Don,
If you haven't noticed, the mainstream is what is messed-up, not trying to fix it. The fact that America is being trained to depend on the government, is the mainstream. The fact that it isn't possible for the government to even maintain social security, medicare & medicaid in their current form, is always forgotten, especially in campaign ads. The point is: regardless of your social beliefs, a growing government is not only unsustainable, but more costly to every American than if they were allowed to provide the same things for themselves. It doesn't seem that way to some, but that's because they really think that someone else is paying for it. The government cannot give you anything it hasn't already taken from someone else, AFTER taking it's cut.
I say that, to say this, the only major difference between the 2 parties is this. Bigger or smaller government. Can you do it yourself, or do you need help? One believes you can't do anything & they need to decide & take care of everything for you, the other believes that drives away jobs trying to pay for it, when if you were able to find gainful employment, and not taxed to death, you could provide those things for yourself, with more choices of employment & better services than the government is capable of providing, and for a cheaper price due to the elimination of the wasteful middle-man & the addition of myriad choices.

Devon,
Size of government is smaller than it has been in decades. Look at the number of job losses from the public vs. private sector for the last three years. The reason the deficit is so large is because expenditures under the last Republican President, including two wars, increased much more than our contracting economy could support. Taxes, or revenue, is also at historic lows - especially on the those with wealth. It is simple. Jobs won't be created by anyone unless there is a demand for the company's goods or services, and the demand for those goods and services can not increase if the spending public doesn't have the money. We have a social contract in America that we all chip in, pay to educate our population, keep our roads in good shape for the transportation of those goods, keep our air and water clean and we all pay for that (with the exception of those, like Romney, who shelter their wealth off-shore to avoid paying their fair share). All we ask is that the playing field is even, that everyone who contributes has the opportunity and right to reap benefits from their contribution through hard work, ingenuity, or luck. A pro-corporate position which doesn't expect those making the money to contribute toward the well being of everyone is damaging not only to morale but to the revenue coming in. Greed wins and the "little" person loses. We should expect more than that from our government.

No ma'am,
One war, the second was entered into by this administration.
Trying to argue that the government & their expenditures are smaller than they were is right around 180 degrees wrong, and there are endless examples of it. Likely information you got from a biased media, (a trait you attempted to assign to me, as I was trying explain that bias to you). Taxes are at a low, because you can't continue to drive businesses away & expect to collect more taxes. Businesses pay more taxes than their employees, thanks to the Dems, you now have fewer of both. You can try to blame the previous administration if you want, but again, you don't understand the actual events or the effects of them. Remember, many of the efforts by the previous administration, were attempts to turn aroun the effects of the administration previous to that, when the tax-increases & attacks on business & your home began. Unless you understand the Fair Housing Regulatory Act & the effects of it, including changing banking laws to allow those worthless loans to be bundled & sold back to tax payers as if they were worth something other than the cost of the paper they were printed on, then you don't understand what actually happened. If you don't know who Franklin Raines or Ofeo is, then you are exactly as good as those who fed you that information. It was not Bush who bet your homes, lost the bet, then made you buy those losses.

You don't ask for a level playing field, if you did you wouldn't be against a flat-tax, and for going after the rich, besides, all of you defended these same activities 4 years ago.
Also, just because we all agree to pay for those things doesn't mean we should continue to do it the wrong way. It's cheaper in every way to let the states & municipalities handle some of these things, which means MORE money would actually get where it is going, instead of to a Federal government that is wasteful, irresponsible, and too far removed from ALL of these situations to even understand them.
I thought you hadn't seen Romney's tax-returns, you speak as if you have. If he created a false birth... oops, I mean tax-return, would you be as willing to defend it as you are a Hawaiian birth-certificate that doesn't match others issued during the same time-period?
His returns don't even matter to you. You just want to distract from what the greediest & most wasteful Fed ever does with OUR money, by trying to say that Romney should allow them to waste whatever they want of HIS.
Look at what Romney does with his money, not what we do with yours.
Hook, Line, & Sinker

Tamara is correct on her many good points. Devon and Kevin, you're listening to talking points and they're only a distorted slice of what is real. The Banking Deregulation began back in the Reagan era and continued over the years; it has been a terribly failed experiment. Those regulations kept banking out of serious trouble for decades and we could use them, along with updates for newer technology, again. It's been made to look simple so that the case can be misstated, and has been. Really being educated in these things is quite boring and a bit messy for most. The soundbites get people fired up but does not accurately reflect reality in history, past or present or the choices presented. As soon as one speaks of "all" or "never" or "take care of everything", it shows an extreme position and one devoid of the true state and nuances of the situations. The clean air you breathe, clean water you drink are all due to those nasty regulations, and it wasn't always like this even in my lifetime. There are too many who believe they know what they're running toward but haven't really experienced the lack of the protections that are being fought over. People who can't go out, orange skies with an obscured sun, hospitals filled with people of all ages and health who were damaged by the air, were all regular summer occurances for years. I don't want to go back to that for myself or for the younger generations. Easy to complain while living with the benefits not knowing otherwise.

Rockwood 25, thank you for elevating the conversation (and I appreciate that you think I have some good points)! I sometimes feel that those who are advocating "small" government really only want things cut that won't affect them. Environmental protection laws are not only vitally important for us as citizens, but also important for making the whole economic wheel turn. An unhealthy (and uneducated) population hurts production and creativity needed to promote innovation and progress. I was recently reading about the difficulty both China and India have in attracting top talent. When a top-notch engineer is considering where to work, she is reluctant to choose a city in those countries with horrible air, polluted water and lax regulations on simple issues like chemical disposal. When there is a terrorist attempt, people blame law enforcement and the TSA for not catching them before it happens. Those people need resources. I, for one, don't complain about taxes. I feel I get an amazing deal - great roads, safety, public education (tricky one because I have the resources to pick and choose where I live), the postal service (which is amazing - for 50 cents I can send a physical item across the country in two days), clean water. I don't agree where all my taxes go (drones, war, etc.) but I gladly participate and do my part. We do have it good!

Wrong again.
You always want to blame de-regulation. De-regulation HAS to follow over-regulation, an idea with no proof of success. Carter over-regulated, crashed the economy, and it had to be reigned back-in. Same with Clinton & Bush. Now it has to be done again. You're trained to say de-regulation is the problem, yet can't comprehend the damage to an economy that over-regulation does. You can try to apply ficticious attributes to anyone who points out you don't know what you're talking about all you want, but I'm not talking about sound-bites, I'm talking about results of actual policies. Regulation makes taxes go up, prices go up, unemployment go up, chases away industry, has an overall negative effect on the economy & reduces tax revenue. It's not an experiment, it's proven fact.
I'm going to need you to explain how regulation "kept banking out of serious trouble for decades". Do you mean by forcing them to loan money to people who couldn't pay it back? Or how the tax-payers bailed them out afterward? Or how it left many people homeless with bad credit?
Whether you are capable of understanding what I'm trying to tell you or not, I have given you examples & a chain of results. You have given none of that, just said that you are right because you know who regulates & who doesn't. Thank you for pointing out the "givens", now try looking through actual results. Here's your chance, don't just make incorrect statements, back them up with fact. Problem is, you can't.

Completely free, endless, and limitless energy, provided by Earth, was discovered back in the 1920's. Every scientist in the world knows it. Over 72 governments own & use the technology for something else. Yet, do we use it for free energy? Do they even teach us about it in school? No. I wonder why not.
That's why I will never buy the "clean air"/"clean water" crap as a reason to let the government control everything. This is a subject they use to divide a country who fights over "alternative energy sources" while the Green movement is a multi-trillion dollar per year business. (I could go on about this all day, but it wouldn't matter.)

Side note: Before you vote for a healthcare TAX (the largest tax increase ever), ask yourself how we went from the Wright Brothers to the Moon in 60 years, yet it has been more than 60 years since you've seen a cure of any kind. How is it we still use the same methods we used in the 1970's for treating cancer, even after trillions & trillions are spent every year on hospital bills, insurance, pharmeceuticals, taxes, research & "Susan G Komen"?
The point is, they don't provide you with solutions, they hide them. They don't want cures, they want money. They don't want clean air & clean water, they want your money. This is what you want to put all of your trust in? Now they want to get into your personal lives, sexual lives, and control your healthcare, are you smart enough to see what the reason for that is?

Devon, as a five year cancer survivor who works in the field of Oncology, your statements are wrong. My treatment, which included surgery, chemotherapy, radiation and oral aromatase inhibitors, all came from the most current science available. In fact, someone with an identical diagnosis today will have medication and treatment options available to them that I did not in 2006 and 2007. I am cancer free. I'm not sure you understand how complicated modern science and the human body is.

BTW, How much did that cost you? After you spent that money, have they gotten more from you or less? Are you still on medication for it? For the rest of your life, maybe?
Chemo is not new technology, my grandmother, who was a 2-year cancer survivor in 1974 had chemo. Are you talking about early-detection? There are positive attributes to early detection, but there are also huge profits in it. Again, back to taking your money & offering you "treatments", not a cure. This 60-year period is the biggest jump in technology since the industrial revolution, yet cancer or otherwise, there are more diseased & diseases, not fewer. Trust them if you want, but not questioning things that are this blatant, I just think it's foolish.
Do you know anyone on just 1 prescription? Do you know that the average drug (even post-cancer treatment drugs) has 70 negative side effects? Do you know some have upwards of 250? How many of those they gave you had zero? This leads to more sales.
Complicated or not, I know there's been 0 cures in 60 years, I know science is funded & steered by grants & donations. I know if science doesn't make money for those "investing", they no longer invest. (Ex: 60 MPG carborator, JP Morgan & Nikola Tesla)
PS - Thanks to the Department of Education - You'll have to look up Nikola Tesla on your own. BTW, if you are an oncologist, you use his technology daily, and are right now using 6-7 more. All discovered by a man they don't want you to know about. Ever wonder why?

I hope you never have to deal with cancer or any other disease. I wish you good health and happiness with all my best intentions. But, if you ever do hear those dreaded words, I hope you do not request that your treatment be limited to what was available in the 1970's.

I hope that too Tamara, thank you. I do not wish you any ill-will, ever, PLEASE don't misunderstand. It's awesome you were able to persevere. Bless your heart.
I have been close to those that have been afflicted, it's actually the source of my disdain. I was thankful that there were people there that wanted to help (those like you). BUT, when all they could do was take good-people's life savings (or any inheritance for their kids, who now get a bill instead), while their chances were still around that of a coin toss.
I decided then, I would follow that money. When I did, I saw that there are at least 6 EXTREMELY powerful entities out there that continue to benefit ONLY as long as they treat but not cure. (Many lesser benefactors as well)
Our healthcare industry no longer has incentive to be about healing anymore (it's not run by the ones like you unfortunately). The incentive is money. BIG money. Not the 'evil big corporations' that we're trained to hate, but the ones that deserve it. They have every incentive to hide a cure to make their money, and I believe they do. Think getting the government involved will fix it? Maybe, but not while they are the biggest benefactor, taking at least 1 piece of every single dollar.
Doctor Bills, Drug Co's, Insurance, "Cure" Orgs, Researchers, Tax Dollars, etc.
It only takes 1 member of any 1 of those entities to make a cure go away. ONE.
Either they all come around or we do. It doesn't benefit them, only us, so WE have to.

Tax breaks seem to be also be an issue. (Again, who is it that always shoots down a flat, even, equal, tax system?) We need to stop using taxes as a weapon or a reason to hate someone. TAXES are exactly what is out of hand in this country. We have (as of April) the highest corporate tax-rate in the world. There are more people in this country than there ever has been, taxes are higher (by far) than they've ever been, yet the government still can't stay (or even create) a budget. The enemy isn't big corporations, regardless of what they sell, it's the people wasting your money, crashing the housing industry, creating dependents, and destroying a once-great country.

Obama has an ad right now about Romney, where they say the word taxes 19 times. They won't stop spending $41,120/sec that they don't have, but they want you to hate the other guy who (just like THOUSANDS of other companies trying to respond to the highest tax-rate in the world & endless regulations) has simply tried to protect his investments.

Also, The President wants us to get upset at Romney for what he does with HIS money, but we're just supposed to shut-up & take it when he mispends or wastes OUR money. It's time for people to start paying attention to what is really happening, and stop being distracted by the rhetoric surrounding it.

My last post on corporate taxes:

From CNN Money - Loopholes and other special treatment for different kinds of businesses mean that businesses pay an effective rate of only 29.2% of their income, which puts the United States below the average of 31.9% among other major economies, according to analysis by the Treasury Department.

Tax reform: Why it's so hard

And the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the multinational group that tracks global economic growth, estimates the United States collects less corporate tax relative to the overall economy than almost any other country in the world.

Have you ever heard of a solar panel company called "SOLYNDRA"?

$500mil in Subsidy----NOW GONE -Bankrupt--ZERO production---All of our money LOst.

$2bil Subsidy to colleges all in the pockets of Professors making $200,000 per year
Now that's real help for the ordinary worker!
I could list GM given $60bil in subsidy loans that will NEVER be paid back because they have shuttered the VOLT and will be out of cash again in 2 years.
Whatever money they made is ZERO tax as they were given special No tax exemptions.
America has given away more money called "investments" it is laughable.

And all you could DO is condemn a small subsidy to a profitable Company. of Gasoline that YOU-- Yes YOU should be thankful for. At least the Oil companies give you the fuel to ride and transport you to your Job.

There are many more stupid subsidies "labelled Investments " that the Democratic party has given ---I suggest you google ALL OF THEM and stop complaining about companies that provide a decent product in return for the subsidy.

They do not need it, but it does give them assistence to FIND more energy for YOUR FUTURE.

You have exactly ZERO credibility quoting CNN.

Devon, a flat tax hurts people the less they make. If one makes $30,000, 10% is $3000, leaving $27,000 for the family to live on. If one makes $1,000,000, the tax is an appreciable $100,000 but leaves their family $900,000 to live on. One is cutting to the bone someone who can least afford it; not so true to the other. Simplified but fact.

Solyndra was not a good investment, true. But along the way, there were many forms of oil subsidies, natural gas subsidies and...name a subsidized technology, that no one knew which trials were going to work or not, but we knew we had to invest in energy or the technology or medicine, to get the country to a better, more advantaged place. It has worked and worked well. We need new technologies for many reasons, not the least of which other countries are developing them faster than we are. The oil companies and other mature industries no longer NEED the subsidies, but too many in Congress refuse to pull that plug and anger their big donors. The winning formula has always been to invest in fledglings and let the mature ones go off on their own. Some fledglings don't make it. Any way you look at it, though, continued subsidies for Big Oil, Big Ag and the like are a waste of our resources.

A big fat DITTO to your letter, JK!
Single (or several) issue politicians, whether in the D.C. or in Jeff. City are blinded by their own agendas and seem incapable of compromise.
Another of those "I'm always right and you are always wrong!" scenarios.

JK:
Every vote by Senator McKaskill is also about "HER-BELIEFS"
She does not represent Missouri.
If you agree with the direction of this country, then vote against Akin.
But, McKaskill has voted 100% National party line.
We are ignorant in her mind. Just to justify a National Party agenda.
She continues to ignore MISSOURIANS.
Her vote for the "Obama-Health_TAX" starting in 2014 is going to be doubled within 5 years. Every Employer will be taxed to death on it.
Your job and my job will be in question. The "OBAMA-Health_TAX" will be imposed on Every individual and every business. It will cover even businesses with 10 employees within 5 years.
All Govt programs keep going up into prohibitive costs -all of us.
(proof:Medicare once cost $19 mo Now?$$ 1,200 year.)
This "Obama Health TAX" will be imposed severely on your employer.
That's to hide it from you.
But, hear this now----Every product you buy will be priced to include "Obama-Health-TAX"
That's right. A vote for McKaskill wil get you $6 per gallon gasoline prices and higher burgers and $500 per month energy bills.
Society will self-bankrupt their lives as they overuse a health system that simply does not have the Doctors and Nurses and Hospitals to service.

That is what McKaskill fails to acknowledge.
She does not understand that requiring us to Buy Health Insurance DOES NOT REQUIRE ANYONE TO BE A DOCTOR or NURSE TO SERVICE US.

You watch!!!!!!!!!

Kevin,
It sounds like you have gone into your work in the media with a preformed agenda. Are you acting as an independent journalist? One without preconceived ideas about responses or do you work for a media outlet or type which is politically affiliated? You do not sound objective to me so I'm not sure your report on party responses sounds legitimate. Your opinions ARE, however, well expressed and I respect those opinions as your own. I just want to ask about the distinction between your work in the media and your own perspective.

My stance comes from being a former Liberal, that is until I saw the manipulation of what you are given and what is withheld from you in a media that is 95% Liberal. My stance comes from being in a biased & controlled media. It comes from seeing how things are manipulated. It comes from seeing behind the scenes, like the difference between what comes through, and what makes a "sell-able" story. It comes from seeing certain "tricks" (for lack of a better word), that we were all taught NOT to do in school, used everyday to dishonestly (in more cases than you'd think) "report" the news. (Penn State is a perfect example - manipulated mostly by Republicans btw, just so you don't think politics are not my goal, here)
It comes from years of being "investigative", years of "fact-checking" and research. I don't have room for all of the things I've seen, but I am embarrassed by my industry more often than I am proud of it.
You can question my credibility all you want, I encourage it. I just also encourage you to question that of the rest of the media, everyday, with every story.
It is curious why one candidate would come on regularly, while the other refuses to at all. Which would you say is less confident in his/her stance?

Kevin,
I certainly respect your opinions and thoughts. I think we sometimes only listen to those who agree with us. People should use critical thinking skills by get information from five or so sources and make up their own minds (another reason to support public education, it only helps our country for all the population to develop critical thinking skills). Most media outlets are control by corporations - those with the goal to sell us things we don't need or by agenda put out there because someone thinks the population is too stupid to figure things out on their own. However, I don't think you can use a media system that you describe as more embarrassing than proud of as a basis for your arguments. Your experiences, yes, but not really as an argument in itself.

Kevin, most of these people respond to your ideas with emotions and not intelligence. Many of them are unaware that the U.S. government is spending $750,000 on a new soccer field for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. Or that the Obama administration plans to spend between 16 and 20 million dollars helping students from Indonesia get master's degrees. Our government has also spent $175,587 to determine if cocaine makes Japanese quail engage in sexually risky behavior. The list goes on, and on. My advice is not to respond to progressives/liberals when they talk about the government and its leaders. They just have no clue what they are talking about.

I can't answer for the above poster but I can answer for myself. Yes, those profits are not being taxed at a fair rate. Corporate greed has moved jobs out of America. Failing small businesses were not given the "bail-out" that criminal, large companies were and that is unforgivable. Families that lost their homes due to unemployment and dishonest lending practices were forgotten. No one has been held accountable for the mortgage fiasco. Family businesses have failed and devastated people all over America. Americans who have lost net worth and earning power in the recession can not spend more to generate the economy. Like you advocate, they must live within their means. This means that companies, especially small ones like your local dry cleaner, will not create jobs unless they have a demand for more goods or services, like dry cleaning. Flat tax is not a fair way to tax. Hiding money in the Caymen Islands to avoid taxes is immoral, in my opinion, and I wouldn't trust anyone who would do that to be in charge of a system which relies and needs that very revenue.

People with jobs pay more taxes. Attacking business reduces jobs, it doesn't create them. You can't fix a hole in the boat by drilling another hole to let out some of the water, just like you can't create a problem, then act like re-applying the cause will work as a solution.
Corporate greed is one of those mis-directions I've been trying to point out. The ever-increasing expense of doing business in the US, has caused businesses to leave.
If I keep raising the cost of your home, and because you have a nice home, think that you can afford for those costs to go up, so I that I can take my cut, and give the rest to someone else. But, there is a new home just down the street that would allow you to go back to your previous level of expenses, or even less, you would likely move also. Are you greedy?
You are working from the assumption that the government needs taxes when they are unaccountable, irresponsible, & wasteful. Where's the assumption that the government has a responsibility to reel in spending when it gets out of hand? Why is it that you so badly want to ignore the fact that the government is the one who is irresponsible & over-reaching it's bounds, taking more & more liberties everyday with it's people & it's businesses? Why does that seem to be too painful a reality for you?
You can say what you want about business, but the government is responsible for them going out of business, leaving the country & causing unemployment.
You can't wish it away, it's reality.

Also, by your logic, it is immoral to put your money in a safe or a bank to keep it out of the reach of thieves. That's what you are supposed to do with your money when someone is trying to steal it, you put it in a safe place where they can't get to it.

Again, please explain why this election has become about what Mitt Romney does with his OWN money, and why you think we should have have no say over what the government does with OUR money. You're being mis-directed & distracted as we speak.

Wow, you feel like some people are exempt from paying their share of taxes because they choose to? The government is "stealing" from citizens when collecting taxes? Romney made his money operating in America, using the infrastructure we all paid for and he can "choose" to hide his wealth in off-shore accounts? We are very, very far apart on the spectrum, my Friend.

Also, explain why a flat-tax is unfair.
How is making everyone pay the same thing, not equal? You complain about inequality, then don't want to fix it. Do the people who make more, owe a bigger percentage somehow? That seems like more inequality to me, it also sounds just like the system we already have, that you are blaming on Romney. If you want to close the loop-holes in the tax laws, I'm with you, but blaming someone for using them is just playing short-sighted politics.

Btw, when you go to work, does your paycheck come from a rich person or a poor person?

Yes we are, because we've been hearing about infrastructure for 5 years now, yet in Missouri we've been paying for I-70 for over 50 years. When it needs repair, as property of the Federal government, the people of Missouri will pay for it a minimum of 3 more times, AND will continue to be taxed for it by that same Fed that refuses to fix it as they're required, and have endlessly promised to do it.
And yes, right now, at this rate of taxes, and the increases that are coming (especially against the will & rights of the people), the Federal government is stealing. Income taxes are just that, as they are unconstitutional, you are complaining about how much someone pays. Plus, they are not accountable for misusing it. They have overreached their bounds, and can't wait to do it some more. They were never intended to be this big, they were never intended to collect taxes at the rate they are now, and our forefathers warned us of this. Again, there are more people, paying more taxes than ever before, and the government still can't function within it's means. This country was established when our previous government wanted to continue to raise taxes, and go against the people who pay them. In Boston, they protested against a 2% tax increase on one product.
Anyone who remembers the 70's knows that these "alternative" sources don't work, don't save money, and rarely save pollution.
The misconception is that you see the people screwing you as your saviour. It's the other way around.

And no. You are mis-understanding. The loopholes are there. Don't you think someone would be stupid & not use them? Also, just because Mitt Romney has money, it doesn't mean it belongs to a government that continues to try & screw him. If he didn't use those loopholes or move his companies, he may have wound-up going out of business and would've had to lay off or let go his workers as well, just like THOUSANDS of other companies.
Your complaints are valid, they are just pointed in the wrong direction.

Flat tax, why not flat spending first? The safety net program spending are drops in the bucket compared to defense spending, and infrastructure. A person without a car doesn't need roads. Government does not give no-bid billion dollar defense contracts to just anyone.

Economically, it makes sense to tax people that can afford to pay taxes. An extra dollar in the pocket of a typical low-income person needs to be spent, and thus helps the economy. A extra dollar in the pocket of the wealthy can help the economy too, but the marginal utility is much less. Statistically, that wealth is being hoarded, rather than working in the economy. Corporate profits have risen, and wages have stagnated.

...ah what's the point, you're already in overdrive. Pace yourself.

Also, you could take every dollar that the rich have, and all of it still wouldn't cover what the government continues to spend. What's wrong with reeling that in? I still haven't gotten that answer.

If we don't shrink this government, you & I will eventually have only what they give us, and it will cost more than if we were to buy it ourselves, no way around it.
That's what allows them to use the scare-tactics they use in the first-place: "they want to take away your Medicare/Social Security".
The technique is simple: Create dependents, then when someone actually tries to help those people by providing a pond instead of a fish, you tell those dependents that someone is trying to take that fish away from them, especially when that method will actually to give those dependents endless amounts of their own fish from the ponds that were created.

RD,
Believe it or not, I agree with you.
But, corporate profits are only up if you look at specific companies and compare them to when they had competition. If you compare the amount of profits for all businesses to when there was competition, they are down. It's more money going to way fewer companies providing fewer jobs. It's an illusion.
It makes sense to tax those that can afford it over those who have a lesser ability to do so, but continuing to do that without keeping spending in line can only result in more folks who fall into the latter category.
It's about the people's money, not about the government's money.
I also believe that we tend to think that it's taxes that make this country go, when for over 200 years, it's was the people & their freedom to run a business in a competition-heavy market. It meant plenty of jobs, and competition for employees & customers. Keeping prices & quality also in line.

Mike, many of us feel that aborting a fetus is ending its life. We don't want our tax dollars going to Planned Parenthood or any other organization that dabbles in the death of the unborn. Feel free to call us anything you like. Even though abortion is legal in the US, these organizations cannot continue to exist if they don't have the funds. If you haven't noticed, pro-life supporters are gradually moving to remove funding from these groups. Abortion may be legal, but if the money dries up, they will go out of business.

Sigh...why don't people educate themselves as to how and what the morning-after pill does. It prevents a pregnancy from occurring - thus preventing the need for an abortion. It seems someone against abortion would feel positive about that.

I'm all for civil debate. But an idiot is an idiot. The Morning After Pill is a contraceptive medicine. It delays ovulation. To call that pill an abortion pill indicates one of two things. The person is woefully ignorant or is an idiot. When Akin said that this pill shouldn't even be used to prevent pregnancy in the case of rape of incest. He cemented the fact that he is truly an idiot. Sorry if that is offensive.
This shouldn't come as a surprise if you listent to him to about anything scientific. Try his views on global warming.

Mike:
The morning after pill is a religious belief issue.
If you want to say only "idiots" think that , then so be it.
Actually expecting someone else to pay for it "IS EVERYONE's ISSUE"
So , if you want to promote truly "free sex" with no consequences, may I suggest
you make a case that the morning after Pill is a "medical Expense" that we all should share by paying higher Insurance to cover your "life-style"

I could care less about your morals and would never call you an "idiot" , but please don't ask society to PAY for your freedom ---- spend your own money on whatever you want.
A devout Catholic (Not Moron) is a better way to describe Akin.beliefs.
He does not suggest any changes in how you choose to fulfill your moral responsibilities to society. How you choose to respect young women.

All Leaders (like your Parrents) should advocate up front responsibility.
That is what AKIN must do.
There is absolutely no benefit for society to Pay for anyone's irresponsible acts.

Our education system is failing "morals" quite clearly, as I think about your method
of judging our leaders.
I wonder if you call your parents "morons" or "idiots"

Religious belief issues and public policy should not mix. A politician elected by the people should represent the people, not his own religious agenda. Remember, we are a plural society with lots of different ways of imagining our religion. It is the ultimate arrogance to assume that your religion trumps all others.

Peter - while rape and incest are technically "free sex" from a monetary standpoint I think there is plenty of cost involved to the victims? I'm starting to gain a better understanding of how this guy could even get on the ballot. His supporters see things in a very interesting light. (Was that PC enough?)

Mike:
I do not know anyone who claimed that they could not afford a morning after pill after a "rape" or "incest". That is a loaded PC question and you know it.
Still , calling any poilitician a "moron" for Publicly holding his religious beliefs is unwarranted. You and I know that.
Although , I do respect your rights to who and why you choose a candidate.
Remember , Obama always said he "was against gay-marriage".

That was PC, in my opinion. But, now that I know he lied about his true feelings,
I will not vote for him (again). As thousands of other Christians will also do.
I would do the same of AKIN, if I knew he was lying.

Nope, sounds straight up "Birther" to me. Sorry but any credibility just went out the window.

Peter, any public official who refuses to release his/her college transcripts and tax returns is hiding something. However, you are wasting your breath on these progressives/liberals because they belong to the entitlement group. They feel education and health care should be free but don't understand that someone has to pay for it. They want the government officials to go out back and pick the dollars off the magical money tree to fund all of their wants and desires. They want prescription drugs to be free because they don't understand that the people at Walgreens don't magically whip them up in a cauldron in the back of the store. And they want a great paying job but they don't want to have to go to college and earn good grades in their field of interest.

Rich, your flippant categorization of people of working Americans as an "entitlement group" is pathetic. How about the entitled non-working people in this nation are wealthy heirs living off the fat of their ancestors and pay very little taxes on their income since it's all investments?

Why do you hate America?

Rdbet,

I love my country and the men and women who have fought for it. I hate what our government has done to it.

Now, you might want to remember to bring a Lunchable for your Occupy Wall Street sit-in tomorrow or apply for a position as the fry guy at your nearest fast food establishment. I'm sure your Fort Zumwalt diploma can help you with that one.
As for me, I'm going to work tomorrow, earn a living, pay my taxes an teach my students there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Tamara:
Oh! what a short answer. That suggests -you have no answer.
I take it that you agree with everything I said, except Obama's hiding his college
Applications because he is a foreigner????
Just like Romney is hiding his income because he is hiding his tax returns.
This is not multiple choice, you can't have both same examples with different conclusions.
You do understand that?

Your logic, even though tongue-in-cheek, that resulted in the accusation that Obama may be a foreigner falls apart when confronted with the realities of financial aid at U.S. colleges and universities. According to author David Maraniss:

Including his two years at Occidental, his college education had cost about fifty thousand dollars for the four years and was a family effort. About half came from scholarships and student loans, a bit from the off-the-books part-time summer jobs, and most of the rest from his grandmother, Tut, who had devoted part of her salary each year to his education.

Peter, my short answer clearly says I have not a bit of interest in what you have to say. You crossed over into that parallel universe that Birthers inhabit where truth, reason and logic do not reside.

Rich, I know you love America and meant that comment as joke.

However, it seems that you hate everything that you deem as un-American and have gone all-in with belief of right-wing mythology.

Get the GOP in control of everything and perhaps you can practice your convictions and intolerance over the God-hating Liberals. Only when/if they get control, you may be surprised and find they are all about political power and money, rather than grandiose principles.

Have a good day. And Ft Zumwalt? -what in the heck are you talking about there? Good grief.

Sensible:
Tamara, cannot even understand what "analogy" is.
I now wonder if you or Tamara saw Senator (Harry Reid) on the Senate floor saying "Because Romney does not let us all see 10 years of tax returns--therefore, Romney is guilty of not paying his taxes".
That is quite a conclusion!

--all analogies offend those who might fit the premise.
Tamara does not discount any of my credibility, because she just cannot admit her tax rates are the same as any other American.
Change the tax laws is what I suggest.

Now Sensible-I do not understand why Authors should be trusted to know everything About Obama's past, and those who want proof are considered in verboten territory. Does that make "sense"?

While I am not prepared to refute Author Maraniss facts, I do have many questions before I would accept what he writes.
I believe Obama claims to have attended Harvard and Columbia University.
Did Moraniss cover the Columbia and Harvard University details? Does he know WHO provided that money? Does he have any documentation?
Did he actually see the applications? If not, that is a very limited conclusion and knowledge about our President.

My analogy is "sensible". It"s premise is exactly the same as the Premise used to denigrate a candidate for President.
Tamara cannot handle the Truth.
Thanks for your input. You come across as indeed "sensible"

Sure Rich, have GWB economics guy write up a basics economic exam....get a grip.

All politicians have a firm grasp of economics...Akin for instance asks people for money after getting about 15 seconds into the ( any) conversation..

ELIZABETH:
Well Said, my lady.
Nice to see someone actually understands what a community should be.

That is a complete misrepresentation of Conservative ideology. True conservatives want, as you put it, "freedom to grow up healthy, attain the highest level of education possible." We want the freedom to succeed. We are content to pay taxes that contribute to society as a whole. What we DON'T want is wasteful spending by our gov't. We don't want to see money that should be used to help people being misused by fraud, both by receivers and by politicians pandering for votes. We want to encourage entrepreneurship, not stifle it. (i.e.: the 13 year old whose hot dog stand was shut down b/c it was in competition with brick and mortar restaurants). We want people to succeed, not be disenfranchised by over-bearing gov't regulations. And before you get all twitchy, I'm not talking about clean air,food or whatever extreme example you're thinking of right now. There are thousands of tiny little nonsense regulations that business owners have to deal with every day that do absolutely NOTHING to improve society.

Clearly you haven't read or understand Ayn Rand. If you had you would recognize that the antagonists in her works PREY on society for their own gain. They play the altruist, only wanting to help the little guy, but it is all a facade.

Btw - Erskine Bowles, the White House chief of staff under former President Bill Clinton praised Ryan for being "honest, straightforward and sensible" and had good things to say about his budget plan.

Susan:
I think you could agree that 80-90% Republicans are Christian.
The Christian schools far outnumber public schools.
Christians are known to Help anyone in need. (Charities, Free schooling , The needy foods and shelters)

THAT IS THE PEOPLE. CHARITES and neighbors always took care of their own communitiies.

That is history.
So please don't say Republicans want everyone to take care of themselves.
History and the thousands of Christian Charities is how Republicans take care of communities.
Yes Even you , if you had the need.

Susan and Elizabeth, this is what a dialog is! I like hearing the ideas of people - even if I disagree with them. Thank you both for rescuing this discussion from the silly depth it evolved towards. Elizabeth, you don't want government to over regulate business but what do you think of the how the previous administration - and the ending of Glass-Steigall act under Clinton - did on not regulating and providing appropriate oversight of the financial and mortgage industry? When companies were allowed to sell a knowingly failing financial product, and then buy insurance on that same product without anyone calling foul, I think that you can't allow corporations, or share holders, to run wild with no restrictions. And then expect to be bailed out by our tax dollars after literally losing the hard earned money of their clients who are left with nothing! Greed, the pursuit of profit and the lack of any belief in a social contract makes it necessary for government to watch out for the little guys. Thoughts?

Peter, I agree that Christian charities do great work, and I have donated and volunteered for such organizations many times. However, I think you are vastly overestimating the power of these organizations to coordinate and help in all the places where needed. Often times these same charities are begging for Government to help them in their efforts.

Also, think of other countries such as Pakistan where the Islam is the main religion, and their charities run the schools and give out aid, but sometimes at a cost of to the recipients (madrassahs). It is not always a healthy situation.

-------
It's odd that this neo-conservatism has tried to ally itself with Christianity so closely. The conservative icon, Reagan was not known to be particularly religious (though I am sure neo-con revisionists will say otherwise).

Ayn Rand, another neo-con icon -was in favor of abortion rights, and was not only an athiest -but uncompromising towards religion. When Ayn Rand died, she was on social security and medicare....

TO RDbet:
Charities are begging for Government support? Well, I do know that al charities under 25 employees are getting Govt support for health care.
I would be skeptical the Govt would mix Public money direct to any Religious-Charity.

That would create a political fire-storm, in my opinion.

MIKE:
You are correct>

I am talking about the 50's-60's. City.
Only Public high school was on any Radar screen back then. At least in my territory.

Elizabeth,
Thank you for responding! When I first read your post I was in total agreement - especially about the woman who is selling her maternity pillow. It sound so stupid to have to buy the tag in all the states. But after thinking about it, I don't know if there is a good solution in this situation. One reason we are such a powerhouse economically is because we can do interstate commerce easily. The EU tried to address those issues in its formation and we all know of the troubles it has experienced. I as a consumer, I want to know what I purchase. I want to know that there is nothing harmful in the fill of a pillow - or that my food I'm buying has been genetically altered. In fact, we all hold the "government" responsible when a product goes wrong - like "why didn't "they" make a company disclose that its product was harmful"? So there is a constant balance between commerce and protection for the consumer. So why isn't one Federal protection law enough, why do all the state have to "double dip" and charge a fee for selling a pillow? This is my concern when I hear the argument for return of control to the states and cities. They each want their cut, and need the revenue from such fees to operate. Further, is it fair to allow one small business owner to by-pass rules that her competitors have to play by? Sure, the hit of buying multiple tags is worse for her than a multimillion dollar company but isn't that truly fair competition? It's a hard one!

It sounds like you agree there is a middle ground when it comes to regulation.

Some of the past disarming of regulatory agencies, from mine safety to the SEC, was a disarming of these agencies. Instead of reforming and providing oversight for regulators-which is a job duty of elected officials-these politicians seem bent on dismantling the agencies, or doing away with them all together (as promised by several GOP candidates). To me, politicians do this out of twisted ideology, or payback to their donors from the business world.

Thus the weakened agencies of various sorts are overmatched to regulate big business, and the regs miss their target and come down harder on smaller businesses as per your examples.

And another president (Teddy Roosevelt) was known as the "Trust Buster' when at the turn of the 20th Century corporations got out of hand.

Steve and Sonny,
Good reminders that we have been here before - and are still debating those same issues!