A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Republicans also tax and spend

Posted: Apr 16, 2015

Except that they want to tax the poor while lowering taxes for the rich and rather than spend on programs that might actually help people they would rather spend a trillion and change on another war only they haven't decided yet on just where - Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Yemen, take your pick.

;

No sources. No links. No facts. - Same old. Same old

[ In Reply To ..]
bms

Sources? Watch any newscast on ANY channel. - Read just about any newspaper.

[ In Reply To ..]
If if the above fails, I think all anyone needs to do is look at their own dwindling finances to know what's happening.

Same with Hawwy being beat up by his brother. - If all else fails, goggle is your friend

[ In Reply To ..]
Dwindle finances happened under crackhead.

"Watch any newscast on ANY channel. read just about any newspaper."

I've gotta disagree with that. My savings started - to disappear not long after (sm)

[ In Reply To ..]
Bush II took office. By the time Obama came on scene, there was nothing he or anyone else could've done to save it, because it had already tanked.

The policies put in place during the Bush years, and actually as far back as the Reagan years, have continued to plague the working man and woman to this day, with inflation causing an unstoppable domino effect.

Yes - Under Obama gross income dropped over $4000 - a year using Obama regime's

[ In Reply To ..]
own stats.

Between 2002 and 2008 my income as an MT dropped almost 40%. nm - Retired now

[ In Reply To ..]
.

Mine dropped 12,000 just last year alone - Yeah, thanks. Too busy golfing

[ In Reply To ..]
To care

Yep, mine close that drop, as well. The Blame Bush, after - 7 years of crackhead aint working

[ In Reply To ..]
x

And eight years of Bush DID work? - (Sixteen, if you count the first one).

[ In Reply To ..]

Can't even get this simple post right. Bush Sr served 4 years - not eight. Your spin/deception showing

[ In Reply To ..]
No wonder Dems line up for Hildabeast...Cannot even count properly.

It just SEEMED like 8 years with Bush Sr. - Eight long, long years....

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

If Obama chose to stay home & never take a break, - would that really affect our finances?

[ In Reply To ..]
I really, really doubt that.

My finances dwindled under Obama. - Not Bush.

[ In Reply To ..]
My life, including financial aspects, has always been better under a republican president. I guess because I am a hard working individual and not a person waiting for a hand out. I'm all for giving a person help, but not as a way of life.

Mine dwindled under Obama, too. But it was - because of Bush"s policies, sm

[ In Reply To ..]
which gave such a running start to my savings' decline, not to mention my 401K. No retirement here.

Well the rich fat cat investors saw no decline in their finances.... - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
The people who lost their jobs because of the Bush failed policies and the economic collapse and had to dip deeply into their savings, never to recover, are the people who suffered the most and will continue to do so. Many middle class people WERE responsible and planning for retirement but lost a lot because their first priority was to feed and house their families. NONE of this was in ANY way President Obama's fault.

Obama would've love to fix the problem, but - Pub congress wont have any of that.

[ In Reply To ..]

He has shown he doesn't care about the problems because it does not affect him - That's a no go

[ In Reply To ..]
It has nothing to do with the republicans. This was going on when democrats were in office. Now all of a sudden since the elections its all the republicans fault?

Sorry...that's a no go.

Keep telling yourself that. It was all downhill under Bush for - middle America. nm

[ In Reply To ..]
.

But it continues on with Obama. Under Bush I had a great income, money in the bank, etc. - Once the dems took over all that went bye bye

[ In Reply To ..]

It continued under Obama because it was already - too far along to be stopped during -

[ In Reply To ..]
one, or even two, terms in office. Regardless of who is elected next, Dem or Pub, it will likely be just as bad for at least the next term. Maybe, if we're lucky, whoever wins in 2016 can slow down the hemorrhage enough that by 2020 there will begin to be a turnaround. However, if the winner in 2016 is a Republican, a turnaround is far less likely.

Delusion. - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Nope. Just looking at US history leading up - to this point in time.

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Oh please Anothe no-go. That's like - got an answer for everything

[ In Reply To ..]
My MIL saying that she's got a great health plan thanks to Obama and he alone, but any part of it if they don't give her what she needs, well that part of the plan alone is the republicans fault.

It continued under Obama simply because he allowed it to. He could have stopped it.

No different than blaming the Democrats for - everything wrong in Pub"s life...

[ In Reply To ..]

No go and no truth. Dems controlled both houses for years. - same old spin/lies by the LIbs

[ In Reply To ..]
Boehner(R) had over 30 jobs bills pass in the house that Reid (D) refused to bring up in the Senate. That pig don't fly that it is the Republicans. We know the truth even they refuse to believe it.

Well, look at some of the obstructionist tactics - and retrogressive laws they champion.

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

(Addendum): "They" meaning Republicans. - nm

[ In Reply To ..]

PANTS ON FIRE ! ! - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Seventy-two days. That’s it. That’s the entirety of absolute Democratic control of the United States Senate in 2009 and 2010. And yet Republicans want America to believe that Obama and the Democrats ruled with a tyrannical zeal to pass every piece of frivolous legislation they could conjure up. They think that the voters are dumb enough to believe it.

And don't forget that the democratic majority was - thanks to the odious blue dogs

[ In Reply To ..]
Who all voted with the republicans anyway. Luckily, the dogs mostly got voted out the next time. We don't need that.

I will never again donate to the Democratic National Committee when I see the kind of candidates they stamp their approval on sometimes.

Big tent, sure, but even now there are Democrats in congress and senate who do NOT have democratic values and are in it for the money and ties to big business and Wall Street, might as well be republicans.

There should be plenty of candidates who are true Democrats, and in that regard I would rather vote for one of them than someone who is put up in a red district who might as well be a Republican, even if they might win. They don't help us, they are not for us.

The myth of the filibuster-proof democratic congress. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Republicans have magically, mystically turned 72 days into two full years.

Wrong! Dems controlled Congress from 2007-2010 - Truthhurts

[ In Reply To ..]
They were elected in 2006. That's why things went downhill. They refused to listen to the warnings about the housing market until it was too late.

Sorry, but if you don't look at facts, you don't learn anything, and there are millions of people that don't look at facts, just listen to MSM.

Look it up. You'll see that Congress was ruled by the Dems for those years....or did you think Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were Republicans? They couldn't be majority leaders if the Dems didn't control Congress.

We are talking super majority here, 60 votes! - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
.

Wrong again. We were talking about Dems control of both - houses period. Spinning it to fit

[ In Reply To ..]
the thread in your head has nothing to do with the actual fact that Dems controlled both houses for years under Obama; that's a fact.

Truth.

There is no control without a 60 vote majority. nm - You don't get it!

[ In Reply To ..]
.

Blah, blah blah, spin, spin spin. YOU DON'T GET IT - ...

[ In Reply To ..]
x

No, you don't get it - Truthhurts

[ In Reply To ..]
Majority Leader Reid CHANGED the vote requirement rule in the Senate. Most of Senate votes only required 51 yeas to pass a bill, not 60, while the House under Nancy still required the 60 votes, but being outnumbered by 35 Democrats, they didn't have to worry.

You stopped reading too soon. The only change was for...sm - Alice

[ In Reply To ..]
confirming Presidential appointments not for bill passages.

That sounds like a description of the Pub Congress. - They dont care, they have theirs and

[ In Reply To ..]
all the rest of the country can drop dead, for all they care.

Just more lies...Obama had control of BOTH houses for - years. Just more DemAlinksy garbage here.

[ In Reply To ..]
x

No, too much Repub garbage in the last decade. - The last thing the country needs -

[ In Reply To ..]
is any more of THAT for the foreseeable future.

A myth. It was 72 days! - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
.

No. Not worth discussing these lies stated as truth. - DemAlinsky's controlled both Houses for years

[ In Reply To ..]
*YAWN*

Where the heck did you get that figure? Totally wrong. - Truthhurts

[ In Reply To ..]
When someone is elected to office, they're there for 4 to 6 years (4 for House, 6 for Senate).

Don't know where you got the idea it was 72 days, but that's totally wrong. If you're talking about days they worked in those 4-6 years, even that's way off. For example, last year, the Senate worked 292 days while the House worked 274 days.

I had those figures because I looked at the calendars for both for the year because I as researching that year for someone.

So, stop posting the 72 day fib. Not true.

Please, pay attention! - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
.

Filibuster-proof majority 72 days. See link in myth post above. - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
.

I would see the link but there is NO LINK in the post above - Truthhurts

[ In Reply To ..]
sbove where? The myth 72 days majority? No link there.

No link makes it impossible to verify anything.

Here you go. - see link

[ In Reply To ..]
.

Grassroots News and Progressive Views? Thanks for the link. - Truthhurts

[ In Reply To ..]
That explains it. LOL More than a little bit slanted. Tell me, the House was just about even but the Dems still ruled and by the end of 2008, the majority of Dems was 55+2 I to 41 Rep.

The most important part of Congress was the Senate that Harry Reid played King and the Dems had MORE than enough (78) to get things done in 2007-2009, so if something passed in the House, it definitely was blocked in the Dem-controlled Senate if Harry didn’t like it, and he rarely liked anything the House passed. The spread in the 2009-2010 Senate was 51+2 to 47, still a majority.

In 2009-2011, the spread was larger in the House (16 Dems plus 2 Ind), while in the Senate the spread was still 78 Dems. As for Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Byrd, those excuses don’t fly. Proxy votes take place all the time. If Sen. Kennedy cared for his party, he definitely would have bowed out before he got too incapacitated, or if he had a POA, they could have done it for him. As for Sen. Byrd, I can’t remember if it was a sudden death or a longer illness, but if it was a longer illness, I think he would have bowed out early so the party wouldn’t have been left without the majority.

Now, the excuse that they couldn’t pass any bill because they didn’t have the votes is crap. Ever hear of lobbying by those in Congress with the other party? So don’t tell me the Dems didn’t try to get the Republicans to cross over for votes. Of course, Harry poisoned Congress especially the Senate so bad that it’s no wonder they didn’t get anything done.

You cannot say they only had the absolute control for 72 days. That blarney. January to January is 365 days, isn’t it? Doesn’t matter if they’re adjourned or in session. They still had the majority rule. If they were only in session for 72 days, guess who makes up the Senate calendar? Hmmmm? So if they only worked 72 days, that’s their problem. Can’t blame the Republicans for that.

Incorrect - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
You said: "Grassroots News and Progressive Views? Thanks for the link. - Truthhurts. That explains it. LOL More than a little bit slanted. Tell me, the House was just about even but the Dems still ruled and by the end of 2008, the majority of Dems was 55+2 I to 41 Rep."

One can dismiss the article in the link as slanted to their heart's desire, but the numbers in the piece are, in fact, correct. The numbers in this post, however, are incorrect. The numbers given here are for the Senate beginning of 2009, the Senate at the beginning of the 111th Congress rather than the "end of 2008" as is claimed. The end of 2008 was the end of the 110th Congress; see below (**) for those actual figures.

111th Congress -- Senate -- 01/2009 to 01/2011
01/2009 -- 55/D + 2/I to 41/R and 2 Vacant seats
11/2010 -- 56/D + 2/I to 42/R

You then said: "The most important part of Congress was the Senate that Harry Reid played King and the Dems had MORE than enough (78) to get things done in 2007-2009, so if something passed in the House, it definitely was blocked in the Dem-controlled Senate if Harry didn’t like it, and he rarely liked anything the House passed."

One can trash the source in the link which actually did have correct Senate figures, but I am guessing maybe these other figures in this post are maybe from a right-wing news source that is more favorable propaganda, yet totally incorrect.

(**)110th Congress -- Senate -- 01/2007 to 01/2009
01/2007 -- 49/D + 2/I to 49/R
11/2008 -- 48/D + 2/I to 49/R and 1 Vacant seat

I'm not seeing the huge majorities spoken of in this post and the way that Hawwy had "MORE than enough" if he "didn't like it" in quite the manner described there for the time period given.

Also review the rules on proxy votes in the United States Senate because they don't exactly work the way they're being described here.

Like Clintons and Obamas, and Bidens and Gore - fat cats all - All thanks to Obama

[ In Reply To ..]
.

They're "fat cats" due to the Republican system - of only giving breaks to the rich.

[ In Reply To ..]
Sometimes I wonder if we might freshen up our governmental gene pool a little bit if we were to put a cap on how much a candidate can spend on their campaign. Make it - let's say - $50K or less. If they can't figure out how to stretch that money out to make it last, and make it work for them, then they have no clue what the average American is going through.

Not to mention over double the debt under Obama, decrease in our credit - rating under Obama, 20+ new taxes under

[ In Reply To ..]
Obamacare alone, which they still refuse to acknowledges.

Lowest labor participation in approximately 40 years (down to approximately 62%

Highest recipients of food stamps in history under Obama.

Drop in median income of $4000+ under Obama.

Slowest economic recovery under Obama.

**There ** is just that - Obama epic failure on all fronts. God help them if they ever wake up - the realization of the damage Obama has done, will push their delicate psyche over the edge.**

Less than 50% of Americans in the stock market because - they cannot afford to invest under Obama

[ In Reply To ..]
Too bad people judge things only by their personal circumstances instead of facts and figures published routinely. Everything you posted is accurate and verifiable. Bet the D's won't bother because it does not serve their personal interest.

Most people have figured out that the stock - market is Americas biggest scam.

[ In Reply To ..]
It's a Ponzi scheme that only benefits the top tiniest percentage, and the rest pay for it.

...due to policies set in place during the - Republican years.

[ In Reply To ..]
The wheels of finance don't turn on a dime, you know. It took a while to mess things up, and it'll take even longer to clean it up.

What? - burtthecat

[ In Reply To ..]
Stock market is more than double what it was when Bush left office. I am way better off now.

As we've been told when the stock market goes down - Obama has nothing to do with it...also

[ In Reply To ..]
It's all manipulated. Maybe you are better off, but millions are not.

Plus unemployment is the highest it's ever been.

You are right on target. Obama will not take credit for - any of his failed polices, blames others

[ In Reply To ..]
But O wants all the glory if something goes well.

Stock market doing better in spite of Obama. Sad part is...less than 50% can invest because they are working 2-3 jobs trying to keep their homes, put food on the table, inflation everywhere.

And the the bike r____ come along with their heads in the sand. Huh, what?...I'm doing great. Yeah, to hell with everyone one else's reality as long as YOUR okay. So typical Dem.

And it'll likely take another 7 or more years to - fix the mess Bush made of the country.

[ In Reply To ..]
If all some people are hearing when we say that is "blah-blah-blah", then it sounds like inattention or earwax is a lot of the problem.

You mean fix the mess Obama is making of the country - Just correcting the incorrect information

[ In Reply To ..]

No, the information is correct; doesn't need - any RepubAlinski word-twisting.

[ In Reply To ..]
The country was a mess a long time before anyone even started thinking about who would be President in 2008. It took a lot of long years of Republican greed and gaming of the system to get things to that point. No one, Pub or Dem, could've walked into the mess that was the office of POTUS in 2008 and had any hope of turning it around. The best anyone can do at this point is to try to slow the skid long enough to try and regain control. Fixing the Reagan/Bush I/Bush II mess may never even be possible. But at least the Dems are gonna try, because they believe everyone deserves a fair chance at success in life, not just the porkers breathing the rarified air of the top 1%.

Unemployment is high because corporations - (aka "people") get all kinds

[ In Reply To ..]
of perks and tax breaks for sending America's jobs to other countries.

House just voted to repeal the estate tax - burtthecat

[ In Reply To ..]
Who do you think benefits from that? And Republican administrations started the last three wars which cost this country a couple of trillion dollars. Think they're ready to stop?

Top 0.2% benefit from this bill. - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
.

I wonder if any of their new windfall income - will trickle down to us? Nah, probably not...

[ In Reply To ..]
n

Small farms and family businesses - Truthhurts

[ In Reply To ..]
It won't pass the Senate anyway so why worry about it.

Let the small family farmer lose their land or be in debt for 20-30 years to keep their ancestry home because they need to take out a loan to cover the taxes. Let's not forget the family businesses have to close because of the tax. Yeah, I'll go along with that. Just so Uncle Sam and the IRS get their millions for new furniture.

How much did the IRS blow on new furniture last year all the while crying the blues that they need money 'cause they can't keep up with the tax calls and audits? Baloney. Should have thought of that before tax time and should have used those millions to cover their expenses, not spend it all frivolously. I thought when Koskinen (sp) took over for that liar Lerner, that things would get straightened out. He was gung-ho on straightening out the wrongs Lerner was doing to the people (not just the conservatives, either). Yeah, did a good job of continuing the crap.

I do believe there's a lower limit on inheritance. - I recently inherited some money as

[ In Reply To ..]
a part of my mother's trust, and was relieved to find out I owe no inheritance taxes on it at all. I believe that's because I inherited something in the neighborhood of $60K, and not $1.4 billion.

The GOP and their rhetoric. What are the facts about the Estate Tax? - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
The fact is, the estate tax is only paid by 2 out of 1,000 estates in the country. Why? There is a $5.43 million dollar exemption per estate of a single person and double that for a married couple, so we're talking a $10.86 million dollar exemption. So conservatives have passed a bill to protect those poor unfortunate millionaires whose estates are worth more than $10.86 million. Does that affect many small farmers and small businesses. Not remotely!

"Only the wealthiest estates pay the tax because it is levied only on the portion of an estate's value that exceeds a specified exemption level — $5.43 million per person (effectively $10.86 million per married couple) in 2015. The estate tax thus limits, to a modest degree, the large tax breaks that extremely wealthy households get on their wealth as it grows, which can otherwise go untaxed." (see link)

Seriously, I really don't understand conservatives who keep whining that the government is doing nothing to help the middle class and criticizing Obama for doing nothing when he has repeatedly called for raising the minimum wage while conservatives have shot it down. Meanwhile, everything that conservatives do is something to benefit millionaires, and they frame it as though they are helping small farmers and small businesses, and their followers believe it without question when the facts say otherwise.

"Only roughly 20 small business and small farm estates nationwide owed any estate tax in 2013, according to the Tax Policy Center. Those 20 estates owed just 4.9 percent of their value in tax, on average."

What does the IRS and furniture have to do with any of this? Do conservatives think that all the money we pay in taxes goes to the IRS decorating budget? Where do they think the billions we pay to Israel and all those other countries comes from? Where do they think all that defense money comes from?

The entire GOP seems to be missing the forest for the trees. They whine about money influencing our lawmakers and then turn a blind eye when laws are passed that benefit our rich lawmakers and rich taxpayers and benefit absolutely no one else. Then they complain about the divide between the rich and the poor being Obama's fault. It's Bush's policies of lowering taxes on the rich and doing away with estate taxes that have produced this huge gap between the "haves" and the "have nots."

Does anybody besides me see the hypocrisy here between what conservatives say and what conservatives do? They want the XL pipeline to help Canadian sludge get from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico in order to make their fat cat donors lots of money, and they want a tax cut for the wealthy in the form of repealing the Estate Tax (again, just like Bush), and yet they always frame it as something to help "small businesses" and "small farmers."

If you're passing bills to help millionaires, convince me you're concerned about the deficit that will rise or the middle class that will have to pay the deficit your laws are going to create, one or the other, because the money either has to come from someone or add to the debt and deficit.

House passes bill to repeal estate tax. - another independent

[ In Reply To ..]
This will benefit the richest Americans only. Thanks, RepubliKochs!

The REPUBLICAN HOUSE - No thanks to Obama or Dems

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Similar Messages:

Jun 13, 2010
Now he wants another $50B for state aid to prevent "massive layoffs of teachers, firefighters, and police." The jist I get is he'll worry about how to pay for this LATER. The GOP has come up with an alternate plan which the CBO says will save $55B in the next 10 years. Do ya think it has a chance? In an aside, Steny Hoyer (D) and John Boehner (R) is on This Week. They were just talking about the oil spill. Can you tell which one is blaming Bush? "President Obama ...

Jun 10, 2011
Paul Egerman, founder of eScription, doesn't know how many millions he has saved from the Bush tax cuts, but it may be more than $10 million. When asked what he has done with all that cash, he said "I have kept it. I haven't done anything with that money." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/06/patriotic-millionaires-bush-tax-cuts_n_871840.html ...

Sep 15, 2011
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/14/house.solyndra/ ...

Jun 25, 2010
The Obama administration on Tuesday backed a proposal to spend up to $6 billion more on subsidies for electric vehicles, amid renewed interest on Capitol Hill in measures to cut petroleum consumption in response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Okay...so more money being spent by the govt. We do not have the money to spend on this. Some cons to the electric car: Current batteries have relatively short trip capacity.Recharge time can be hours, so you don't just stop at the station f ...

Dec 21, 2012
I know the whole, "better to give than receive" and "Children should know the real meaning of Christmas" etc., I was just wondering with the prices of items today how much does a personal typically spend on their children for Christmas? My husband always complains and says I spend too much on ours and I tried to cut back this year, but still ended up spending around $1500 on two children, ages 9 and 12 and really it looks like they are having a very small Christmas. I am not complain ...

Feb 12, 2017
not support something that I object to has gotten a little easier. I came across this website and thought I would share. ...

Jan 25, 2017
Moving right along making America great again! ...

Jan 27, 2016
To hawk their debate, they're trying to build up the Iowa caucus as some kind of big deal, which it never has been except for being the first primary, and patting themself on the back for "not letting journalism to be manipulated by a politician." What this is really about, people, is money, pure and simple. The debates bring Fox huge revenues, and the ratings will definitely be down if Trump isn't on the stage. Megyn Kelly's undisguised dislike for Trump completely d ...

Jun 24, 2011
Pity the American Citizen ...

Aug 13, 2012
forfeit their Medicare & Social Security checks just to vote Obama out of office? HiLARious ...

Aug 24, 2012
who are troubled by the recent shift to the far right that the Republican party has taken? I strongly believe in fiscal responsibility, and the party used to represent this, but now it seems like it has been hijacked by extremists and that greed is the motivating force in the current Republican party, along with draconian far-right ideas that leave little room for those of us who are more moderate. I find it very troubling, and I'm considering switching my party affiliation to Independent. ...

Feb 22, 2017
Exposed: The Democrats' Plan of Disruption and Intimidation Democrats are planning an all out effort of mayhem and disruption to undermine the results of the 2016 elections. They've put together a training handbook for protesters with detailed instructions to harass and intimidate. They are targeting Republican members of Congress for defeat in 2018. The UTGOP is shining a light on the Democrats' hypocrisy and we've posted their manual on our website. We want you to ...

Feb 23, 2012
They pretend to take sides, all the while lining their pockets. Corporations run America. I'm sure they get a big jolly out of watching people become distracted and fighting over social issues. Just passing thru...and just my opinion. ...

Oct 21, 2009
This makes me ill. I know there will be responses on this thread from Republicans who are going to tell me they aren't for rape. Well, 30 of your Senators are! All men, oddly enough. So, what are you going to do about this one? Click here for the video: http://www.themudflats.net/2009/10/2...cans-for-rape/ If you have not heard of the horrible story of Jamie Leigh Jones, a 19-year old woman working for KBR in Iraq, you won’t believe it. She was brutally raped by coworkers, evidence w ...

Mar 26, 2011
A Guide for Republicans ...

Mar 16, 2011
Dear GOP: If you haven't realized it yet, the Tea Party is not just a game. In a VERY liberal county, Miami-Dade in Florida, 88% of voters just FIRED (recalled) a tax-raising mayor who happened to be a Republican. He was raising taxes on declining property values while giving city workers raises. The hero in this story (other than the voters) is a guy named Norman Braman. He is the former owner of the Philadelphia Eagles. He put plenty of cash into this recall effort and helped ...

Mar 12, 2011
Hey, but we need profitable companies that don't pay taxes to employ people off shore, right? Think about this the next time you take a drink of water. See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/09/benjamin-grumbles-bush-epa-fracking_n_833781.html The EPA's 2004 report did find that diesel fluid in fracturing presented a risk to groundwater. How was this addressed? The former administrator [of water] Tracy Mehan recognized that under current law the agency was not regula ...

Mar 10, 2011
This is actually worth reading http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marianne-williamson/embracing-our-femininity_b_832695.html ...

Apr 13, 2011
Apparently 30 to 40% of Americans cheat on their taxes. Makes you wonder if the Republican/T-partiers are more concerned with possible jail time or actually cutting the deficit. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/11/irs-funding-cuts-congress_n_847741.html ...

Dec 15, 2010
Senate GOP leaders take heat over millions of dollars in earmarks By Alexander Bolton - 12/15/10 11:45 AM ET Senate Republican leaders are taking heat for millions of dollars worth of earmarks they requested in a $1.1 trillion spending package on deck for passage this month. GOP Policy Committee Chairman John Thune (S.D.) and National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) convened a Wednesday morning press conference to criticize Senate Majority Leader Harry Re ...

Nov 30, 2010
x ...

Nov 28, 2010
Keep voting republican folks. Pretty soon there will be no one left who can afford to live here except a few mega rich and their staff which will include private physicians and folks to oversee the paperwork on all the jobs they created in other countries. ...

Mar 04, 2010
and Rachel Maddow. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuASQk-Qo6E ...

Apr 15, 2010
Town Hall Face An unsightly condition caused by unsanitary health-care politics LOL, just had to post this picture, for posting subject see link. ...

Apr 18, 2010
// // Blumner: Republicans are doing banks' bidding By Robyn Blumner Updated: 04/16/2010 05:41:33 PM MDT // // 0){ document.getElementById('articleViewerGroup').style.width = requestedWidth + "px"; document.getElementById('articleViewerGroup').style.margin = "0px 0px 10px 10px"; } // ]]> Disingenuousness, not governanc ...

Apr 30, 2010
Statistically speaking, overall, there are more indiviual republicans that give more to charity year after year than democrats. However, when a Democrat is in charge, they tend to raise taxes in way that will help increase the amount of funds they can give to charity. Which way is better and why? IMO, It's better for individual citizens to decide if they will donate and what charity they will donate to, because it is their money and not the government's.For example, I have decide ...

Aug 12, 2012
Yes, the Democrats have a major "mental block", a direct quote from a poster on here who continually tries to berate and insult any poster not in lock step with that poster's ideology. Harry Reid has REFUSED to bring any legislation to the floor for a vote since 04/23/2009 that was pushed, sponsored, supported by Republicans, especially if there was bipartisan support. For those mathematically challenged, Democrats had control of Congress the last 2 years of Bush, and the first 2 yea ...

Aug 19, 2012
Democratic Control of U.S. Government by L. David Roper From 1900 - 2000: Democrats had full control for 32 years and the Republicans had full control for 23 years. The Democrats had control of both House and Senate for 22 years during Republican presidencies. The Republicans had control of both the House and Senate for 10 years during Democratic presidencies. From 2001 - 2011 Republicans have had full control for only two years. From Kathy E. Gill/WiredPen: Only 13 times {2 ...

Aug 22, 2012
Print out the card and then watch the Republican convention. Make some popcorn and consider putting your TV set into protective custody. ...

Sep 06, 2012
The Nasdaq advanced to its highest level since 2000 today and President Obama speaks tonight. Darn that bad economy! The rally was broad, with materials, financials and industrials-- all groups tied to the pace of economic growth-- leading the way with gains of more than 2 percent. Advancers outnumbered decliners by a ratio of more than 4 to 1 while the Dow had its biggest gain in two months and the Nasdaq advanced to its highest level since 2000. BTW, where is Romney these days?&n ...