of course that the good or service is elastic in nature). 5. Job creation is primarily the result of private companies investing into expansion projects 6. The key go or no go decision factor on expansion projects is risk / return. 7. Many consumers today are in desparate financial shape with mortgage and consumer debt payments in arrears. 8. Many of the goods that are being purchased with the limited disposable income are imports (ex. HD TVs) and thus economic resources that could be used to support the US economy are instead being diverted to foriegn-based companies.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 10:42 a.m. CST

    Familiarity with kamerschen that is.

    by dahveed1972

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 10:42 a.m. CST

    Dahveed1972

    by MG2112

    Thanks for the response. Do you know the author's name so that I may make a proper citation?

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 10:49 a.m. CST

    Sorry to be douchey

    by Klytus_I.m_Bored

    but I live and work in DC and know some "insider" types on both sides. The only one the Obama folks fear is Huntsman. He's the only one who appeals to the "middle of the road" voters - who are, by the way, the ONLY voters that matter to either side. Fortunately for the Obama folks Huntsman tends to come in last. Remember that the debates we're seeing are for the benefit of the registered members of the Republican party. They don't represent what the ever-holy centrist voters think or would do.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 11:01 a.m. CST

    mg2112

    by Michael Lunney

    Why not start with my request- answer the questions asked of you, minus how much you make. You can give me a ballpark figure if you are uptight sbout it. I asked you kindly. Please answer my questions first, and then we may proceed. Otr are you incapable of answering simple questions? We can start with your answers, if you can back up your cited statement, that is. Why would it work now, if it hasn't yet? Simple. Answering questions with more questions is not debate.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 11:03 a.m. CST

    Fun Talkback Guys!

    by Crow3711

    Let's get this one to 10,000 ya?

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 11:08 a.m. CST

    mg2112

    by Michael Lunney

    What is the name of the company you work for?

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 11:15 a.m. CST

    mg2112

    by Michael Lunney

    So, assuming all things equal, the lower price of American-made products should be the enticement for increased spending of both domestic AND foreign consumers. Not with china supplied Wal-mart selling products cheaply. American made no longer matters to Americans. Cheap is all that matter when the rich have most of the money, money that they will not create new jobs with now, money that they won't create more jobs with if they get even more. If you do not believe this, you are deeply disconnected from current reality. Giving more money to corporations with even bigger tax breaks than what they are getting now will not make greedy people less greedy. Why should it? American corporations hate America and the American worker. They have already proven this. They do not czare about the American worker, they care about money, which they can make motre of withougt the Anmeican worker in their equation.

  • No tenured credentialed professor of economics would put their name on that bullshit "scenario". Just tell your fellow morons that Ben Stein wrote it. Or that john stossel favorite bartender told it to him.

  • What kind of fucked up paranoid scenario is that? Also: Citizenship is not a product you can buy.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 11:38 a.m. CST

    Mcgootoo

    by MG2112

    I will make a good faith deal with you: A generalization of my earnings if you provide me with your background in business and economics so that we may form a foundation for our discussion. Sound fair. First, per my 2010 W2, my gross earnings were in the upper 5 figure range. I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion, but oh well here's to being a good sport. Second, you have debated my post so shouldn't you be the one to provide evidence that directly refutes the claims? Third, I will again be a good sport by temporarily ignoring my second point and play along. The Eisenhower presidency was from 1953 to 1961. Using the the 1958 midpoint, the highest Federal rates were as follows: Individual: 91%, Capital Gains: 25%, and Corporate: 52%. Currently the US has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world but will soon achieve the top position as Japan, currently the "leader", has announced dramatic cutbacks to its rate to help spur its troubled economy. Question: How would increasing the corporate rate to 52% (approx 13% higher than current) help to boost our economy, especially given the fact that foriegn competitors in our ever increasing global marketplace have lower tax rates? Logic tells me that higher costs (taxes are a cost) result in a company having to establish retail prices higher than its global competitors. Higher pricing, in return, results in lower sales volumes and lower employment requirements for American workers. What many do not realize is that corporate taxes are part of the company's cost structure and as such, corporations may be viewed as not actually paying taxes. Instead, corporations attempt to pass their tax assessment to the consumer through higher retail prices. However, foreign companies with lower corporate tax rates and / or lower labor rates tend to have a competitive advantage in pricing that in some cases results in US companies being forced to absorb their inefficient cost structure. So, what does this mean? 1. If the corporation is able to pass 100% of its tax into its retail prices, the end consumer is the one who actually pays the "corporate" tax. This pass-through has no bias among economic classes which results in the poor shouldering a disproportionate amount of the "corporate" tax (wealther individuals have a much higher savings / spending ratio) 2. If the corporation is not able to have 100% of its tax included in its retails: a) Other internal costs will be reduced (i.e. labor reductions through pay increase limitation / freezes, higher production standards, changing to an overseas-based operation) and/or b) Earnings will be decreased resulting in lower stock values and a higher capitalization rate (higher costs) for public corporations. These higher costs result in greater inefficiency. c) Of course lower stock values / returns also have a significant impact upon a company's (and state's) ability to fund pensions through investments, insurance rates (including health care cost), and an individual's ability to retire, and many other issues. These are just a few issues related to corporate taxes. In reality, there is an extremely complicated relationship between individuals and corporate entities but there is no denying that this relationship does exist. The old saying "What is good for GM, is good for America" is very much as true today as it was during the time of its origin.

  • And they will be the more reasonable of the participants there.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 11:40 a.m. CST

    A bit less vitriol would be more productive, perhaps.

    by KnowItAllFromCali

    Then again, perhaps not. :P But really, that scenario is very silly, incredibly speculative, and bears little resemblance to reality.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 11:45 a.m. CST

    mg2112

    by Michael Lunney

    Ignore reality if you must. More corporate tax breaks just sounds insane. I would rather begin by asking you if you agree with anything below: •It is absurd that the 1 percent has taken 40 percent of the nation’s wealth through exploiting labor, outsourcing jobs, and manipulating the tax code to their benefit through special capital tax rates and loopholes. The system is rigged in their favor, yet they cry foul when anyone even dares to question their relentless class warfare. •Candidates in our electoral system require huge sums of money to be competitive. These contributions from multi-national corporations and wealthy individuals destroy responsive representative governance. A system of backroom deals, kickbacks, bribes, and dirty politics overrides the will of the people. The rotation of decision makers between the public and private sectors cultivates a network of public officials, lobbyists, and executives whose aligned interests do not serve the American people. •The entrenched two-party system overlooks public interests by pursuing narrow political goals. This climate encourages candidates to polarize voters for individual power and personal gain. Citizens’ meaningful input has been compromised by gerrymandering, voter disenfranchisement, and unresponsive politicians. Residents of Washington, D.C., continue to lack autonomy and legislative representation. •The 1 percent benefits from economic, political, and legal structures that oppress communities long targeted by displacement, denial of sovereignty, slavery, and other injustices. These persecuted but resilient communities continue to suffer through generations of disproportionately higher rates of unemployment, poverty, criminalization, and homelessness. Facets of the 1 percent campaign to blame these groups for these problems while obstructing healing and restoration. •Those with power have divided us from working in solidarity by perpetuating historical prejudices and discrimination based on perceived race, religion, immigrant or indigenous status, income, age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability, among other things. These divisions have inhibited our ability to work in solidarity, though today we recognize the power of uniting as the 99 percent. •Financial institutions gambled with our savings, homes, and economy. They collapsed the financial system and needed the public to bail them out of their failures yet deny any responsibility and continue to fight oversight. Corporations loot from those whose labor creates society’s prosperity, while the government allows them to privatize profits and socialize risk. •Corporate interests threaten life on Earth by extracting and burning fossil fuels and resisting the necessary transition to renewable energy. Their drilling, mining, clear-cutting, overfishing, and factory farming destroys the land, jeopardizes our food and water, and poisons the soil with near impunity. They privilege polluters over people by subsidizing fossil fuels, blocking investments in clean energy and efficient transportation, and hiding environmental destruction from public oversight. •Private corporations, with the government’s support, use common resources and infrastructure for short-term personal profit, while stifling efforts to invest in public goods. •The U.S. government engages in drawn-out, costly conflicts abroad. Numerous acts of conquest have been, and continue to be, pursued to control resources, overthrow foreign governments, and install subservient regimes. These wars destroy the lives of innocent civilians and American soldiers, many of whom suffer adverse effects throughout life. These operations are a blank check to divert money from domestic priorities. •Government authorities cultivate a culture of fear to invade our privacy, limit assembly, restrict speech, and deny due process. They have failed in their duty to protect our rights. Exacerbated by profiteering interests, the criminal justice system has unfairly targeted underprivileged communities and outspoken groups for prosecution rather than protection. •Corporatized culture warps our perception of reality. It cheapens and mocks the beauty of human thought and experience while promoting excessive materialism as the path ax cto happiness. The corporate news media furthers the interests of the very wealthy, distorts and disregards the truth, and confines our imagination of what is possible for ourselves and society. •Leaders are trading our access to basic needs in exchange for handouts to the ultra-wealthy. Our rights to healthcare, education, food, water, and housing are sacrificed to profit-driven market forces. They are attacking unemployment insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, creating an uncertain future for us all.More t

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 11:47 a.m. CST

    race baiting

    by JamesT

    These articles are akin to race baiting. They are neither cool nor newsworthy of a geek site and frankly are growing very tiresome.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 11:52 a.m. CST

    dahveed1972

    by Michael Lunney

    Do you believe mg2112 can make a point without lying? I am not convinced he can.... He wants to debate, refuses to answer simple questions and then lays down his needs before debating. Does this sound like someone who truly wants to learn, as he pretends, or just another delusional parrot who needs to hide behind stats to ignore the harsh realities for others that he does not have to suffer?

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 11:54 a.m. CST

    alientoast

    by DoctorWho?

    Conservatives are not 'anti government'....they want 'limited' government. Fiscal sanity. Financial responsibility. Not letting debt grow to the point where the nation implodes. <p> Kind of a huge difference there.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 12:04 p.m. CST

    doctorwho?

    by Michael Lunney

    Tell that to all the conservatives who haved been convinced by rich conservative pundits that they should be anti-government - so you aren't you can't speak for all

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 12:09 p.m. CST

    Yeah, I'll get right on that mgoocain

    by DoctorWho?

    It might be easier for you to produce proof of these claims of wanting to abolish the government. Oh, wait...that's the OWS movement. Well, there ya go.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 12:10 p.m. CST

    mg2112

    by Michael Lunney

    Your intent is clear. You want feel superior with your knowledge, but everthing you propose as logic is just more financial rolling of the dice, with results that will only benefit corporations and not unfold as the dream result that won't'happen because you fail to add human greed and emotion into your mathematical conclusions. You are part of the problem. You do not care to understand. You are not thinking of solutions that matter to the vast majority of Americans who still have tenuous job asituations, let alone those who are unemployed with dim prospects. Maybe if you lost you job you might be a little more open to alternative ideas.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 12:13 p.m. CST

    politics

    by Bobby Brown

    this is why it doesnt work. no one will listen to each other. everybody just wants to be right and make sure the other sides wrong. instead of compromise, we want one or the other. instead of working together on real problems, we want to fight over the principle of the thing, instead of fixing the thing. who cares, its all pointless.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 12:20 p.m. CST

    mg2112

    by Michael Lunney

    Your cherry picking ignores the 90% tax rate for the richest during that time period.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 12:27 p.m. CST

    doctorwho?

    by Michael Lunney

    Not sure if you are being willfully ignorant, but you don't have to want to abolish the goverment to be anti-government. You can't win arguments by making up your own definitions of words or phrases.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 12:28 p.m. CST

    general_misinformation

    by Michael Lunney

    Conservatives seem to be much more resistant to cpmpromise, though. That is at least the present reality which cannot be refuted.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 12:30 p.m. CST

    doctorwho?

    by Michael Lunney

    And if you think the OWS wants to abolish government, than you are just being dumb, and most definitely willfully ignorant.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 12:31 p.m. CST

    Mcgootoo

    by MG2112

    Thanks for taking the effort within the bullet points to express your position. From an idealogical standpoint, I honestly will admit to agreeing with many of the ethical and moral concepts you have put forth. The problem is that these ideas represent "what should be" and not "what is" and unfortunately we cannot simply jump from point A to point B in the real world. Our country was founded on the basis of freedoms sustained from maintaining an economic independence from government. As the government increases in size, freedoms are lost. (I believe one definition of the word "govern" is to exercise a restraint over a person or object). If you agree that financial independence is the key to sustaining our freedoms, the next step is to ask where does that financial independence stem from. The answer of course is through working. Now, where do jobs orginate from in this country, the private sector or from government? If you answered the private sector, does it not make sense that for the sake of our freedoms we support business? I am not saying though that government should be fully excluded from business as a regulating agent. No, only the most naive would take this position. However, we must time the need to regulate with the need to create an economic environment where people to sustain themselves through financial independence. Shifting control to government at this point in time will not achieve that objective. I must leave this discussion in part because duty calls. It is importantly to realize and/or remember the cornerstone founding principals of nation and of the tremendous sacrifices made by our ancestors in support of these wonderful principals. We have become blinded by political polarization akin to heated debates of whether the Red Soxs or the Yankees are the better team (really, who gives a s***) and have lost focus of who we are and of the place that we and our children reside.

  • Anti BIG government was probably the term you were looking for right? Words matter. It's amazing what can be implied by leaving out one little word eh? <p> But I suppose the OWS punks with their mishmash messages of anti-semitic rants, pro-Communism groups and clowns calling for full-blown anarchy are more your cup of tea. To each his own.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 12:55 p.m. CST

    see, it doesnt matter

    by Bobby Brown

    we'll never get to a point where everyone agrees on anything. we'll just keep arguing our own points and make the other side look stupid. no point. its useless.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 1:09 p.m. CST

    general misinformation ...I agree

    by DoctorWho?

    But I don't seek agreement, just CLARITY.<p> I don't believe I can change anybody's mind here. That's fine. It's hard enough clarifying misunderstood principles and battling persistent, ignorant stereotypes

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 1:17 p.m. CST

    doctorwho

    by Bobby Brown

    if you dont seek agreement, then why would you want clarity? or to clarify something for anyone else, if theyre just going to disagree with you? or you with them? then it all starts over. whats the point? im honestly asking. what is the point of modern politics when no ones even looking to come to any agreement and just wants to clarify their point for the other side...when the other sides doing the same thing? it doesnt make sense to me.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 1:20 p.m. CST

    see comment above mine for what i mean

    by Bobby Brown

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 1:23 p.m. CST

    When Ron Paul Takes Iowa

    by _Maltheus_

    I can't wait for Paul to win Iowa and watch every media pundit try and play it off as, well Iowa doesn't really matter, RP has no chance of winning. LMFAO. This Week still hasn't interviewed him, opting instead to interview freakin' Santorum last Sunday. The simple truth of this election, which few are covering, in their zeal to ignore Paul, is that if the GOP doesn't get on board and nominate Paul, then it's another 4 years of Obama, guaranteed. 10-20% of the party is firmly in his corner and they will, under no circumstances, vote for a Romney or a Gingrich. On the contrary, we will work to tear the party down if that happens. God forbid he should attempt a 3rd party run, but even if he doesn't (probably won't), people will likely defect to Johnson, who's now likely to run on the Libertarian ticket. We've already won. The GOP must either surrender to us or Obama. There is no other choice. I guess we'll see what matters to them more, their principles or their wars.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 1:33 p.m. CST

    general_misinformation...

    by KnowItAllFromCali

    The internet is for ranting...why are you bothering? If someone is going to make blanket statements and call a huge group of people "OWS punks with their mishmash messages of anti-semitic rants, pro-Communism groups and clowns calling for full-blown anarchy," none of which has any basis in reality, why bother to argue? You're dealing with a twelve-year-old. So what if he/she knows how to use a thesaurus? :P

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 1:35 p.m. CST

    No problem general_misinformation

    by DoctorWho?

    It's simple. <p> Rather than trying to strive for blind, monolithic agreement (an impossibility)we should allow for differing -- but accurately expressed -- opinions.<p> My goal is not to demonstrate that I am right and X is wrong. Eliminating misconceptions and lies about issues... regardless of whether we ultimately agree or not...is all one can ask for. Only then can a real dialogue begin anyway.<p> If you and I can't agree that gravity exists or that the sky is blue, well we couldn't get much further could we. cheers.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 1:37 p.m. CST

    knowitallfromcali

    by DoctorWho?

    Just let me know if you want a link to video of the above mentioned...not to mention lists of assaults and arrests within the group...and I'll be glad to oblige.<p> Again...CLARITY.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 1:38 p.m. CST

    doctorwho?

    by Michael Lunney

    Just admit you are wrong instead of being such a hyberbolic dummy about the OWS. Being against something does not mean you want to remove it. Dummy. I'm against you, but I don't think you have to be removed. I cherish your every thought.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 1:39 p.m. CST

    theveryfirst

    by Michael Lunney

    Thank you. and you are a genius.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 1:41 p.m. CST

    general_misinformation

    by Michael Lunney

    You should be able to see by now he is just an idiot. And your assessment of politics is just about right.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 1:41 p.m. CST

    maltheus_

    by Michael Lunney

    You should know deep down that Ron Paul has no chance of winning. Conservatives like baby steps, if any. It is the only shoes they can fill.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 1:42 p.m. CST

    Don't bother...

    by KnowItAllFromCali

    There are bad eggs in every large group. I don't recall that EVERY tea party goer brought his own personal collection of assault rifles. It's not clarity, it is still a blanket statement using a few cases to demonize an entire movement.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 1:43 p.m. CST

    Is it me,

    by Michael Lunney

    or are the conservatives sounding less sure of themselves lately,that they have to resort to clearly refutable lies to make any point.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 1:45 p.m. CST

    doctorwho

    by Bobby Brown

    thats what i thought was the problem...most people dont want to lsiten to each others clarification and create a dialogue, they just want to put forward their own agenda and not listen to the other side. showing clarity to a "crazy liberal" or a "insane conservative" about why their point might be wrong usually leads to them just digging in further to their own opinion if no one wants to listen (or i guess, not EVERYONE wants to listen), how do we fix that?

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 1:53 p.m. CST

    mg2112 - the problem conservatives have - in your nutshell

    by Michael Lunney

    You say: From an idealogical standpoint, I honestly will admit to agreeing with many of the ethical and moral concepts you have put forth. The problem is that these ideas represent "what should be" and not "what is" and unfortunately we cannot simply jump from point A to point B in the real world. But, we can jump from point A to point B in the real world. The world got in this mess from greedy people jumping from points A to B at their will. There is no reason it can't be fixed in similar manner. And political polarization is caused by conservatives spewing hate 24 hours a day. Liberal news programs are a reaction to that Fox- News led hate.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 1:57 p.m. CST

    For you Mcgoo

    by DoctorWho?

    This is a good start. Let me know if you need more empirical evidence. http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/10/13/more-anti-semitism-at-occupy-los-angeles/ <p> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--O0OIjhZiw&feature=player_embedded

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 2:01 p.m. CST

    Mcgootoo...

    by KnowItAllFromCali

    You see, statements like this... "And political polarization is caused by conservatives spewing hate 24 hours a day." ...are also part of the problem. Casting blame just causes conservatives to tune you out or get defensive. Unfortunately, you are correct that liberal news programs are a reaction. I've noticed that they are becoming more leftist and spewing more venom as time goes on. Ed Schultz is headed for Glenn Beck territory, I'm afraid. :(

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 2:01 p.m. CST

    And now a word from our sponsor -MM

    by Michael Lunney

    And now it is winter. Wall Street rejoices, hoping that the change of seasons will mean a change in our spirit, our commitment to stop them. They couldn't be more wrong. Have they not heard of Washington and the troops at Valley Forge? The Great Flint Sit-Down Strike in the winter of 1936-37? The Michigan Wolverines crushing Ohio State in the 1950 Blizzard Bowl? When it comes to winter, it is the time historically when the people persevere and the forces of evil make their retreat! We are not even 12 weeks old, yet Occupy Wall Street has grown so fast, so big, none of us can keep up with the hundreds of towns who have joined the movement, or the thousands of actions -- some of them just simple ones in neighborhoods, schools and organizations -- that have happened. The national conversation has been irreversibly changed. Now everyone is talking about how the 1% are getting away with all the money while the 99% struggle to make ends meet. People are no longer paralyzed by despair or apathy. Most know that now is the time to reclaim our country from the bankers, the lobbyists -- and their gofers: the members of the United States Congress and the 50 state legislatures. And they're crazy if they think that a little climate chaos (otherwise known as winter in the 21st century) that they've helped to bring about is going to stop us. I would like to propose to my Occupying sisters and brothers that there are many ways to keep Occupy Wall Street going through the winter months. There is perhaps no better time to move the movement indoors for a few months -- and watch it grow even bigger! (For those who have the stamina to maintain the outdoor occupations, by all means, keep it up -- and the rest of us will do our best to help you and keep you warm!) The winter gives us an amazing opportunity to expand our actions against the captains of capitalism who have occupied our homes with their fraudulent mortgage system which has tossed millions of families out onto the curb; a cruel health care system that has told 50 million Americans "if you can't afford a doctor, go F yourself"; a student loan system that sends 22-year-olds into an immediate "debtors' prison" of working lousy jobs for which they didn't go to school but now have to take because they're in hock for tens of thousands of dollars for the next two decades; and a jobs market that keeps 25 million Americans un- or under-employed -- and much of the rest of the workers forced to accept wage cuts, health care reductions and zero job security. But we in the Occupy Movement reject this version of the "American Dream." Instead, I suggest we shift our focus for this winter to the following actions: OCCUPY THE WINTER A proposal to the General Assembly of Occupy Wall Street from Michael Moore 1. Occupy Our Homes. Sorry, banks, a roof over one's head is a human right, and you will no longer occupy our homes through foreclosure and eviction because well, you see, they are our homes, not yours. You may hold the mortgage; you don't hold the right to throw us or our neighbors out into the cold. With almost one in three home mortgages currently in foreclosure, nearing foreclosure or "underwater," the Occupy Movement must form local "Occupy Strike Forces" to create human shields when the banks come to throw people out of their homes. If the foreclosure has already happened, then we must help families move back into their foreclosed homes -- literally (see this clip from my last film to watch how a home re-occupation is accomplished). Beginning today, Take Back the Land, plus many other citizens' organizations nationwide, are kicking off Occupy Our Homes. Numerous actions throughout the day today have already resulted in many families physically taking back their homes. This will continue every day until the banks are forced to stop their fraudulent practices, until homeowners are allowed to change their mortgage so that it reflects the true value of their homes, and until those who can no longer afford a mortgage are allowed to stay in their homes and pay rent. I beseech the news media to cover these actions -- they are happening everywhere. Evictions, though rarely covered (you need a Kardashian in your home as you're being evicted to qualify for news coverage) are not a new story (see this scene I filmed in 1988). Also, please remember the words of Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur of Toledo (in 'Capitalism: A Love Story'): Do not leave your homes if the bank forecloses on you! Let them take you to court and then YOU ask the judge to make them produce a copy of your mortgage. They can't. It was chopped up a hundred different ways, bundled with a hundred other mortgages, and sold off to the Chinese. If they can't produce the mortgage, they can't evict you. 2. Occupy Your College. In nearly every other democracy on the planet, students go to college for free or almost free. Why do those countries do that? Because they know that for their society to advance, they must have an educated population. Without that, productivity, innovation and an informed electorate is stunted and everyone suffers as a result. Here's how we do it in the U.S.A.: make education one of our lowest priorities, graduate students who know little about the world or their own government or the economy, and then force them into crushing debt before they even have their first job. That way has really worked well for us, hasn't it? It's made us the world leader in … in … well, ok, we're like 27th or 34th in everything now (except war). This has to end. Students should spend this winter doing what they are already doing on dozens of campuses -- holding sit-ins, occupying the student loan office, nonviolently disrupting the university regents meetings, and pitching their tents on the administration's lawn. Young people -- we, the '60s generation, promised to create a better world for you. We got halfway there -- now you have to complete the job. Do not stop until these wars are ended, the Pentagon budget is cut in half, and the rich are forced to pay their taxes. And demand that that money go to your education. We'll be there with you on all of this! And when we get this fixed and you graduate, instead of being $40,000 in debt, go see the friggin' world, or tinker around in your garage a la the two Steves, or start a band. Enjoy life, discover, explore, experiment, find your way. Anything but the assistant manager at Taco Bell. 3. Occupy Your Job. Let's spend the winter organizing workplaces into unions. OR, if you already have a union, demand that your leaders get off their ass and get aggressive like our grandparents did. For chrissakes, surely you know we would not have a middle class if it weren't for the strikes of the 1930s-1950s?! In three weeks we will celebrate the 75th anniversary of the workers in my hometown of Flint, Michigan taking over and occupying the General Motors factories for 44 days in the dead of winter. Their actions ignited a labor movement that lifted tens of millions out of poverty and into the middle class. It's time to do it again. (According to the Census Bureau and the New York Times, 100 million Americans either live in or near poverty. Disgraceful. Greed has destroyed the core fabric of our communities. Enough!) Here are two good unions to get your fellow workers to sign up and join: UE and SEIU. The CWA are also good. Here's how to get a quick primer in organizing your place of employment (don't forget to be careful while you do this!). If your company is threatening to close down and move the jobs elsewhere, then it's time to occupy the workplace (again, you can get a lesson in how to successfully occupy your factory from my movie). 4. Occupy Your Bank. This is an easy one. Just leave them. Move your checking and your credit card to a nonprofit credit union. It's safe and the decisions made there aren't based on greed. And if a bank tries to evict your neighbor, Occupy the local branch with 20 other people and call the press. Post it on the internet. 5. Occupy the Insurance Man. It's time to not only stand up for the 50 million without health insurance but to also issue a single, simple demand: The elimination of for-profit, privately-controlled health insurance companies. It is nothing short of barbaric to allow businesses to make a profit off people when they get sick. We don't allow anyone to make a profit when we need the fire department or the police. Until recently we would never allow a company to make a profit by operating in a public school. The same should be true for when you need to see a doctor or stay in the hospital. So I say it's long overdue for us to go and Occupy Humana, United Health, Cigna and even the supposed "nonprofit" Blue Crosses. An action on their lawns, in their lobbies, or at the for-profit hospitals -- this is what is needed. So -- there are my ideas for the five places we can Occupy this winter. Help the foreclosed-upon to Occupy their homes. Occupy your college campus, especially the student loan office and the regents meetings. Occupy your job by getting everyone to sign a union card -- or by refusing to let the CEO ship your job overseas. Occupy your Chase or Citi or Bank of America branch by closing your account and moving it to a credit union. And Occupy the insurance company offices, the pharmaceutical companies' headquarters and the for-profit hospitals until the White House and Congress pass the true single-payer universal health care bill they failed to pass in 2010. My friends, the rich are running scared right now. You need no further proof of this than to read this story from last week. The Republicans' top strategist met privately with them and told them that they had better change their tune or they were going to be crushed by the Occupy Wall Street movement. They didn't have to change their greedy actions, he assured them -- just the way they talk and PR the situation. He told them never to use the word "capitalism" -- it has now been made a dirty word by the Occupy movement, he said. Only say "economic freedom" from now on, he cautioned. And don't criticize the movement -- because the majority of Americans either agree with it or are feeling the same way. Just tell the Occupiers and the distressed Americans: "I get it." Seriously. Yes, in just 12 short weeks we have killed their most sacred word -- Capitalism -- and we have them on the run, on the defensive. They should be. Millions are coming after them and our only goal is to remove them from power and replace them with a fair system that is controlled by the 99%. The 1% have been able to get both political parties to do their bidding. Why should only 1% of the population get to have two parties -- and the rest of us have none? That, too, is going to change. In my next letter, I will suggest what we can do to Occupy the Electoral Process. But first we must start with those who pull the strings of the puppets in the Congress. That's why it's called Occupy Wall Street. Always better to deal with man in charge, don't you think? Let's Occupy the Winter! An #OWS Winter will certainly lead to a very hopeful American Spring.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 2:04 p.m. CST

    @mcgootoo

    by _Maltheus_

    Republican elephants, like the herd animals they are, get onboard with whoever is the perceived winner. Ron Paul most certainly has the organization in place to take Iowa and the polling reflects that. At some point, they'll recognize where all the energy is and get on board. If not they'll lose. Either way, deep down, I most definitely do believe he has a shot at winning because I know our stratgey and I'm now familiar enough with the caucus system to see how it can work.

  • But just to clarify I will assume you are not refering to the plethora of evidence that Zionist lobbyists have in fact, bent the American political system to Israels will? Just Israel itself? Ok then. Did you know a non-Jew cannot legally be married to one of Jewish background in Israel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Israel Not that I am a Christian by means, but did you know Christians are routintely abused and assaulted in Israel with no intervention by the proper authorities? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UCpWqWkInk Now if Jewsus................oops if Jesus worshipping Christians can be treated as such, just imagine what the Islamic Palestinians must go through day after day suffering such abuse! It is no wonder political organizations such as Hamas were influenced as such.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 2:10 p.m. CST

    maltheus_ everyone has a shot at winning

    by Michael Lunney

    So, I hope Ron Paul is your candidate.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 2:11 p.m. CST

    doctorwho? - yeah yeah, whatever

    by Michael Lunney

    The OWS is all about hating Jews. What a moron.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 2:15 p.m. CST

    knowitallfromcali

    by Michael Lunney

    Stop with the faux equivalency BS conservatives are most famous for. My statement is a reaction to the problem, identifying a problem is not automatically being part of it. Conservatives are always defensive, because they have to be with the ant-American, anti-self-interest views they hold. I don't mind if all conservatives tuned me out. Less idiots to respond to.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 2:20 p.m. CST

    Please inflate your shoes before entering the tramway...

    by Michael Lunney

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 2:21 p.m. CST

    danielnocharismacraig

    by Michael Lunney

    I guarantee you Dr. Who? has no idea what you are talking about.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 2:23 p.m. CST

    I do believe we are all bozos on this bus...

    by Michael Lunney

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 2:25 p.m. CST

    Sure, alienate everyone then...

    by KnowItAllFromCali

    That solves everything.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 2:35 p.m. CST

    Doing a comparison between Israel and Iran mcgootoo

    by DanielnocharismaCraig

    Are you an Israeli apologist as well?

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 3:41 p.m. CST

    danielnocharismacraig

    by Michael Lunney

    no

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 4:11 p.m. CST

    so, Gingrich is attending because he has ZERO integrity

    by Asimov_Lives

    You Teatards are SO screwed!

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 4:52 p.m. CST

    by m2298

    Christians are not "routintely [sic] abused and assaulted in Israel with no intervention by the proper authorities" . Such things unfortunately happen, but they are not "routine".

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 5:28 p.m. CST

    Thanks for playing mcgoocain

    by DoctorWho?

    Ask yourself this: Imagine if those two links (and I didn't even post the good stuff) were actually from a Tea Party rally...<p>

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 5:33 p.m. CST

    ''Doing a comparison between Israel and Iran ''

    by DoctorWho?

    Just wondering danielnocharismacraig, are you saying Israel and Iran are morally equivalent?

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 6:52 p.m. CST

    What did the banned one say?

    by FrodoFraggins

    I myself get joy from blowhard Trump having candidates bail on his farcical debate.

  • Huntsman is really their best bet, but hes not Fox News friendly (and he briefly worked for Obama) so hes a real long shot.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 7:21 p.m. CST

    if you rearrange the letters in CAIN it spells AICN *gasp*

    by Hey_Kobe_Tell_Me_How_My_Ass_Tastes

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 7:22 p.m. CST

    dahveed1972

    by DoctorWho?

    Dude, Romney will be the nominee. Newt will step in it at some point. He's super smart but also a loose canon. He may be effective, but he's too 'unlikeable'.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 8:07 p.m. CST

    And CAIN made pizza...Harry LOVES pizza!!

    by DoctorWho?

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 9:25 p.m. CST

    yeah romney or gingrich at this point.

    by DanielnocharismaCraig

    AIPAC has to reward their gimp followers for helping to pimp their asses after all these years after all. And what a suck job those two have done for israel. Its the main reason insane mccain got the nod in 2008.

  • Dec. 7, 2011, 9:36 p.m. CST

    doctorwho?

    by DanielnocharismaCraig

    Imo, there is no comparison between the two. Only one nation is influencing other countries to do its dirty work for it and attempting land grabs at the expense of its neighbors to boot. Iran has the moral high ground. But what I was trying to explain to you is how israel commits far more apprehensible crimes in comparison to hamas. And I can't even think of any negative actions dr.ahmadinejad has tooken either foreign or domestic against his critics.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 1:50 a.m. CST

    Newt Gingrich leads the polls... I mean come on...

    by Andrew Coleman

    Aren't most Republicans voting for Obama at this point? I mean now when people bitch and complain about Obama they seem to only have half a heart into it. Mainly because these GOP candidates are all losers, accept for Huntsman, problem for him is no one knows he even exists because he's a moderate.

  • ...giving any woman who wears a prayer shawl or READS THE TORAH at the wailing wall 7 YEARS IN PRISON. That's right, if a woman dares read the Jewish holy book at Judaism's holiest shrine, it's 7 years in slam. And wingers bitch about how bad Sharia law is (it is, but Mosaic law is just as bad!) The religion of Abraham and it's spin-offs, Christianity and Islam are a blight on civilization.

  • I've wondered if this is what could be happening, or if it is technically possible to do. I could see this as payback by the Democrats for what Rush and his followers tried to do to derail Obama back in 2008, and what the Republicans have been known to historically do by propping up false Democratic candidates in state elections.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 6:56 a.m. CST

    Prof.cult

    by Bobo_Vision

    You would think that's the case because how else could someone like Gingrich get so much support...but remember....Republicans voted for Bush twice.

  • I really wonder if this is what could be happening. It could also explain how Cain rose to the top quickly, too, and why there was such a rapid response to take him down. Now this informal coalition has shifted to prop up Gingrich, but now it looks like it could work with Gingrich. The pushback response is that the elites could take over the nomination process, bar all the delegates that Gingrich wins from the convention, saying fuck you to everyone, and crown Romney regardless. This is what essentially happened in 2008 when it looked like it was handed to McCain, who suddenly rose to the top despite having consistently polled badly leading up to the primary season. The GOP freely changes the rules for their nomination process.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 7:49 a.m. CST

    by has_snyder_been_fired_from_superman_yet

    by m2298

    Israel has never passed any such law. It was proposed by one party but never passed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_of_the_Wall

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 7:53 a.m. CST

    mg2112 Bar Stool Economics

    by mulberry

    @mg2112 You forgot the bit in the bar where the 10th guy tries to explain why what he does for a living is anything between one hundred and a million times better than what the other guys do for a living, meaning he gets paid that factor more than they do.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 7:55 a.m. CST

    Iran's moral "high ground"

    by m2298

    "I can't even think of any negative actions dr.ahmadinejad has tooken [sic] either foreign or domestic against his critics." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election,_2009#Government_actions And one may criticize Israel for collateral damage when it bombs Hamas targets in Gaza, but I don't recall it sending bombers into pizzarias or buses.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 10:20 a.m. CST

    Mulberry

    by MG2112

    Thank you for the comment. You are probably correct. However, in the interest of full disclosure we should probably also consider the factors that allowed this person to be in the position she or he is in: 1. The cost and time commitment of obtaining an undergraduate degree. 2. The cost and time commitment of obtaining a graduate-level degree. and possibly: 2b. The cost and time commitment of obtaining a post graduate-level degree and / or 2c. If the individual is an entrepreneur, the cost of capital, risk of failure, time commitment associated with incubating and sustaining business operations. 3. 70 - 80 hour work weeks (sans overtime) required to position the person for advancement. 4. The time and money spent in continuous professional education in order for the person to remain current in his or her profession. 5. Business trips that require the person to be away from family and friends. Is there a greater gain for individuals who elect to pursue this type career path? Of course there is (or at least should be); that is the foundation by which this country was built upon - hard work and risk assumption equals a greater potential for wealth accumulation. The great thing about this country is anyone can decide to endure these hardships in order to pursue the chance of self betterment. It is important to keep in mind that nothing in life is guaranteed. If one risks, one may prosper or one may lose - this is the nature of the real world. However, it is only proper for a person who risked and as a result gained, to realize higher economic benefits than the person who decided not to engage in the time, money, and risk commitments required to obtain a higher economic standard of life. Bottom line: Forgive the bluntness, but if a person wants a better life, stop listening to hypocritical hate mongers such as Michael Moore spreading the BS about how unfair life is and instead leave the comfort of pack and blaze your own trail.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 10:25 a.m. CST

    prof. pop-cult- fuck the system however you can

    by Michael Lunney

    I am a libeal registered as a Republican just so I can vote for the wrong Republicans during primaries Wish more would do the same Fuck the system- it fucks us

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 10:34 a.m. CST

    Thanks danielnocharismacraig

    by DoctorWho?

    I thought as much.<p> "I can't even think of any negative actions dr.ahmadinejad has tooken [sic] either foreign or domestic against his critics." <p> Amazing. Iran is a police state and engages in torture, flogging, amputations, stoning and multiple public executions. The Iranian government is responsible for jailing, intimidating, and isolating Iran’s preeminent thinkers, filmmakers, lawyers, journalists and civil society activists. <p> Israel (for all it's faults) is the ONLY democracy in the middle east. It's the size of a postage stamp on a football field surrounded by nations who generally hate Jews and want to see their destruction.<p> Gee, I know which one I would choose.<p> Exit question: Name the one country in the middle east who has an annual gay pride parade. Doesn't this tell you something?

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 10:41 a.m. CST

    Doctorwho?

    by MG2112

    So basically, it "ain't" perfect but its the best option around. Hmmm..., it appears that our discussion topics are dovetailing.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 10:41 a.m. CST

    Thanks uberfreak!

    by DoctorWho?

    That one sentence speaks VOLUMES about you.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 10:46 a.m. CST

    mg2112

    by Michael Lunney

    You say: Bottom line: Forgive the bluntness, but if a person wants a better life, stop listening to hypocritical hate mongers such as Michael Moore spreading the BS about how unfair life is and instead leave the comfort of pack and blaze your own trail. Right, only listen to hypocritical hate mongers such as Rush Limbaugh spreading the BS about how unfair life is, but only unfair under Democratic presidents. His hate will ensure a better life for all. At least we know you bias, mg2112, as if it were in question

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 10:49 a.m. CST

    Yes, this expectation of a ''perfect'' system is dumfounding.

    by DoctorWho?

    And yet they clamor for a European style, social welfare system that we can see collapsing before our very eyes in Europe. We see empirical evidence of how the social welfare state will inevitably implode with a mathematical certainty...and STILL people say "YES give us THAT!"<p> Remember that definition of INSANITY?

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 10:54 a.m. CST

    At least we know you bias, mg2112, as if it were in question

    by DoctorWho?

    LOL! You're implying that you're some kind of moderate, objective observer? Dude, you're one of the most radical leftists here! And I don't say that as a pejorative either.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 10:55 a.m. CST

    mg2112

    by Michael Lunney

    You say: However, it is only proper for a person who risked and as a result gained, to realize higher economic benefits than the person who decided not to engage in the time, money, and risk commitments required to obtain a higher economic standard of life. Or, if your daddy is filthy rich, you can risk nothing and be a rich, greedy, fuck the poor kind of SOB thanks to your luck of birth. You do tend to leave things out to support a hollow conservative point of view. The times they are a changin' and all that money and power will not be able to stop the majority from peacefully correcting the current economic inequities, no matter how many protesters heads get bashed in in the process. Oh, you can try....

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 10:57 a.m. CST

    You may have seen it...Adam Carolla on OWS

    by DoctorWho?

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

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 11:07 a.m. CST

    mg2112 - I do not blindly hate the rich

    by Michael Lunney

    Only the greedy. I have a friend of over 30 years who inherited $27 million this year. He is a very generous soul, and he is gay and he is a conservative.. His father abused him his entire life, right up until the end. His son was his father's caretaker. He loved his father, but always through a veil of tears. He admits his father scared him for life. He is helping me through tough financial times right now, but that is his choice. Without him, I might not be able to make it. I know that there are many more financially secure people like him helping to make the world a better place. But then, there are those who are not so generous. And that will change, because they became too obvious with their greed. I trust that American justice will prevail, that is, if the system is not so seriously broken by those greedy power brokers as to be beyond repair. But in the true American spirit, anything is possible. MORE tax breaks for the wealthy? No.

  • Very cool that he is helping you. In all seriousness, good people like your friend should have the liberty to give as they please. Not forced.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 11:15 a.m. CST

    doctorwho?

    by Michael Lunney

    Yeah, whenever anyone thinks of genius, they automatically think of Adam Carolla. Your hero.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 11:16 a.m. CST

    Hmmm, I wasn't aware I claimed him as a genius.

    by DoctorWho?

    Just a regular guy with common sense observations.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 11:17 a.m. CST

    doctorwho?

    by Michael Lunney

    I implied nothing. But yes I am a left of left leftie, also left handed and proud of it. But I'm not a commie. Thank you.,

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 11:34 a.m. CST

    doctorwho?

    by Michael Lunney

    He's a dime a dozen idiot with the same lazy reaction as you, so, admire your king of idiots, because no one else cares.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 11:37 a.m. CST

    Mcgootoo

    by MG2112

    You are using outlining data points to support broad-based generalizations in order to conform to your narrow and subjective view of the world. Are there rich punks who have things that they have not earned? Of course there are, but do you truly believe that these individuals represent the majority proportion of those with a higher standard of living? What about people who sacrifice in terms of time, money, and risk in order to better themselves in life - Are you saying that no matter how much effort a person applies, she or he should be paid the same amount? I do not expect you to answer these questions but I will ask you and those with similar POVs to at least consider these points. For what its worth, when I was (much) younger, I was a long haired guitar playing (hence the 2112 reference) rebel who believed he had the world completely figured out. Abbie Hoffman was the man and the country club F***s were the greedy enemies who I believed were causing all the problems in the world. It seemed so simple back then; all we had to do was go from point A to point B and presto, all the world's problems would be resolved. Although my father and I were in constant conflict back then, he patiently listened to my POV on these issues. He never directly debated the merits of points but instead just said that I would have a much greater understanding of the world if and when I was ever in the position of having to ensure that payroll for a group of workers was met each and every week. Several years later after college, I found myself in the exact position and this is where my understanding of the world, as detailed in my previous posts, originated from. I sat down with him afterwards and, with egg somewhat on my face, I admitted to him he was absolutely right. I began to see that Abbie Hoffman was right in concept but he lacked the details necessary to implement his ideas in a manner that would ultimately result in a more superior society. Today, rich spoiled celebrities like Michael Moore and Alec Baldwin have taken Mr. Hoffman's place in society. However, nothing has really changed. The rhetoric and the lack of foresight necessary to effectively implement ideology into effective actions that achieve long-term objectives is still the same.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 11:42 a.m. CST

    doctorwho?

    by Michael Lunney

    Thank you for your kind words, but taxes are forced on all of us, unless are too poor to qualify. The super rich can afford to spend a little more. THey are notr too poor to qualify. Under Eisnhower, they were taxed up to 90%. They are not currently rising to the occasion to help the country, because they are the country, or so they think. But there are more of us than there are of them. When your taxes go up, you are forced to pay them. Some corporations pay no taxes. Bad for America. The rich just need to attend charm school classes so they can play better with others. Sorry if I get harsh with you. It is the times, and this site that brings it out in me. Passion sometimes makes me free with insults, but I feel insulted daily by the state of our country. I am just being an American. My best friend is a libertarian and a Christian. I love him like family, we used to fight, but set it aside. I know I will never change the way conservatives think, but it is sometimes fun trying.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 11:52 a.m. CST

    mg2112

    by Michael Lunney

    You say: You are using outlining data points to support broad-based generalizations in order to conform to your narrow and subjective view of the world. And your narrow and subjective view of the word is superior? Please.... Too bad you couldn't maintain the courage of your earlier convictions.. The world can go from A to B, despite your failure and/or inability to help it along. Keep the conservative faith with your rich spoiled celebrities like Limbaugh. At least I recognize your intelligence. Peace.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 11:59 a.m. CST

    Mcgootoo

    by MG2112

    I concur with doctorwho?'s post and wish you the best in a quick resolution to your current financial situation. I am interested in your perception of a corporation, specifically on defining this entity and also why you believe that it should be taxed more. BTW, this is not a setup; I am only trying to understand why some believe corporate entities should be demonized. I also hope to provide additional insight that may help to widen your perspective. Regarding the 90% highest marginal individual tax rate, what do you think will happen to the economy if an additional 40% - 50% of this money were removed from the private sector and given to the government? Do you believe that the government yields a higher economic multiplier than private business? If so, please explain your reasoning.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 12:25 p.m. CST

    Hell mcgoo, let's make it 90% again

    by DoctorWho?

    What if...<p> ...we confiscated 90% of all the "rich" peoples wealth. <p> A) How will that help you?<p> B) Once their money is gone...where does the next batch come from?<p>

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 12:34 p.m. CST

    Mcgootoo

    by MG2112

    I believe that your ideology is more ambitious and truely wish it were possible. However, I have seen the inner workings on the other side of the curtain and am fairly certain that without a complete overhaul of the economic systems, governance, and societal ethics and morality, this manner of change is highly improbable. Call me a pessimist, but I believe the very nature of life invalidates the change that you speak of. Our maker appears to have had somewhat a twisted sense of morality as for one life to continue living, another life must be sacrificed through consumption. So, just basic survival requires an inequity and injustice among two life forms. This is really the baseline sense of subjective justice after which additional injustice is inherent through differences among the living beings. Forgetting about income levels for a moment, could we say that if, for example, a person was overweight, she or he was actually committing a form of injustice (consuming more than what was needed to sustain life)? Would we ever tell anyone (say Michael Moore) that he was committing acts of injustice against other life forms because his consumption patterns exceed that which was deemed within the confines of baseline justice? Of course not. However would we tell Michael Moore (or Rush Limbaugh) that they are committing acts of social injustice because they possess property that exceeds the societal norm? In other words they have more than they need so they should surrender everything except the basic essentials to the community chest? Hmm... Should Rush, Michael, Alec, Oprah, et al. be forced to also empty their bank accounts into the community chest as well? Who decides what is a fair portion of property that a person should possess and by which standards are the decisions based upon? How do we know that the person making the decisions on asset allocation is doing it with just and honest intentions and not pursuing a path of enlighted self interest? (absolute power corrupts absolutely.) Will Pete Townshed be proven right again and the new boss becomes the same as the old boss? Keep fighting the fight if you wish, but for your own sake I would consider these thoughts as you contemplate raging against the machine. In the end, you are ultimately responsible to yourself and your own well-being.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 12:47 p.m. CST

    mg2112/Dr. Who?

    by Michael Lunney

    Tax the richest a little more? Why not? If it doesn't work, go back to what it is now, or even less taxes. But, what if it helped? Everything is worth a try. Because things are just getting worse right now. Better question: Is the economic situation in this country ok as is, or do fixes need to be made anywhere? If you believe fixes need to be made, what might those fixes be directed at, and please refrain from saying partisan things like the things deomocrats broke, or some other simplistic notion. Other wise, yeah, I guess rich people should have all the money and slaves for labor. That might ber ideal. WE only need bread and water to survive. The rich deserve the rest. Sorry guys, you are in your world, I am in mine. We are not gaining anything from this discussion, except reinforced beieve on both sides. I guess that is something.

  • Hes the definition of a pseudo-intellectual. There are no true academics - conservative or liberal - who thinks hes anything but a buffoon. That said, compared to say Rick Perry or Herman Cain or Michelle Bachman, yeah i guess he is the "smart" one. Mitts not an idiot, just a complete and utter fraud that is pretty much despised by the tea party/religious whackjob base. But as i said before, he will still probably get the nod after Newt implodes in the next few weeks/months.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 2:34 p.m. CST

    reasonable, that is.

    by dahveed1972

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 2:45 p.m. CST

    Heres a quote from the evil commie Teddy Roosevelt:

    by dahveed1972

    Too much cannot be said against the men of wealth who sacrifice everything to getting wealth. There is not in the world a more ignoble character than the mere money-getting American, insensible to every duty, regardless of every principle, bent only on amassing a fortune, and putting his fortune only to the basest uses —whether these uses be to speculate in stocks and wreck railroads himself, or to allow his son to lead a life of foolish and expensive idleness and gross debauchery, or to purchase some scoundrel of high social position, foreign or native, for his daughter. Such a man is only the more dangerous if he occasionally does some deed like founding a college or endowing a church, which makes those good people who are also foolish forget his real iniquity. These men are equally careless of the working men, whom they oppress, and of the State, whose existence they imperil. There are not very many of them, but there is a very great number of men who approach more or less closely to the type, and, just in so far as they do so approach, they are curses to the country. (Forum, February 1895.) Mem. Ed. XV, 10; Nat. Ed. XIII, 9.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 2:51 p.m. CST

    Well it's been another fabulous political TB.

    by Sithtastic

    Full of the usual non-sequitirs and ad hominems. All of it awe inspiring, really. But I'll address the topic before I address the race for both the nomination and the presidency, respectively. Finally I want to address this notion of a "radical" GOP field, policy wise. Donald Trump is an attention whore, whose views have absolutely no place in the GOP. To call him a Republican In Name Only (RINO) would be too kind. It's no small wonder then that Romney's skipping the debate, because he essentially gains nothing from attending and should spend more time campaigning. Gingrich, ever the master debater, will attend, if only to prove (rather obnoxiously) he's the smartest man in the room. The race is basicly a two-man dynamic: Romney and not Romney (whoever that is). Mitt Romney has built a national organization that is well financed and exhibits not only patience, but discipline as well. This is not an endorsement, it is merely a statement of fact. Romney has outlasted, outpaced and simply out performed his competitors, all of whom seek to replace Mitt. Right now, Newt Gingrich has gained attention, but looking more closely, his organization is lacking (state by state). Karl Rove even had an article in today's WSJ that demonstrated Gingrich had problems getting on the primary ballot in places like OH and MO. In short, despite all his rhetorical skills, he just can't go the distance and that's even before we get to his reputation. I suspect Romney will weather the storm in what will be a long, drawn out primary. Iowa really is a tempest in a tea cup and seldom determines the winner. I expect Gingrich to win there just barely with Paul and others nipping at his heels. New Hampshire will go to Romney. South Carolina will in act contrary to its usual role in GOP primaries (determining the nominee) will go to whoever has seized the anti-Mitt mantle, most likely Gingrich. After that, there's Florida and a host of others, but when the smoke clears, Romney will (much to my chagrin and utter indifference) be the nominee. Regardless, the GOP nominee will lose to president Obama, due to just an outright failure to ignite their base. No matter how bad his approval rating, no matter how vulnerable, his Chicago-style machine will run essentially a negative campaign of roughly a billion dollars in trash ads. By the time they're finished, you might think the nominee eats babies. The whole thing will make Lee Atwater look like a headshop clerk in Haight Asbury. Which brings us to this notion of whose "radical". A key rule in politics is never have your enemies define you. I don't think I need to go into about how Team Obama is going to do this. The only thing worse that that is knowing full well that he could have very well been beaten, but the field is far too flawed. So I have to ask you guys, how is it radical is defined exactly? Because these guys aren't it. Romney - The MA healthcare bill or Romneycare has been the proverbial albatross around Mitt's neck since he got in the race. He's flip-flopped more than a dying trout on issue after issue, trying to re-cast himself as the conservative in the race. Now the "good" news for Mitt is while these facts from the 2008 campaign have run their course, we're still elephants...and the elephant never forgets who you were as opposed to who you say you are. Conclusion: MODERATE. Gingrich - The former House Speaker had all sorts of trouble leading in the legislature and his former collegues most frequently use the word "erratic" to define him. While Gingrich may be something of a conservative economically and claims to be an inovative thinker, he has had to run headlong away from his own comments on Rep. Paul Ryan's plan to actually save Social Security in the budget. Gingrich actually deigned it "right-wing social engineering". In his post-Speaker career he's shown up on bi-partisan plans with everyone from Hilary Clinton to Nancy Pelosi. How ever in the world would anyone call him a radical? Paul - A Neo-isolationist, neo-nativist, libertarian purist in his own right, Rep. Paul is no stranger to making controversial statements. However, his position on foreign policy makes him a non-starter. He may be a radical only in that he the standard bearer for a breed of conservatism not seen since the 1930's. He remains unacceptable as the nominee in my eyes. Perry - The TX Governor is a long-time social conservative, but even he has gone the statist route from time to time on things like state-wide HPV vaccinations. One might consider him radical, only if you think cutting worthless apendages like the Department of Energy (itself an abomination) from the federal body to be "radical". It'd be nice if Governor Perry himself could remember this when it counts. Bachmann - Putting your foot in your mouth does not make you a radical. Suggesting that you're on the "vaccinations cause autism" bandwagon might make you crazy, but not a radical. Bachmann's trouble remains her uncanny ability to have bad press stick to her like velcro. Santorum - Another long-time social conservative, Santorum might not be "radical" enough to have garnered enough support. He was once a successful Senator from PA. Now he's a non-factor. Huntsman - Speaking of non-factors, the most moderate man alive can't get it started with the base not b/c he's a moderate (technically the only candidate to Mitt Romney's left), but b/c he doesn't really have a base of his own to bring to the table. He's whole Manchurian candidacy wreaks of poltitical opportunism and a poorly calculated misreading of not only the GOP base but indeed the general electorate. Conclusion: You're still a RINO in my book, Jon.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 3:25 p.m. CST

    dahveed1972

    by Michael Lunney

    GREAT QUOTE The more things change the more they stay the same.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 3:26 p.m. CST

    sithtastic

    by Michael Lunney

    Draft Herman Cain- he is the country's only hope...

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 3:41 p.m. CST

    dahveed1972

    by Michael Lunney

    He is considered smart because of the bulging, Metalunan forhead of his he has to contain his bulbous brain.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 4:54 p.m. CST

    here is how modern iran came about....

    by emeraldboy

    there was a man called the shah of iran. He was to start of with a very popular guy and he was friends with the us. but the more the powerful he became the more repressionary he became and by the 1970s he became a big problem for the united states. One of those people who had been exiled from iran was man called aytollah Khomenini. He was no fool and lulled the us into a false sense of security, he played the united states so well, he made them believe that if he returned to the us he would restore thier democracy to iran. what the us didnt realise of course was the Khomenini had sleeper sells in iran and he was busy prepping his return. to his beloved tehran. By the time of khomenini return. the formerly american back shah was so hated and despised by the iranian people, that they were flocking to Khomenini. When the election that brought khomenini to power was over, the us govt's blood drained from face when aytollah banned all foreign media, banned all politic parties and set up the ruling clerical council that runs iran today. aytollah khomeini had outsmarted the united states and utterly humiliated them. he set up the iranian republican guard. Iran is an armed theocratic state. The mullahs of iran control it and have done so for that past thirty years. us govt hates what it doesnt understand. us govt hates islam....or at least the christo fundies do...

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 4:57 p.m. CST

    Well, thanks for not answering the question mcgoo

    by DoctorWho?

    I find that most lefties just feel good about an idea an are really not concerned with actual results. As long as they feel better about themselves in the short- term and pat themselves on the back for feeling more ''compassionate'' (in their minds) than their fellow citizen. Leftism is based on feelings not objectivity. Critical thinking doesn't much enter the picture.<p> It's called Stage One thinking. Stage One is the immediate result of an action, without determining what happens then. The term was coined by economist Thomas Sowell (Note, Mr. Sowell is black man AND a fiscal conservative. To you lefties out there that would classify him as 'uppity')

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 5:38 p.m. CST

    We are not gaining anything from this discussion,

    by DoctorWho?

    On the contrary, I'm gaining a LOT of CLARITY by reading these comments. False premises abound!<p> I can see WHY you think what you think based on the patently absurd concepts that make up the foundation of your ideas. Quite fascinating actually.<p> Example: ''I guess rich people should have all the money and slaves for labor" LOL<p> Yeah, go on. Just keep thinking that. Like that idiot Clyburn saying conservatives would “love” to see black Americans “hanging on a tree.”<p> I'm 99.999% positive you take that as an absolute fact. <p> In a word: Reprehensible.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 7:40 p.m. CST

    Way to win any debate with Santorum with 2 words...

    by gotilk

    Google Santorum. Cheap? Hell yes. Deservedly.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 7:44 p.m. CST

    I know I'll take one thing away from this talkback.

    by gotilk

    That some people think anyone progressive or liberal is incapable of critical thinking, while others think conservatives are incapable of critical thinking. Both being incorrect of course.

  • And the first 3 dropped out based on principle....Bachmann and Perry chickened out.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 7:50 p.m. CST

    first smart thing michelle bachman...

    by JaredP

    has done or said in a long time. to participate in this "debate" is just FUCKING STUPID!!!! shouldn't millionaires like trump pay more in taxes? is it really too much to ask?

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 7:50 p.m. CST

    But I will say this...

    by gotilk

    Conservatives win (for now) when it comes to stupid slogans that many Americans will actually buy into just because they *FEEL good* (ah, there's that feeling-based thought thing rearing it's ugly head where it's not expected eh?). *This country was founded on the idea of freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion* Excuse me? Examples of how freedom FROM religion would be a bad thing (pick your religion please). And I want specifics. But of course the people slogans like that work on will not think past the initial *feeling* it gives them. It goes both ways, folks. And I'm afraid it will be a VERY long time before we have a viable, genuinely middle-of-the-road candidate again. Not that we need that specifically for the good of the country, more that we need that kind of candidate in order to move forward, past this striking division.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 7:53 p.m. CST

    THE GOP

    by JaredP

    is no longer a sustainable, serious party. they're a bunch of wingnuts and morons. if they really put their faith in donald trump then there is something wrong

  • That said, I have fond memories of watching Bill Clinton make utter mincemeat out of this "dumb guy's idea of what a smart guy is like." He should be easy to take down, however, I have no confidence that President Urkel will be able to do the job (and I'm as pinko-commie-liberal-progressive-smelly-hippie as they come).

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 8:07 p.m. CST

    WHY should millionaires pay a higher PERCENTAGE of tax income?

    by BoyNamedSue

    If I knew that if I were up for a promotion with higher pay,but that a higher percentage of my income were to be taxed, thus meaning I'd still be the same financially after taxes as I was before, then I would have NO incentive to work hard and get that promotion. If everybody paid the same PERCENTAGE of their yearly income in taxes, then the rich would still be paying more than the rest of us anyway....and higher taxes on the rich percebtage-wise actually discourages achievement....WHY can't liberals grasp that????

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 8:20 p.m. CST

    HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

    by vulturess

    no bodies wanna play with donald. :(

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 8:59 p.m. CST

    boynamedsue it's called disposable income....

    by Will

    A person making 12,000 a year can't even afford to feed themselves and pay rent because this is not a livable wage. How can you ask them to pay a 20% tax rate when they have no disposable income? Someone making 8 million a year could wipe their ass with 12,000 dollars and not even bat an eye. After 20% they still make 6.4 million dollars! No one needs that much money, it's just pure greed. But to say that CEO wouldn't take a job that pays 5 million after taxes compared to 6.4 is just plain retarded. No one, besides you, is that ungrateful and lazy that they would refuse to work hard any sort of promotion just because they don't want to pay more taxes. If everyone made a living wage (Google it), then a flat tax might work. But the wealth gap is our nation's biggest problem... WHY CAN'T CONSERVATIVES GRASP THAT??????

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 9:02 p.m. CST

    Hey, I've got the solution to the nations economic issues....

    by Mike H.

    See, my boss, he's got this giant money bin back in Duckburg...I could just swing on by, explain the situation, and i'm sure he'd be happy ta help ya out!

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 9:04 p.m. CST

    boynamedsue

    by gotilk

    That's the misconception. That *liberals* can't grasp the idea of a fair tax. Not true, not the case. It's not grasp or not grasp. It's that we know how these things work from past experience and observation. If we all pay 9, 9, 9 or whatever flat tax one would propose, we all know that certain people will have the resources to manage to bypass that 9 percent, while others will not. And the *fair tax* thing is only a small part of it. We have a game of state-hopping (and country-hopping for different but similar reasons) played for tax breaks and subsidies. Things that if given to the poor or middle class would be called welfare. And the weasel words that come with defending not paying the same fair share as the rest of us are tired, old and rightfully now seen as the lies they are. Who is to say WHO will become the next *job creator* if you truly believe that any man can rise up from nothing to grasp the American dream? That makes us ALL potential *job creators*, not just those who claim to be, promise to be or say they will someday be. This is a quote... A small business in the US is defined as one that *must make between or below $750,000 and $35.5 million and have between or below 100 and 1,500 employees depending on the industry.* How is that small on any level? When most Americans hear the term *small business* they are picturing a guy with a shop, or a mom-an-pop service or retail establishment. Instead what we have are subsidies, low or no interest loans and GRANTS given to people who already have a SHIT-TON of money. People who then go on the whine about social programs. All while getting freebies that you and I pay for. You see, it's not all welfare desires and cries for the environment at any cost with we *librals*. And we're NOT all the same, by any means. So much could be accomplished in this country by making sure people pay a fair tax, while at the same time putting in place SOME regulations that would make it possible to say.... RENT a home again with the money one can earn with a job that pays minimum wage. No, not a 3 bedroom house... I mean a box with a kitchenette and a toilet... which in some places are literally out of reach for a minimum wage worker, which is outrageous... with requirement that demand 3 times the rent when a minimum wage job in the region only equals just under 2 times the rent. Fix that one issue and we get a HUGE percentage of Americans back into the economy, with a possible future to look forward to. Sure there would be a cost, but that cost would be worth it. Renters have been gouged for decades now, and it is the true elephant in the room when it comes to what happened to the housing market. Remember the ads? Why RENT??? When your house payment can be lower than your rent payments?? Mmmm-hmm. It's no accident that rent controls went slowly away across the states in the years before the crash. Couple that with an expectation of exponential PERMANENT growth (unsustainable) and you have a disaster with all the right factors lined up in a row for a perfect storm. So what about property owners? Well, they do OWN property, right? I've known too many slumlords and have seen the kinds of homes THEY live in to feel as though it would destroy even one of them to rent to people at a reasonable rate. One way to balance things would be to remove some of the obstacles in place to prevent landlords from ejecting non-paying renters. While there are millions of slumlords out there, there are just as many if not more renters who stop paying and manage to remain on the properties for months, and in some cases even years. Balance must be restored in this country, and you have to be asleep at the wheel to not realize that things are nearly impossible for the low wage workers in the US, yet so many are shocked at how many adults move back in with family now. Sure, we have millions or more who do NOT want to work, at all, ever. But there are even more who, like me, are willing to work 7 days a week in order to not EVER use a government pay-out in order to survive tough times. EVER! And someone like me, a so-called liberal, may have more in common with you than you'd expect. I'm disgusted at the incentives in place for people to have babies they cannot afford. I'm disgusted at a support system that takes so much away from American fathers (while rarely granting them custody), so much so that it's impossible to rent even a box to live in while they pay the support they SHOULD pay. And then society labels them as deadBEAT rather than what they are in this economy.... deadBROKE. I'm disgusted by SOME regulations that genuinely DO destroy ACTUAL small businesses. While so-called *small businesses* that make millions a year are considered small when they are anything BUT. I'm disgusted by a *justice* system that spends billions on non-violent drug offenders when it would be cheaper to put them on welfare and give them free pot. (not that we should, just that it WOULD be cheaper) I'm disgusted by religious fundamentalists who espouse fiscal responsibility while advocating the most fiscally irresponsible behaviour in world history... the so-called MORAL stand against birth control for the poor who have no business having children when the economy cannot provide the jobs required to support them. I'm disgusted by an educational system that produces marginally educated drones in an economic future that DEMANDS innovation and creativity. Readin', writin', 'rythmatic? You betcha. If you want a future where everyone BUT us innovates. *Back to basics* never created a Google, an Apple, or even a Ford or a GE. The same thing that's true for an individual in a down economy is true for a country. Invest in yourself is the advice that's given. If we abandon our potentials, we abandon our future. And those *good old days* you TALK about wanting back will never come. And you'll blame the liberals in the end anyway. When you did it to yourselves by listening to corporate shills and their small-picture thinking. Doing what's right and what will work for future growth is NEVER profitable in the short term. EVER. Establishments are always risk-averse. It makes me sad that what we have to choose from are candidates entrenched in establishment and political incest but with the right ideas (Obama) and candidates with either the wrong ideas (everyone else) or the right ideas that will NEVER come to fruition because they are too radical to do anything but further burden those most in need of relief while the rest continue to get away with murder (Paul). It's a sad state. And I think the only way out is to knock it off with the labels and the name-calling. As much as I am as guilty as anyone else. Nothing is going to happen. We have to get real, and get realistic real fast. Or we're going down with the ship. Do what you feel you must. But the only conservative candidate with any ideas that would actually fix anything (Paul) will be stopped at every turn, EXCEPT how he would deal with social programs. And that will end up being a disaster. Because we'll be right back where we started. A gap so wide between the lower and middle class so as to be insurmountable, taking the economy down with it for a lack of consumers. You're welcome.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 9:09 p.m. CST

    itaintcool.com

    by viks

    Seriously...

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 9:16 p.m. CST

    viks

    by gotilk

    He brought it up,man. (points up at Herc)

  • I'll never understand why they do this kind of thing. If I was running I'd take every opportunity I could to get national TV and radio time.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 9:47 p.m. CST

    Well said gotilk

    by Will

    Good stuff, glad to see I'm not the only one who feels like the world has gone crazy! ;-)

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 9:47 p.m. CST

    doctorwho?

    by gotilk

    Sorry for not responding earlier. I do know that wealth is not a zero-sum game, and not finite. If you could find some way to explain how that applies to what I've said, please do. Specifics. But if you don't have the time for it, I understand. Might even be a week before I respond again. I really don't see how it applies to what I've said. My argument is about rules. I don't expect fairness out of life, and I don't demand it (foolish). But I do expect for the game not to be rigged. And it is. The biggest issue I have with current conservative thinking is that the blame for our woes is placed squarely upon the poor, when the big free money goes to people who already have it.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 9:53 p.m. CST

    gotilk

    by boyalien

    Wins. Everybody else shut the fuck up. Now let's all go watch Community.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 10:14 p.m. CST

    Thanks, absolutwill

    by gotilk

    After a particularly tough day, that was nice to read. It's hard to write, too. Because I see some very basic, simple solutions that don't even involve money... just policy and guts... that would solve some major portions of the problems that plague this country. Incentivising the 2.5 child family in a down economy is one thing we could stop if certain *traditions* were not so deeply embedded in society. It's not just an incentive. Hell, young people are discouraged at every turn to choose any kind of life alternatives. Whether it's being single, married without children, married and gay.... all discouraged at varying levels. All while demonizing birth control. Even *rescue* type assistance, like temporary rent assistance in crisis is geared toward *families* and families only. The more kids you have, the more assistance you have. It's not like they have to fear population slowing down to a stop!! Not gonna happen. But a nice slowdown right about now would be helpful. Part of what we've lost in this country, the part people forget, is that we used to dream of doing things and making new things. Now the character arc for the average young American is not to create, make or DO... but rather to HAVE. That's a BIG difference. And there's nothing wrong with having things... I want things too. What's wrong is that it's the MAIN thing these days, it seems. And since not everyone can have the big stuff.... we have a lost generation (or 3) with empty, unfulfilled dreams. Of COURSE they're on prescription SSRI drugs and self-medicating with street drugs. That way of life is ultimately unfulfilling even when it's superficially fulfilled. And then we throw many of them in jail (costing us more than educating and supporting them out in the real world) for trying to fix their crushing depressions. Talk about unsustainable. The American dream was never just about having the most stuff. It was about security and making the BEST stuff, and valuing the individual and that individual vision for a BETTER way of life for all of us. Not in that order. Many see this and blame it on popular culture. I say poppycock. I think it's the degradation of our educational system into a *back to basics* BS education that values conformity and uniformity. The culture responds to that by showing non-conformity as rewarding and achievable with success. Surprising? Maybe if you're an idiot. It's no wonder we have a generation of people who think they'll be the next rap superstar or reality TV *actor*. We handed those dreams over to corporate America instead of helping young people embrace original, critical thought through education. It shouldn't be all that surprising to anyone. Pass the tests, get out. Work. Not everyone can win that game, but at least the expectations can be made more realistic, while encouraging innovative thinking. I've said too much. Any more and I'll just be pissed at bedtime.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 10:17 p.m. CST

    boyalien

    by gotilk

    OH CRAP. I almost missed it.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 10:31 p.m. CST

    And no I will never run for office. (not that you asked) Why?

    by gotilk

    Because I have so many skeletons in my closet, when archeologists walk down my street, they spontaneously orgasm without knowing why. Believe me, someone in Khakis wearing a safari hat convulsing in front of your house is not a pretty sight. Unless she's cute. I think most people with enough real life experience to do these jobs right share this same reality with me. That's another thing that sickens me. These priestly expectations of purity on the part of the electorate. Something a real, required class in journalism would fix. But we eat up paparazzi journalism like Somalis near an abandoned Powerbar truck. (or is it Somalian? Too lazy to google it) Expecting that to change is probably a pipe dream.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 10:58 p.m. CST

    Why Obama wins in a cakewalk:

    by k88dad

    Every likely GOP opponent has already supported the Ryan kill Medicare bill. Romney was the last holdout to admit that he "supports" (read: I'm behind Newt and I have throw a hail mary) the privatization of Medicare = killing Medicare. Obama for four more years.

  • Damn funny stuff, if memory serves.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 11:01 p.m. CST

    @boynamedsue: explanation of progressive taxes

    by k88dad

    A near millionaire works for the promotion because only the earnings > 1,000,000 are taxed at the higher rate. Thus, you never wind up with the same net after hitting a new tax bracket.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 11:05 p.m. CST

    Ahh, here it is. Lousy quality though ...my apologies

    by Ted Knight

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4clcSBrtwd0

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 11:13 p.m. CST

    The key to economic recovery:

    by k88dad

    Demand. That's it. You need demand for goods and services before corporations and small businesses will hire. The easiest way to increase demand is to get cash into poor people's pockets. Why poor people, you ask? Because poor people, by necessity, spend all/most of their cash and circulate it right back into the economy. You know, the economy, as in small businesses and corporations who have goods and services to sell. The fastest way to get cash to poor people is make-work programs ala Roosevelt. The economy recovers and the need for the make-work programs disappears.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 11:22 p.m. CST

    yes...a wpa 2.0

    by john

    but 4 years too late and must be accompanied with a return of the manufacturing base putting money in peoples pockets to spend is a waste, if they are spending it on crap from china NUKE CHINA...WE NEED WW3

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 11:30 p.m. CST

    All Politicians are Corrupt.

    by Red_Right_Return

    Obama will win, but the result will be more of the same. It doesn't matter who wins. All of them - demoncrats and republicans, are only out to make their own families and the companies that lobby them more rich at the cost of the rest of us, especially the middle class. They will send your job overseas, give tax breaks to the rich and open loopholes for big business all while screwing the rest of us over. Some of you need to pull your heads out of your asses, Right-wing nutbags and Left-leaning screwballs combined, and face the fact that America sold the dream.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 11:37 p.m. CST

    America isn't a democracy...

    by Red_Right_Return

    Its an Oligarchy.

  • Dec. 8, 2011, 11:54 p.m. CST

    bibleman...

    by Red_Right_Return

    Unfortunately for you, that is just wishful thinking on your part. Unfortunately for me, its just more of the same shit. As smart as you claim to be, you are just another party-supporting lemming. The spew you put out is just the same rhetoric we hear every day from one side or another. Put some of that genius you claim to have to work and come up with a solution. Otherwise its just more noise to ignore.

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 12:08 a.m. CST

    America is a plutocracy

    by Nerd Rage

    One of the most obvious in the world. Now they want to prevent American rebellion by taking away due process from American "terrorists" and tightly controlling the internet. They doing it all in plain sight too.

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 12:11 a.m. CST

    @nerd rage

    by Red_Right_Return

    Indeed. They do many things in plain sight now because they don't fear the American people anymore. They have all the power and most of us fall for all the distractions they put in our path. We are too busy hating eachother and everyone else to realize they are destroying everything we can be proud of.

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 12:22 a.m. CST

    Police state republicans are the real threat to our society

    by Nerd Rage

    Liberals are just harmless puppies compared to police state republicans who are trying to do away with due process, privacy, and freedom of expression. Lose those things and you'll fondly remember the days when your biggest complaint was taxes.

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 12:36 a.m. CST

    Whoever the GOP runs in 2012 = Obama winning the election

    by DickBallsworth

    Where's your messiah now, Right Wing fucktards!

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 12:56 a.m. CST

    This

    by Lao_Che_Air_Freight

    1:48: Demonstrators chanting, “Whose streets? Our streets!” Jeremy C. Fox (@jeremycfox) says. 1:37: Traffic has been rerouted from Atlantic Avenue after several tents were moved onto the road. Boston Police Superintendent William Evans said the tents would be dealt with “in due time,” the Globe’s Travis Andersen (@TAglobe) reports. 1:25 a.m.: Protesters are signing the white lines on Atlantic Avenue with permanent marker, Martine Powers reports. The street remains closed, but the crowd is shrinking. 1:12 a.m.: Police Superintendent Evans said police will not clear the crowd tonight, John Guilfoil reports from Dewey Square. The crowd reacted in celebration. 12:49 a.m.: Protesters moved from the sidewalk into Atlantic Avenue, filling the lanes and stopping traffic. People carrying Veterans for Peace flags joined them there, and some people sat on the pavement. “Dewey Square has emptied into the streets,” John Guilfoil writes on Twitter (@globe_guilfoil). The police are closing the street rather than forcing protesters to move. 12:31 a.m.: One protester got some help from others at Occupy Boston to pop the question. He mic-checked his wedding proposal, the Boston Phoenix reports. 12:21 a.m.: Protesters are organizing into a human chain in Dewey Square, some with handkerchiefs covering their nose and mouth. Others are overflowing into the streets, slowing and sometimes stopping traffic, as officers on foot tried to clear the way. 12:04 a.m.: The crowd is chanting, “We are the 99 percent, and so are you.” 11:56 p.m.: The Gandhi statue has not left the camp. The crowd chanted, “The people united will never be defeated.” 11:50 p.m.: The crowd is packed into Dewey Square “almost from end to end,” one protester said over the live stream. In the latest “mic check,” the message was simple: “Ten minutes.” 11:42 p.m.: The energy is building as midnight approaches. Protesters were chanting: “We are the 99 percent.” As many as 700 people, maybe more, are packing the square. Photo by John Guilfoil11:35 p.m.: A group of Quakers have joined the protest, quietly, John Guilfoil reports. In another corner, the band was just interrupted for delivery of this message: “If you are willing to risk arrest, if you are willing to be part of the human chain, there is a meeting right now at the center of camp where the food tent used to be. If you’re interested, please go there. If you’re not able to be arrested there’s another planning meeting on the far end in front of the building where the [general assemblies] are. Please head there, and keep having fun.” 11:19 p.m.: Martine Powers reports that some portion of the crowd has come to a consensus decision about having a defense of the square at the center of the camp. Those who don’t want to be arrested will gather across the street in solidarity. 11:14 p.m.: Occupy Boston is packing up its 9-foot statue of Gandhi, donated by the Peace Abbey in Sherborn. “We’re glad he’s going, and he’s not going to get trampled by the police,” organizer Ryan Cahill said on the live stream. 11:02 p.m.: Two helicopters are circling over Dewey Square, possibly news choppers. There’s one hour left before the mayor’s deadline, and little sign of police movement. Protesters are debating amongst themselves about whether and how to hold their ground. “The trains are still running if you want to come down, if you’re in the area,” organizer Ryan Cahill said over the Occupy Boston live stream. 10:38 p.m.: While some protesters are listening to the lawyers’ presentation, many are creating barricades with cloth banners or dancing to the brass band. Catch that band on the live stream right now. It’s a happy scene. Among the tunes they’re playing is “Which Side Are You On?” “A lot of people are kind of milling around,” Martine Powers reports. The crowd “has fractured into confused but excited chaos.” She said there are more cops in the square than usual. But there are more people than usual there, too. No sign of any kind mobilization from the Boston Police Department so far.

  • petty and mean to other board members - while the liberals do not? just an observation. my guess is that the conservatives have been exposed to too much fear and hate mongering by foxnews and it is effecting them in a negative fashion.

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 2:57 a.m. CST

    PAUL 2012 = NADER 2000

    by Bill Clay

    Only difference being that the Paul-tards will be the spoilers for the Republicans this time.

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 3:48 a.m. CST

    iran is run by the mullahs

    by emeraldboy

    and has been since 1977 iranian revolution. its an armed theocratic state. this is part one of a three part superb documentary strand called Iran and the west. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae8RfyTsgbA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLjRkrTxkzY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf3fcoXx0pI

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 7:37 a.m. CST

    For those who favor progressive tax rates

    by BoyNamedSue

    Why does it have to be 20 percent for everybody ? Why can't it be 5 percent for everyone? I don't mind if our government has to make do with less! Guys, part of my job involves looking at government audits. I don't think you people really know how much of your money is misspent or abused, ESPECIALLY stimulus money.....if you knew how bad it was, you might just vote Republican:)

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 9 a.m. CST

    An affordable tax for the wealthiest Americans

    by Michael Lunney

    A return to Eisenhower-era 90% top tax rates helps fix our economy in several ways: 1) It makes it take longer to end up with a fortune. In fact it makes people build and earn a fortune, instead of shooting for quick windfalls. This forces long-term thinking and planning instead of short-term scheming and scamming. If grabbing everything in sight and running doesn’t pay off anymore, you have to change your strategy. 2) It gets rid of the quick-buck-scheme business model. Making people take a longer-term approach to building rather than grabbing a fortune will help reattach businesses to communities by reinforcing interdependence between businesses and their surrounding communities. When it takes owners and executives years to build up a fortune they need solid companies that are around for a long time. This requires the surrounding public infrastructure of roads, schools, police, fire, courts, etc., to be in good shape to provide long-term support for the enterprise. You also want your company to build a solid reputation for serving its customers rather than cheapening the product, pursuing quick-buck scams, cutting customer service, etc. The current Wall Street/private equity business model of looting companies, leaving behind an empty shell, unemployed workers and a surrounding community in devastation will no longer be a viable business strategy. 3) It will lower the executive crime rate. Today it is possible to run scams that let you pocket huge sums in a single year, and leave behind the mess you make for others to fix. A high top tax rate removes the incentive to lie, cheat and steal to grab every buck you can as fast as you can. This reduces the temptation to be dishonest. If you aren’t going to keep the whole dime, why risk doing the time? When excessive, massive paydays are possible, it opens the door to overwhelming greed and a resulting compromising of principles. Sort of the definition of the decades since Reagan, no? 4) Combined with badly-needed cuts in military spending – we spend more on military than all other countries on earth combined – taxing the wealthy ends budget deficits and starts paying off the massive Reagan/Bush debt. This reduces and ultimately eliminates the share of the budget that goes to pay interest. The United States now has to pay a huge share of its budget just to cover the interest on the borrowing that tax cuts made necessary. Paying off the debt would remove this huge drag on our economy. (Never mind that Alan Greenspan famously called for Bush’s tax cuts by saying it was dangerous to pay off our debt – now that same Alan Greenspan says we need to cut benefits to retired people because our debt is so high.) 5) It will bring in revenue to pay for improvements in infrastructure that then cause the economy to explode for the better. Investing in modern transit systems, smart grid, energy efficiency, fast internet and other improvements leads to a huge payoff of increased prosperity for all of us – especially for those at the top income levels. Infrastructure improvement and maintenance is the “seed corn” of economic growth. We have been eating that seed corn since Reagan’s tax cuts. 6) (related) It will bring in revenue for improving our schools, colleges and universities. Not only will this help our competitiveness, but it will improve each of our lives and level of happiness. 7) It will boost economic growth and rebuild a strong middle class. A consumption-based economy does better when consumers have more to spend. Perhaps not cause-and-effect, though I suspect so, but after FDR raised top tax rates the economy grew dramatically. The 90% top rate years under FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and the beginning of the Kennedy years were the years when we built the middle class. And remember, after Clinton raised top tax rates only modestly the economy grew. How's it been doing since Bush's tax cuts for the rich? 8) It is good for business because increased revenue will enable increasing government spending for the benefit of regular people. This recirculates money into the economy more productively than the current system of putting huge fortunes into a few hands and hoping for a resulting consumption of high-end goods. The wealthy can only spend so muc h so more disposable income in the hands of regular people is good for business. Any business owner will tell you they want customers more than they want tax cuts. (Let’s wait until the top one percent no longer owns most of everything before we talk about whether there is an effect on investment.) 9) It protects working people. Exploiting workers with long hours, low pay or lack of pay increases, lack of worker protections, firing union organizers and schemes that call employees “contractors” will no longer pay off as it does today. The era of extreme union-busting came in at the same time as the tax cuts. 10) It redistributes income and wealth in ways that help all of us. Currently a few people receive most of the income and own most of everything. A very high top tax rate reduces this concentration of wealth. 11) It fights the political instability that results from concentration of wealth. Great inequality in a society and the resulting loss of opportunity results in political instability that can lead to extreme ideologies, rebellion, etc. We are seeing all the signs of a resurgence of these problems today. 12) It will help rebuild our sense of democracy and belief in equality. As we have seen and are seeing, when too much is in the hands of too few, they have too much power and influence and use it to get even more. 13) It will strengthen the government that We, the People have worked hard to build, and strengthen its ability to enforce the laws and regulations that protect all of us and the resources we hold in common. It will increase its ability to provide all of us equally with the benefits of our joint efforts and our economy. 14) Finally, for good measure, increasing top tax rates will cause those affected to work harder to make up the difference. The Ayn Randians claim the very rich are the “producers” and all the rest of us are just parasites and slackers who feed off their “work.” So it will be very good for our economy to get them working harder by taxing them at 90%! You may have heard about those 25 hedge fund managers who brought in an average of $1 billion each last year – an amount that would have paid for 658,000 teachers -- while the rest of the country suffered through a terrible economy. If we had a top tax rate of 90% they would “only” take home $100 million or so each – in a single year. And we could have 658,000 more teachers. So it’s a win-win. Taxes are how we all pitch in to enjoy the benefits and protections of modern society. Those benefits and protections are what enable people to become wealthy, and we ask that they give some back so others can prosper as well.

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 9:10 a.m. CST

    Here's an idea - tax everyone at 1%...

    by KazamaSmokers

    ... Of their wealth.

  • The problem with you liberals is that you don't understand how inept the government is with taxpayer money. At least private business has to worry about competition and the need to manage money wisely!

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 9:45 a.m. CST

    by Michael Lunney

    You say: To all of the Conservatives on this board, the people you support and serve don't want you to have a place at the table, they want you to be happy with the scraps and crumbs they throw onto the floor for you. But I don't truly hate you, I feel sorry for you that you can't imagine a better world for ourselves and future generations. I say, amen. If conservatives could imagine a better world for ourselves and future generations they wouldn't be conservatives. All they want is the freedom and liberty to be low-paid wage slaves to companies with boards of directors who hate them and will dispose of them to make a few more bucks for their own personal gain. Sarah who?

  • If government were run like a business, we wouldn't be in this economic rut....would we?

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 10:02 a.m. CST

    boynamedsue

    by Michael Lunney

    Good logic. We should then get rid of the military and let private corporations fight the wars and protect us for profit. Blackwater should do just fine.

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 10:15 a.m. CST

    Creepythinmanforever

    by don

    You go ma brother!

  • NOTHING SAYS THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T FARM IT OUT TO PRIVATE ARMIES OR MILITIAS TO DEFEND US- PRIVATE COMPANIES WOULD NEVER RIP OFF THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER GO GET 'EM BLACKWATER- YEAH TEAM USA! BRING BACK THE DRAFT - MAKE THE ARMIES FIGHT FOR FREEDOM --- FOR FREE!!!! To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

  • And THAT'S how you want to run America? Ummmm. NO FUCKING THANK YOU!

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 10:39 a.m. CST

    It was PRIVATE BUSINESS that tanked the economy STUPID!

    by Jaster Mareel

  • The corruption isn't confined to one political party or just a few bad apples. It's an endemic problem encompassing leadership on both sides of the aisle. It's an entire system of public servants feathering their own nests.

  • There's gonna be a revolution in this country, and one can see it if one compares what's happening in this country to what has happened throughout history. In the decades to come, the number of people in this country who live below the poverty line and who basically can't read will increase....EXPONENTIALLY. I was stunned when I saw it, but it was right there....the recipe for revolution. Incredibly huge numbers of poor who have no hope of getting out of their situation. Just add water. It's coming, perhaps not in my lifetime, but certainly in my daughter's lifetime. God help us all, every one.

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 10:44 a.m. CST

    That's why we need to BAN private donations to elections

    by Jaster Mareel

    Anyone who wants to run for office should pass a series of tests and benchmarks, then they qualify for public money. Everyone gets the same amount and they get big discounts from television, ALL television. Hey you use our airwaves then you have to provide a public service. That's how it used to be but it's been so mutated by private corporations that we can actually have a 24 hour news channel that doesn't actually dispense news and instead incites treason. Until we do that It's just Omni Consumer Products for real.

  • But if they aren't taking taxpayer money, then how they run their company is their own business. BTW, some of you people need to calm down. You're acting like Alec Baldwin on an airplane. Why do I have this sneaking suspicion that a lot of you are younger than 22, given your obvious immaturity?

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 11 a.m. CST

    Folks, folks....haven't any of you ever heard the term "Divide and Conquer"?

    by Damned if I can login

    The population of this country has been divided right down the middle, and for a damned good reason. If we the people would forget all this "libtard/repug" name-calling bullshit and actually unite we *may* have a shot at surviving this mess. Too many people listen to the talking heads on TV and never have an original thought. Stop being a sheep. And...if you think that just electing new politicians to replace the ones in office will make any difference whatsoever, THEN YOU'RE A FOOL. Newsflash: The folks in office don't WANT it to change. They've got it pretty damned good, and they want it to stay that way.

  • You Say: How they run their company is their own business. Wonderful. Then slave child labor is just fine and dandy. It's their own business- leave them alone. Do you know how unrealistic this tired talking point really is? You have been brainwashed to be your own worst enemy...or is it self-hypnosis that allows you to be so disconnected frrom humanity in favor of the greedy? You are the 99%.

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 11:27 a.m. CST

    You guys are as immature and as hyper-emotional

    by BoyNamedSue

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 11:30 a.m. CST

    You guys are as immature and as hyper-emotional as my ex-girlfriend

    by BoyNamedSue

    Perhaps I'm really arguing with a bunch of women on their menstrual cycle? That child labor analogy, btw, was not only an extreme stretch, it also made me laugh a little, so thanks:)

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 11:48 a.m. CST

    wrath_or_fett: Exactly. I've been saying the same thing for years.

    by Damned if I can login

    Eliminate contributions to political parties, put all the funds in a pot and everyone gets an equal cut. One of my acquaintences (he's hardcore one-sided, I won't say which), laughed in my face and said "How the hell you gonna do that? We could never make that work." My answer was, "We can build nuclear reactors, split the atom, and land humans on the moon, but we can't divide up some money?" Huh. Oh well, that won't happen easily, since the only way to remove the money from politics would be to either get the SCOTUS to change their ruling or pass a constitutional amendment. Neither is likely to happen anytime soon.

  • I believe the Occupiers are opposed to the lawless and destructive greed in the financial industry, and the unhealthy spread in this country between the rich and the rest. It is sickening to see how the rich and their pawns oppose desperately-needed Universal Health Care, and sad to see the Tea Party fall in line with their shadow masters to oppose something most of them will someday need. I have also felt despair at the way financial instruments were created and manipulated to deliberately defraud the ordinary people in this country. At how home buyers were peddled mortgages they couldn't afford, and civilian investors were sold worthless securities based on those bad mortgages. Wall Street felt no shame in backing paper that was intended to fail, and selling it to customers who trusted them. This is clear and documented. It is theft and fraud on a staggering scale. As we head into another election year, the Republicans actually oppose efforts at financial regulation and reform. They are against government measures that would introduce transparency and accountability into the markets. The GOP is owned by Wall Street. My litany could go on forever. Democrats try to punish the wrongdoers, Republicans shelter them, and the House GOP majority stonewalls. But you know that. And if the Occupy Movement stirs up awareness about it, I'm in favor of it. But the Occupy movement is intended to be populist, and a great many ordinary people have children, families and income requirements that make it inconvenient to camp out. The beauty of the Tea Party is that it's a moveable feast. It doesn't require a lasting presence in Manhattan, Portland or Denver. It can gather, demonstrate, and disperse. Reports from Tea Party rallies last year indicated in some cases the very same people were moving themselves or being bused from one demonstration to another. The rallies were a recruiting device. They were fun. Occupying looks more like work that requires a radical change in lifestyle. The fact is that Occupiers should belong to no political wing. Republicans as well as Democrats should be fed up with the rot in our financial system. It should be apparent to them that the Republican Party is the legislative wing of Wall Street theft. Populists are called socialists, but then socialism is always the term aimed at financial reformers. It would be more accurate to call them Law Enforcers, or Fair Shakers. Successful as it has been, the Occupy Movement should be much larger and encompass more different kinds of people. By its radical tactics, it has seemed exclusionary. Everyone should feel invited to join. Let me give an example of its potential . A few weeks ago I read this in an op-ed column: How do politicians who arrive in Washington, D.C. as men and women of modest means leave as millionaires? How do they miraculously accumulate wealth at a rate faster than the rest of us? How do politicians' stock portfolios outperform even the best hedge-fund managers? I answered the question in that speech: Politicians derive power from the authority of their office and their access to our tax dollars, and they use that power to enrich and shield themselves. The money-making opportunities for politicians are myriad...accepting sweetheart gifts of IPO stock from companies seeking to influence legislation, practicing insider trading with nonpublic government information, earmarking projects that benefit personal real estate holdings, and even subtly extorting campaign donations through the threat of legislation unfavorable to an industry. The list goes on and on, and it's sickening. Astonishingly, none of this is technically illegal, at least not for Congress. Members of Congress exempt themselves from the laws they apply to the rest of us. That includes laws that protect whistleblowers (nothing prevents members of Congress from retaliating against staffers who shine light on corruption) and Freedom of Information Act requests (it's easier to get classified documents from the CIA than from a congressional office). The corruption isn't confined to one political party or just a few bad apples. It's an endemic problem encompassing leadership on both sides of the aisle. It's an entire system of public servants feathering their own nests." End of quote. I agree with every word. The full column appeared on the Wall Street Journal on Nov. 18, 2011, and it was signed by Sarah Palin. In a way that doesn't surprise me. I think Palin may instinctively be a populist when she's free of handlers, and although she toed the Republican line in 2008, she's not following it here. Those words would not inspire a standing ovation at a Republican National Convention. A clear majority of Americans should be in sympathy with the Occupy Movement. That they are not is a tribute to an effective right wing propaganda machine given voice by Fox News and radio talkers like Rush Limbaugh, and financed by the Koch brothers among many others. The machine's audience is told to oppose its own self-interest and support the interests of the rich. We are the 99 percent, say the Occupiers. Yes, but the ring wing propagandists say the rich are the engine driving the creation of wealth. While it is true that they create a great deal of wealth for themselves, in the current American financial universe they seem to be sucking that wealth from the pockets of the middle class, the working class and the poor. There was a time in the not very distant American past when it was easier to support a family and buy a home. Now many college graduates find themselves moving back in with their parents. They're living off prosperity that was built up when the economy wasn't stacked against them. President Obama went to Kansas on Tuesday to make the kind of speech I've been waiting and hoping for. It was billed as sort of keynote for his campaign. He said, This country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share and when everyone plays by the same rules. Isn't that true? Does everyone get a fair shot? When the Republicans try to exempt the financial industry from regulation, is that playing by the same rules?

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 11:53 a.m. CST

    boynamedsue

    by Michael Lunney

    Laugh monkey boy, laugh, but slavery and child labor are both parts of the great American experiment in do unto others whatever you can get away with.... History does repeat itself. And you are not a proud American....

  • If anything, they are weak and spineless, and exist in a system where you are required to curry favor, make backroom deals and empty promises to have any chance of reelection. But the whole image of them sitting in a room together cackling at the "sheep" who reelect them is naive. Probably most politicians genuinely think they're doing what's right for the country (in their own mind) but all these different ideas clash to create one big fuckup.

  • They've probably just found a way to rationalize it.

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 12:15 p.m. CST

    Since this is a web site about movies and TV shows....

    by BoyNamedSue

    There needs to be a limit on what actors can earn. Christopher Nolan, for instance, should be taxed 75 percent of his Dark Knight Rises income....and if that fact alone stops him from making the movie in the first place....well...he doesn't care about giving back to the country that helped his career! Furthermore, no Hollywood films can make any type of political statements.....especially not when people of an opposing viewpoint lack the money to rebut that movie's message. If you people were true to your principles, you'd stop going to CORPORATE movies! (I love sarcasm).

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 12:26 p.m. CST

    boynamedsue

    by Michael Lunney

    go do some audits. And then tell us who the biggest criminals are Do your duty to America...

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 12:35 p.m. CST

    Mcgootoo

    by MG2112

    First off, a sincere congrats on detailing your rationale for the 90% tax rate. You have provided a backbone for your argument unlike many others on this board who simply wish to resort to profanity, name calling, and other child-like activity. I agree that the coffers need replenishment but for the primary reason of paying down the debt. The national debt represents the most significant threat to our national security and our inherented freedoms. As the debt continues to increase a) The percentage of interest expense to total government expenditures continues to increase due to 1) A higher debt (principal) balance and 2) A higher yield requirement due to the increased risk of principal forfeiture; b) The value of the US dollar will continue to decline resulting in 1) Higher costs of imports (ex. petrolium) and 2) lower yields on exports. The question becomes, what is the best way to increase tax receipts. The 90% scenario, while pleasing in an ideological sense, has one significant flaw which was demonstrated in the bar stool example: Those within the higher income brackets (actually, anyone) can simply elect to invest their money into countries with a more favorable business climate. In this case, not only does the US lose tax revenue, the US works also lose because the job creation associated with investment would then be taken place overseas. Yeah, you say, prove it. Okay. As one example, consider the various musical groups from England such as the Beatles, Stones, Elton John, Black Sabbath, etc. who intentionally resided within the US for the required period (I forget what the duration requirement was) for the sole purpose of escaping the oppressive 95% English tax rate. In addition, a 90% tax rate will result in more creative trickery. It will not slow down the accumulation of wealth as much as it will force the creation and use of alternate channels by which to pursue it. The better solution is not to raise the tax rates but to increase the tax base. An increased tax base = higher employment and a positive trending economic environment. The best way to achieve this in today's down economy is to spur growth through lower corporate tax rates. (I have already detailed my reasoning for this in previous posts.)

  • Jaw Dropping!

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 12:42 p.m. CST

    Once upon a time I valued his opinion

    by Ted Knight

    ...that was when Gene was still alive. When did he turn into a bitter old loon?

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 12:56 p.m. CST

    boynamedsue is right about one thing...

    by Will

    Our government does waste ridiculous amounts of money. The whole thing is bloated and overridden with excess. The myth that the GOP has propagated is that liberals want bigger government. The truth is both parties have added to the "big government" problem. GW Bush added more to government spending than any other president in the last century. (ie: Homeland security, Iraq war) The "war on terror" was a buzzword invented by the GOP to help fund pointless programs in order to secure contracts to private security firms in exchange for "donations." The problem is the republican party has been hijacked by big business and now republicans are forced to do their bidding. The republican party of Lincoln and Roosevelt is gone. Today's GOP retains its support only because conservative Americans are so scared of losing their "Christian Nation" that they are willing to let our country literally go to hell to keep it that way. Conservatives have decided that protecting their "values" are worth handing the country over to petty corporate thugs. Liberals still believe government is FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE. This means that as people We are the government, everyone in Washington DC are there to represent US. The GOP represents the 1%, the powerful minority who hold most of the country's wealth and will do anything to keep it that way. They don't represent Americans, even evangelicals. They just use faith to manipulate the conservative tendencies of Americans. This is why the GOP has become a joke and Jon Stewart has endless material for The Daily Show. absolutwill ... out

  • i wish everyone on this site would read and and get a nice fresh cup of Wake The Hell Up in the process. cheers bro.

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 1:38 p.m. CST

    mg2112

    by Michael Lunney

    You say: The best way to achieve this in today's down economy is to spur growth through lower corporate tax rates. But Bush lowered them from the rates under Clinton. And it didn't work. But now people are camping out in the cold, as a reaction to the hijacked economy. Right now, I am more proud of their actions and commitmernt to bettering society through raiseing awareness of our economic problems, more proud of them than any other Americans. Including Bette White.

  • 2 men enter - one man leaves. Should be quality TV. Nothing like a good, lively discussion about man-dog sex AND child janitors.

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 2:33 p.m. CST

    MAYANS 2012!!!!!!!!!!!

    by alice133

    lol @ trumps "the american presidential apprentice" show. fucking disgrace.

  • Or, of course, Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader... But we already know the outcome of that, don't we peanut gallery.

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 2:52 p.m. CST

    magootoo

    by Ted Knight

    Newt Gingrich received a Ph.d. in History from Tulane University, has written over a dozen history-related books, and was at one time a history professor. So please enlighten us. What are your intellectual credentials?

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 3:03 p.m. CST

    stargrove - that Ebert gag of yours - Intellectual genius, I tells ya!

    by Michael Lunney

    Gingrich is an intellectual to dopes like you. He is smarter, standing next to Michelle Bachmann. I never questioned his intellectual superiority over the other candidates. His cancer-stricken ex-wife probably thought he was a smart guy too, for a while. Anyone who would mock a man who suffered like Ebert did, who lost his abilty to speak, a man who continues to work despite his medical problems, is not much of a human being. So I understand your admiration of Gingrich. Birds of a feather. You are a shit stain on humanity for going for the cheap laugh. Ha, Ha.

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 3:06 p.m. CST

    stargrove - oh yeah- your hero also considers himself a celebrity

    by Michael Lunney

    What a pompous asshole of a Master Janitor....

  • And please save me your sanctimony about my insensitivity towards Ebert. He was the one on the very date of Ryan Dunn's death in a car accident to make a Jackass pun for a cheap laugh. Ebert had to rub salt in the wound the day the guy died? He couldn't show a tiny bit of compassion for the family and friends? To his credit he did apologize but I won't. My pun works because it comes at the expense of a truly nasty SOB.

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 4:07 p.m. CST

    @ mcgootoo :

    by Chris Moody

    You suck. You think that you are "witty" -- but every word you write displays just how IGNORANT and MORONIC you truly are. LOL! Keep it up, dickless.

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 4:20 p.m. CST

    ccchhhrrriiisssmredux

    by Michael Lunney

    But I am witty. Thank you. Guess you only have your anger. I am glad I threaten your political sensibilites enough to bother you with mine. A degree does not make you an intellectual, or smart. If someone started saying the same thing about liberals, this would be your argument. Here we go 'round the mulberry bush.... put your left foot in....

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 4:22 p.m. CST

    stargrove

    by Michael Lunney

    You say: And please save me your sanctimony about my insensitivity towards Ebert. He was the one on the very date of Ryan Dunn's death in a car accident to make a Jackass pun for a cheap laugh. Ebert had to rub salt in the wound the day the guy died? He couldn't show a tiny bit of compassion for the family and friends? To his credit he did apologize but I won't. My pun works because it comes at the expense of a truly nasty SOB. I see. So, you need to become that which you despise. What a standup guy you are.

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 4:24 p.m. CST

    stargrove

    by Michael Lunney

    When Gingrich becomes Prez, your support will land you the position of Secretary of Janitorial Sciences. Enjoy.

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 4:28 p.m. CST

    LOL uberfreak

    by DoctorWho?

    I enjoy living rent free inside you head.

  • I'm not blind to the faults of Gingrich or Romney. I only wish we could take the best qualities of both and project them onto one person, and then have a stellar candidate. Regardless of whatever corporate greed there is out there (I don't deny that it does exist), I think it's unfortunate that a lot of you believe it's best for the government to regulate more of our lives. (and whomever said on here that the government ought to regulate who can and cannot donate to political candidates, by government standards, really ought to do some self-examination and ask if it's worth giving up his/her pride to admit that the government knows better than he/she) Folks, the government can't even run the Post Office effectively, so what in the holy hell makes you all believe it can run the health care system any better than the private sector does? Despite its faults, capitalism is the best system of economics ever invented. Not everybody will succeed, but everybody who wants an opportunity to prove their worth and live up to their fullest potential, without excuses, may do so. Most of you won't believe this, but all of us live healthier, more productive, longer lives because of capitalism. Those in Socialist countries cannot say the same. Some of you may feel left out, and, in some instances, not everything is fair, but I'll take capitalism any day over socialism. One of the main reasons I'm so opposed to Obama and Democrats in general is because they believe none of this. Republicans may be no better, but at least they talk about limited government, which is something Democrats don't do. OK, I'm off my spiel.....It would be nice if we could have this conversation in a civilized manner, without anyone using profanities, resorting to hyper-emotionalism, etc.

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 4:55 p.m. CST

    this is just great

    by emeraldboy

    over 30 years old, irish legendary stage actor and tv actor and friend of Flann o brien, myles na gcopaleen/brian o nolan.. this is from an irish show called Halls pictoral weekly.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLA-4zZM0cI&feature=player_embedded#! the character Eamonn Morrissey plays is the minister for Hardship Richie Ruin based on the minister for labour Richie Ryan. this is still as fresh and relevant today as ever.

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 6:18 p.m. CST

    boynamedsue

    by Michael Lunney

    Folks, the government can't even run the Post Office effectively, so what in the holy hell makes you all believe it can run the health care system any better than the private sector does? Regulations? who needs em. We DO need more child labor- start at age 5. Who needs govt. run schooling when the Bible will do? Ask veterans and seniors, who appreciate their govt. run health care system. Tired talking points you spew, all of them.

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 8:32 p.m. CST

    the analcunt list: doctorwhore, biblecunt, aparasitenamedsue...

    by uberfreak

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 8:51 p.m. CST

    I'm watching Fahrenheit 9/11 on instant netflix....

    by Bobo_Vision

    ....and several years after its release, it's all the more profound. Starting with the robbery of the 2000 election which Gore won, and Bush's family stole, to all the events that folllowed....as we approach the new year...this film is a great film to watch to sum up the events of the past 10 years.

  • Dec. 9, 2011, 9:57 p.m. CST

    Michael Moore speaks:

    by Ted Knight

    "I'm not (chomp, chew) one of the 1% (slurp, gulp). I'm one of (crunch, smack. gurgle) the regular people (chomp) who just happens to have (crunch, crunch, gulp) a few million bucks in the bank and a mansion (chomp, swallow, burp)."

  • Dec. 10, 2011, 12:37 a.m. CST

    by Immortal_Fish

    Why do you guys bother with these glittering jewels of colossal ignorance?

  • Dec. 10, 2011, 3:31 a.m. CST

    Sometimes the English language really makes me happy

    by Jaka

    Like when somebody says, "glittering jewels of colossal ignorance".

  • Dec. 10, 2011, 8:27 a.m. CST

    The "

    by Uncle Stan

  • Dec. 10, 2011, 8:30 a.m. CST

    The "tea party" does not actually exist.

    by Uncle Stan

    It is a fabrication created, owned, and puppeteered by the Koch brothers and their ilk.

  • Nothing more to say.

  • Dec. 11, 2011, 5:04 p.m. CST

    @creepythinmanforever and @damned if i can login

    by scors54

    Unfortunately, I fear you are both spot on. Anyone with any idea of history can see that. and creepythinmanforever, that was one of the better rants about all of this that I've read anywhere.