May 22, 2012 4:35 PM
National Democratic and Republican leaders are predicting a fierce battle for the New York 1st Congressional District seat in the House of Representatives and have moved Democratic incumbent Tim Bishop and Republican-hopeful Randy Altschuler to the top of their fundraising priority lists.
On May 10, Mr. Altschuler’s campaign announced that the candidate, who lost to Mr. Bishop by a mere 600 votes in 2010, is among 12 Republican candidates across the country to have achieved “full-fledged ‘Young Gun’ status.” The Young Guns program, created during the 2007-08 election cycle by Republican U.S. Representative and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Representative Kevin McCarthy and Representative Paul Ryan— and backed by the National Republican Campaign Committee— lends fundraising support to candidates who demonstrate a level of success by meeting certain benchmarks within their campaigns,... more
On May 10, Mr. Altschuler’s campaign announced that the candidate, who lost to Mr. Bishop by a mere 600 votes in 2010, is among 12 Republican candidates across the country to have achieved “full-fledged ‘Young Gun’ status.” The Young Guns program, created during the 2007-08 election cycle by Republican U.S. Representative and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Representative Kevin McCarthy and Representative Paul Ryan— and backed by the National Republican Campaign Committee— lends fundraising support to candidates who demonstrate a level of success by meeting certain benchmarks within their campaigns,... more
Fifteen paragraphs and not a word about what either of these guys bring to the table or will do for the people. Millions spent on both sides by and for the national parties to try to become more powerful, less cooperative, and less responsive to the community. Where are the true independents? Who will lead ...more us out of the partisan abyss?
You, HB Voter, are a big part of the problem - unfortunately there are untold numbers just like you who not only follow the BS foisted upon us but repeat it.
FACT: Taxes have gone DOWN under Obama.
FACT: Spending has gone DOWN under Obama.
FACT: The affordable care act will SAVE money AND reduce the deficit.
FACT: The Ryan budget supported by Randy Outsourcer and Willard Romney will add 3 TRILLION DOLLARS to the ...more deficit.
Now the baggers will respond with their usual concoction of lies, but the truth shall set you free!
PARTIALLY TRUE: Taxes have gone DOWN under Obama. FACT: True, because tax revenues are the lowest in year, but they went down due to expansive tax credits as part of the Stimulus debacle that failed to jump start the economy and resulted in a trillion dollars of more debt combined with the Democrat approved Bush tax cuts.
FALSE: Spending has gone DOWN under Obama. FACT: This myth is the result of recent liberal bloggers that ...more ignore actual numbers. During Bush's 8 years new debt accumulated was $4.9 trillion mostly due to tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New debt under Obama in 3.5 years, now well over $4.9 trillion and counting having hit the Bush mark in March 2012.
FALSE: The affordable care act will SAVE money AND reduce the deficit. FACT: The assumptions built into the early estimates during the passing of Obamacare are proving to be false. Collecting fees for ten years but doing business for six are but one of the smoke and mirror gimmicks built into the early estimates.
FALSE: The Ryan budget will add 3 TRILLION DOLLARS to the deficit. FACT: Ryan’s budget will make up that lost revenue by eliminating TBD tax credits, deductions and exclusions. The CBO has the latest Obama budget for 2013 adding a solid $3.5 trillion through the next decade while Obama claims it will reduce the deficit by $3.2 trillion.
The Bush tax cuts were extended because the republicans used their normal lies and threats to hold the American ...more people hostage to win favor with the rich.
The republican party is self-destructing,mostly because the teabag party has seized control and is not willing to compromise to make the government work.They are more interestd in ideology than helping the county.Those who actually follow politics know that it's the republicans who have moved far to the right while th democrats have barely moved to the left at all.The republican poarty is the party of extremists-we can see it by the postings of its surrogates here, who carry the water for them.
Article says "most of Mr. Bishop's donors come from the reitred community, while most of Mr. Altschuler's money comes from the securities and investment industry." Heyyy, no surprise there, retirees are terrified of Randy's promise ...more to go with a budget that will kill Medicare and maybe Social Security, too. On the other hand, the Wall St. guys love Randy because he'll keep their nest feathered.
If you're a Wall St. guy, vote for Randy. If you're anyone else, vote for Tim.
When they took over state legislatures,their first priority went from jobs to restricting womens' rights-passing restrictions on abortion,planned parenthood and recently contraception.
All one has to do is read Ryans' bill to know that the republicans want to kill Medicare,Medicade,food stamps,and defund education.
Don't beleive anything any far right wing zealots post here,read the bill for yourself. Big tax breaks for the rich,paid for by ...more gutting programs for the poor.
Classic heartless right wing brown-nosing to the top 1%
"The conservative 60 Plus Association is running a TV ad saying Congress plans to pay for overhauling health care "by cutting $500 billion from Medicare." It claims that this "will mean long waits for care" and cuts to MRIs and other imaging services, that "seniors may lose their own doctors" and that "government, not doctors, will decide if older patients are worth the cost." Actually, the House leadership’s ...more version of the health care bill would trim a net total of only $219 billion from the projected growth of Medicare spending over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. And Congress isn’t proposing to cut benefit levels or to deny treatment to anyone who is "not worth the cost." We find this ad to be mostly false."
"After celebrating the accomplishments of older Americans, the narrator gets straight to the scary stuff: "Congress plans to pay for health care reform by cutting $500 billion from Medicare." The ad doesn’t mention that the $500 billion is a gross figure that counts only proposed cuts while ignoring any increases, including a big increase the bill proposes in projected payments to doctors. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the House bill would result in "savings" of $219 billion after all increases and decreases are netted out. The House bill would trim projected increases in payments for hospitals, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and others, including home health care providers and suppliers of motor-driven wheelchairs. But it also proposes what CBO estimates is a $245 billion increase in spending for doctors, by canceling a scheduled 21 percent cut in physician payments. None of the "savings" or "cuts" (whichever you prefer) come from reducing current or future benefit levels for seniors. AARP, in a "Myths versus Facts" rundown of what’s being said about the health care bills, contradicts the claim made by 60 Plus:
AARP: Fact: None of the health care reform proposals being considered by Congress would cut Medicare benefits or increase your out-of-pocket costs for Medicare services.
you can find more at factcheck if you punch up "senior Scare"
This is a serous election and it's imperative that we take back congress from the greedy radical right.
Reelect Tim Bishop
"In the first three months of 2012, legislators introduced 944 provisions related to reproductive health and rights in 45 of the 46 legislatures that have convened this year. Half of these provisions would restrict abortion access. So far, 75 abortion restrictions have been approved by at least one legislative chamber, and nine have been enacted. This is below the record-breaking pace of 2011, when 127 abortion restrictions had been approved by at least one body in the first quarter ...more of the year, but still higher than usual for an election year. In 2010, for example, only 46 such restrictions had passed at least one house during the first quarter, while in 2008, only 34 had passed one chamber by that point....
So far this year, legislators in 11 states (AK, AL, ID, IA, KY, MI, MN, MS, PA, RI and VA) have introduced provisions that would require a woman to undergo an ultrasound prior to obtaining an abortion....
Medication Abortion Limitations
Legislators in 11 states have introduced restrictions on medication abortion. The provisions introduced in 10 of these states (AL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MS, MO, OK, TN and WI) would prohibit use of telemedicine by requiring that the physician prescribing the medication be in the same room as the patient. Telemedicine bans are awaiting signature in Tennessee and Wisconsin. Currently, four states ban the use of telemedicine to prescribe medication for abortion
Legislators in 14 states have introduced legislation that seeks to restrict abortion later in pregnancy—but prior to fetal viability. In 10 of these states (FL, GA, IA, LA, MI, MN, MS, NH, VA and WV),
Refusal to Provide Contraceptive Coverage
Legislators in five states (AZ, GA, NH, NJ and NY) with contraceptive coverage mandates have introduced legislation to expand existing exemptions, or create new ones, for certain employers
The Arizona proposal would allow any employer that claims a religious objection to refuse to provide contraceptive coverage; current law provides an exemption only for nonprofit organizations that primarily employ and serve individuals sharing their religious beliefs.."
But there's no war on womens' health issues.
"Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP's War on Women
1) Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't yet. Shocker.
2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to "accuser." But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain "victims."
3) ...more In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)
4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids.
5) In Congress, Republicans have a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.
6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids' preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.
7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.
8) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.
9) Congress just voted for a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.
10) And if that wasn't enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can't make this stuff up).
What about redefining rape,and the reclassifcation of rape victims as 'accusers'?
What if your job hung on a decision your boss could mak about your medical condiion,or your need for certain drugs to maintain your health?
You are very dismissive of these issues,considering that the far right once placed a heavy emphasis on social issues and morality.Did those values now become unimportant because the republicans declared that ...more their first priority was to make Obama a one-term president?
Any job that hinges on the non-use of certain drugs or the capabilities required in the position is usually stated on the front end of employment selection. If it isn’t, the company doing the hiring needs to get a new HR team.
"The act would also redefine the exemption for federal funded abortions in cases of rape to only apply to instances of “forcible rape.” What does that mean, you ask? Well, the criminal code of the US has no definition for “forcible rape,” and the bill sponsored by Rep. Smith doesn’t provide a definition either. This leaves the door open ...more for anyone to make an interpretation of what forcible rape means to them — but this leaves out a critical truth: rape can take place without the use of force.
This new definition of rape means that victims of rape who are drugged, given excessive amounts of alcohol, mentally unable to give consent, or underage victims of statutory rape will NOT be able to receive federal funds for an abortion under the proposed law."
do you support this?
Your definition of drug use isn't what is affected by the changes that affect womens' health.
The use of certain drugs-drugs that are needed to manitain health-there is no reason for that info to be disclosed to an employer.I can understand the use of illicit drugs,but if a woman needs to use contraception for a medical condition,that is none of the employers business.
I have clearly outlined the war on women above.
And what an ignorant and bigoted statement to classify an entire group of people into one myopic category. And this is the left, the tolerant and accepting. Anyone “loving” women is a tad sexist too IMO, I would think you’d want to respect a women as individuals first and foremost.
Check ...more your facts too Bob on the military spending statement. Politifact looked into this and found that while the United States, which guarantees the security of the 28 members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, among other allies, spends at least six times more than the next largest spender, that the U.S. spends far more than other countries on defense, but it falls short of his claim that U.S. spending exceeds that of all other countries combined. International research shows that United States’ defense funds make up between 40 and 45 percent of the world’s total military spending. They rated the claim "Mostly False." BTW, defense spending is mandated by the Constitution. Entitlement spending is not. Entitlement spending is referred to discretionary spending for a reason.
As for defense spending,why do we have to support the rest of NATO? The constitution says
(Article I,section 8)
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
and
To ...more 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;
I don't see anything there about NATO or nation-building.
Entitlement spending would also be governed by that same article-here it is in its entirety-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
>
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
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;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Here's that very first line again,in case you skimmed over it-
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
got that?
to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare
one more time-
general Welfare
Some other claims in this ad we’ve heard before, such as the absurd allegation that the stimulus did not create any American jobs (when the Congressional Budget Office’s economists state that it created or saved between 1.2 million and and 3.3 million jobs) and the overreaching claim that President Obama has “wasted” $34 billion on investments like Solyndra (when in fact only 2 percent ...more of such loans have gone bad).
Geelook at that-the stimulus that went to Solyndra and other failed projects accounts for only 2% of the total stimulus money.I guess that's a far cry from the entire stimulus being a failure, like we keep hearing here.
Your credibility is at stake
The first valid link is the one I quoted from; factcheck.
The next couple are about the myths de-bunked in that link
-The traffic lights in China-were made here.
- the money to Finland-went to rersearch and development for a car hat will be built here
Only someone who thinks everyone else is a brain-dead moron would twist facts so badly and expect everyone else to beleive ...more him.
Not that we think that about you ;)
Do the American people really want to return to those policies?
Is that what the right means when they say hey want to take the country 'back'?
While debateable, I'm sure Tim Bishop and the 12.5 million people currently out of work find that very comforting.
No one has answered this challenge. If this is really what Randy espouses, he's toast.
Fact check sites have pointed out that the leftist false claims fail to consider the other aspect of the Ryan proposal that fills in the void with the most recent plan converting the federal share of Medicaid spending into a block grant indexed for inflation and population growth and create a “Medicare Exchange”—much like Obamacare’s insurance exchanges but with a public option for FUTURE retirees who are under the age of 55 today.
The plan is estimated to reduce spending by $2.5 trillion, relative to President Obama’s budget: $205 billion from Medicare, $1.6 trillion from Obamacare, and $770 billion from Medicaid and other health-care programs.
Conversely we see in the news recently that democrats have been able to temporarily prop up Medicare Advantage long enough to attempt re-election by exploiting an obscure bit of federal law. Under a 1967 statute, the HHS secretary can spend money without specific approval by Congress on “experiments” directly aimed at “increasing the efficiency and economy of health services.” When Obamacare kicks in after the election and as part of its hundreds of billions in Medicare cuts, the Obamacare one-size-fits-all plan slashes reimbursement rates for Medicare Advantage starting next year — herding many seniors back into the government-run program.
And while we're on the subject of making it clear, it would appear that Half the Story Bishop, who voted and supported Obamacare and its $528 billion decreased spending is waging his own war on Medicare, including a $136 billion reduction for Medicare Advantage. The Medicare Advantage cuts will force 4.8 million seniors off the plan by 2019. An additional $23 billion in cuts to Medicare will come from a panel charged with slashing Medicare spending.
"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reviewed, at Ryan’s request, the long-term budgetary impact of his plan. CBO said spending on anything other than health care entitlements and Social Security would fall to about 5.75 percent in 2030 and 3.75 percent of the nation’s economy in 2050. How low is that? “By ...more comparison,” CBO says, “spending in this category has exceeded 8 percent of GDP in every year since World War II.” And that doesn’t include defense, which last year was 5 percent of the gross domestic product. So, if defense spending wasn’t touched, there would be no money left for anything else."
We already know that the republicans want to increase defense spending,and it ill apparently be at the cost of seniors and the poor.
Here’s the Ryan plan in a nutshell:
"■Beginning in 2023, 65-year-olds would pick an insurance plan from traditional Medicare and private plan options. A premium-support payment would be sent to the plan of their choice."
■The Medicare eligibility age would be slowly raised to 67 by 2034.
■The private plans would be required to offer a base level of benefits (the actuarial equivalent of traditional Medicare). They’d be part of a new Medicare exchange, and they’d be regulated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
■The premium-support payments would be tied to the second-cheapest plan offered. And the proposal caps the growth rate on that plan at gross domestic product plus 0.5 percentage points. What happens if the growth exceeds that cap? Congress would be required to take some unspecified action to keep costs in check.
The Ryan plan is vague on details of cost control and coverage,
from factcheck-
"Rep. Paul Ryan, author of the GOP plan, insists his plan makes “dozens of specific assumptions to justify our numbers.” But the fact is details are scarce, and the president is mostly correct when he complains that Republicans “don’t specify exactly the cuts that they would make.”
"Obama gave specific figures for the budget casualties, including "over 200,000 children" who would be shut out of Head Start and the loss of 4,500 federal grants "to combat violent crime, financial crime, and help secure our borders." He also said "hundreds of national parks would be forced to close for part or all of the year," and FAA cuts would result in "the complete elimination of air traffic control services in parts of the country."
Obama prefaced his remarks about the impact of the House budget by saying, "I want to actually go through what it would mean for our country if these cuts were to be spread out evenly." He later (correctly) anticipated that Republicans will criticize him for that. "Now, you can anticipate Republicans may say, well, we'll avoid some of these cuts — since they don't specify exactly the cuts that they would make," he said."
The republicans supporting the Rya budget want us to trust them-not exactly something most of us feel like doing given their track record over the last decade.
That can be verified by anyone who wants to go to factcheck and check it out.
The Ryan budget attacks programs for the poor,elderly and disabled.
That,too,can be verified by anyone who wants to and not depend on half-assed information from a partisan hack.
The republicans always operate in that dishonest way.
This vote, on a Potemkin "Obama Budget," is not intended to be taken seriously. It's a stunt designed to get a slag into the newscycle, and they tend to work. What happens is a Republican legislator presents a "budget proposal" that's designed to be a satirical presentation of an "Obama budget." Democrats don't vote for it, because they recognize that ...more it bears no resemblance to their budgetary preferences. Back in March, it was Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) who got the Harlequin role in this bit of legislative commedia dell'arte. As Dave Weigel reported at the time, Mulvaney presented the pretend Obama budget with a knowing wink:
"It's not a gimmick unless what the President sent us is the same," Mulvaney snarked. "We are voting on the President's budget. I would encourage the Democrats to embrace this landmark Democrat document and support it." (Calling a Democratic effort a "Democrat" effort is a minor swipe.)"
Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, even challenged Democrats to point out any errors in the numbers and he would correct them — a challenge no Democrats took up. Hmmmm.I would think they would have been all over ...more a challenge like that like debt on a democrat.
The proposal was made to trick the American people into thinking that the republicns supported it The republicans have opposed Obama at every turn;they wren't fooled. The republicans made fools of themselves.
They lied and got caught on it.
From the Huffington Post - The college class of 2012 is in for a rude welcome to the world of work. A weak labor market already has left half of young college graduates either jobless or underemployed in positions that don't fully use their skills ...more and knowledge.
Young adults with bachelor's degrees are increasingly scraping by in lower-wage jobs – waiter or waitress, bartender, retail clerk or receptionist, for example – and that's confounding their hopes a degree would pay off despite higher tuition and mounting student loans… Taking underemployment into consideration, the job prospects for bachelor's degree holders fell last year to the lowest level in more than a decade.
And the republicans want to "take the country back' to that,with Romney hiring on a bunch of Bush's advisors.
And once again,you accuse people you don't agree with of being enemes-don't you have anything new to attack with? Do you consider yourself 'superior' because of your political posiion and morrality?
You're a fine one to preach to others about who is he enemy.You promote te samedivisiveness ...more that you say you oppose..It's common for hipocrates to do that and never even recognise it in themselves.
Who embraced the Viet Cong and protested in he streets in favor of Ho Chi Minh, my side, or yours?
Which political side of the aisle did the Soviet Union give guidance and support to during the cold war? Conservatives or liberals?
Who offered themseleves up as "human shields" to protect Saddam Hussein's assets?
Who expressed their "understanding" and sympathy for Al Queda? The political right or left?
Who burns the American ...more flag in our streets, my side or yours.
You are an enemy of this country.
you are permeated with hatred. It comes from your ideology.
they are against equal pay for women,womens access to healthcare,preventing violence against women,granting rights to gays,voting rights, labor rights,the minimum wage,immigration reform,regulating the environment,they are against keeping college affordable, want to destroy the education system,social security, medicare and medicade for the elderly and most vulnerable,reduce food stamps for the poor,They are against closing ...more tax loopholes for therich and also want to continue corporate welfre for big business and oil companies.
Their proximity to big business and corporations has helped corrupt them to the point where they are incapable of governing effectively.
And that's just the present GOP.
In the past they opposed civil rights,voting rights for women and minorities (much like they do now),integration,fair labor standards,child labor laws,equal pay for minorities (and women),and environmental protections.
and by the way,burning the flag is a proteted 1st amendment right.
Federal spending is also higher this year than any year since 1949. The last time spending was higher—in 1946, it was 24.8—the country was just coming down from the exorbitant rates of spending during World War II.
More republican lies,brought to you by the party of obstruction.
What we need to do is raise revenue-taxes-particularly on the top 1% and corporations that offshore profits;the Ryan budget will make it easier for corporations to shift their profits to tax havens to avoid paying ...more taxes on it.
That is what the republicans won't tell you.
What we need to do is lower spending and eliminate the uncertainly in the economy ...more and business environment that Tim Bishop, Obama and Obamacare has created. 3% of the income earners of the country can't sustain 100% of the country. The Ryan Budget proposes to reduce corporate tax rates to promote businesses to relocate back to the US vs. off shoring. The US has some of the highest corporate tax rates world wide. Businesses are leaving in drove. Last I heard the cofounder of face book just renounced his citizenship to escape this very scenario. Who wins by pushing business overseas? No one. And yet Tim will demonize Randy for the very business scenario Tim supports. Pathetic.
Meanwhile,the republicans have proposed over 100 further limitations on womens health rights,especially abortion.
And yes,GW is the source for most of or problems;Taxes need to be raised to pay off the debt that he accumulated.What the republicans are proposing is to drive our country toward where Europe is.
Trickle down economics doesn't ...more work;we've tried it for the last 40 years and look at where we are.The republicans have lied to the American people.
So let’s increase taxes to pay for W’s debt as you suggest. Who do you suggest we raise taxes on to pay for Obama’s even faster accumulated debt? I’ve said it before. W took of the edge of the debt cliff… Obama drove us over. And Obama wants to double down with even more spending. This is why his jobs plans were filibustered and why we creep ever closer to the debt problems of Europe with unsustainable entitlement spending – all under Obama’s massive debt accumulation. So, how can you say on the one hand the republicans want to kill medicare and social security, both massive entitlements, and then say republicans are driving us to where Europe is? That makes no sense.
We need to increase taxes to spend on infrastrucure-that's how you create jobs.
The people stealing from the system are people like you who want your taxes lowered a the expense of the country.
You won't that in economics 101; that's a recipe for government to destroy long term growth and ingenuity. Government programs are the cause of joblessness. Dig huge holes and fill them up again, or repair roads and bridges already repaired with “shovel ready” stimulus funding. You need to provide incentive for businesses to grow and the free market system to identify where to make investment. ...more Under the current regime, businesses are afraid to do anything because of the uncertainty created by Obamacare and other government intrusion. Institute the ability for private enterprise to compete with foreign companies, keep union intervention minimal. Unions exist primarily to keep out competition and they make businesses uncompetetive.