webned

Santorum's appeal to conservatives is grounded in religious and moral values. My Good Book reflects that one should tithe or contribute 10% of earnings to religious and charitable causes. Rick's tax returns reflect about a 2% level of giving over the last 4 years. Both Obama and Romney contribute well in excess of that level: Obama 14% last year. Should we really place credence in a candidate who espouses religious values as his main campaign marker, when he doesn't apply those same values he espouses to his personal life?

I mean, the vast majority of economists both liberal and conservative agree that that the extension of the payroll tax cut will help improve the economy, and that without it the economy will suffer. And if the economy improves employment will increase. And who will benefit if employment increases? Why the Dems and Obama. How much more tricky can they be than to propose something that will benefit the American people for political purposes?

http://beta.finance.yahoo.com/news/economics-presi...

Nobody, either party knows what they're doing. Do you agree that we need jobs and not ideology or posing for the pollsters? Is it time to form the pragmatic party, one with no ideology except the good of the economy and the people. Forget abortion, gay rights, prayer in school, gun rights and all the other things that don't have squat to do with putting people to work, and focus on trying to avoid an economic calamity.

Is it possible that one can be a capitalist and still understand that his ultimate prosperity depends on others purchasing or having the ability to purchase the goods or services(labor) that he provides? Can one be a capitalist and understand that the ever increasing disparity in income and wealth is harmful to his ultimate prosperity? Or, is he just really a socialist in disguise? Maybe like Teddy Roosevelt.

Somebody explain to me why this concept is so difficult for neo cons.

The fact is that at this point, regardless whether the debt ceiling is raised, that the interest rate the US will pay on its treasury bonds will increase because of all of this uncertainty. This alone will increase the amount of required spending. The whole effort has been counterproductive. How many folks refuse to pay their just debts until they have a handle on their expenses? And yet that is precisely what the House republicans have advocated. Why couldn't all of this been handled at the budget adoption, as opposed to when the bills already previously approved have come due? It's stupid, the politics of destruction, and holding the American people hostage. Everyone will suffer. From those relying on social security benefits to those with fat 401k accounts. And it's all extremely unnecessary.

The republicans threaten to kill the raising of the debt ceiling unless substantial cuts are made to the budget, and further indicate that tax hikes are off the table in this political discussion. Most economists predict that such a failure and the resultant default on US debt will be disastrous for not just the US economy but the global economy as well.

If the democrats made the threat to kill the raising of the debt ceiling unless taxes on the wealthiest 2% were rolled back to the pre-Bush era, wouldn't that be akin to what the republicans are doing. Either way it's holding hostage the economy to get what is wanted.

Do you agree that congressional republicans are holding a nuke over our economy and saying we'll kill it if we don't get our way, a ploy the democrats could use as well. Is holding all of us and the economy hostage and threatening to blow it up a responsible act on our representatives part?

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/boehne...

Lets see, republicans in Michigan support a business tax cut at the expense of a tax increase on retirees? Is there any question now about what's going on?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_senior_tax_breaks_mi...

Here in Texas we now have a bill before the legislature which would effectively outlaw the enforcement of sharia law. I guess since the word "sharia" modifies the noun "law", there exists some fear here that in our great state there actually exists something known as sharia law, even though no legislature has ever passed it, and to my knowledge no cop or judge has ever enforced it (unless some provisions of it duplicate Texas law). But that's ok, I guess, since now there will be no question that there ain't no sharia law here in the lone star state.

But where are the priorities? Don't you agree that Texas should outlaw Satan? He's caused much more mischief and heartache, and we sure as heck don't need him hanging around.

I don't get it. Bachman, the self proclaimed tea party darling, doesn't realize that Lexington and Concord are towns in Massachusetts and not New Hampshire. She had a canned speech and made the mistake of claiming those two towns in New Hampshire were where the first shots of the revolution were fired, and she said it twice on consecutive days. I guess she and the members of her staff flunked American History in High School. She also claimed that the founding fathers were opposed to slavery, while the facts are that both Washington and Jefferson were slave owners.

It's like Palin not knowing that there are two Koreas.

How can anyone, regardless of political leanings support a candidate who lacks such a fundamental grasp of history, not to mention geography?

The most republican state in the union, Wyoming, had an interesting development in its state house. A bill was introduced requiring doctors to read a specific text to those seeking an abortion prior to the procedure. The bill failed and another similar one failed because small government conservatives opposed the government's intrusion into the doctor's office. Those same conservatives of course oppose other government regulation typically liberal supported. Who are the real conservatives, those who oppose all big government intrusion into all aspects of people's lives, or those that oppose big government intrusion, except when it comes to issues like abortion or gay rights?

from the $106,000 and something, why is that solution such a terrible idea. It would amount at a maximum $2,640 increase a year for those who make more than $150,000 a year. I'm one that would get hit directly in the pocketbook by that, for the maximum amount, and it's peanuts. The problem would go away, and I'd gladly contribute to the cause. And it only hits folks making over the $106,000 and something a year.

As opposed to the moron who preceded him? Republicans always claim democrats are bad for business and yet they are the same ones who time after time run it into a ditch.

By using his senatorial privilege of objection? Can't two play that game when the shoe is on the other foot? And does it make sense for a government official who's elected to serve, then do his utmost to make certain that our government institutions fail to govern?

Extension of the Bush tax reductions will increase the budget deficit by 4 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Extending them for those making less than $250,000 (filing jointly) will extend them by 3 trillion. That's 4 and 3 times respectively, of the deficit produced by the stimulus and nearly 10 times that of TARP. Where are all the deficit hawks on this question?

And if so how do we stop it? See http://yahoo.finance.com/tech-ticker/the-u.s.-midd... -being-wiped-out-here's-the-stats-to-prove-it-

No ideological rants please, just cogent comments about whether it's a good or bad thing that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer, and if it's a bad thing, what do we do about it?

The major health care bill passed. The reconciliation bill undoes many of the deals that everyone found so distasteful. Many of the matters republicans railed about in the debate of the health care bill are exactly the provisions being removed by the reconciliation bill, so why doesn't the reconciliation bill have any republican support? Doesn't it make the health care bill more acceptable than what is now in place, or do republicans want to insure that no improvements are made to the bill to make it more acceptable?

My nomination is Somalia. They have low taxes and small government. It must be Rush's paradise.

It just seems to me that calling your small donor supporters cowards and your large donor supporters ego maniacs would not be real conducive to raising money. But what do I know? Maybe republican donors enjoy such a lack of respect.

7 Republican senators co-sponsered a bill calling for a bipartisan commission to work together on jobs legislation. After Obama announced his support all 7 voted against the bill. Other than if he's for it I'm against it (even if it was my idea in the first place) what coherent explanation can exist for such action?

while the cameras ran? Will they make that mistake again? One against 140. It was better than a Bruce Lee movie, or Uma Thurman in Kill Bill Part 2. Republican blood everywhere.