Lets talk 2012.

[devilsadvoc8]

Maybe I am losing my mind but Romney brings nothing new to the table and in the case of Perry and Bachman I see a big step in the wrong direction. while I don't agree with a lot of Ron Paul's views, at least he brings new ideas to the table with some conviction something the Republican party is missing. If it is Obama v Romney or Perry I'll just get drunk on election day and stay home as this country will be no better off in 2016 than it is now.

[Jerrydevil]

I disagree that Romney is the only Republican who could beat Obama. Rick Perry is a formidable candidate. He is a successful governor. In a poor economy, Texas' economy did much better than most states. That's a powerful message in the most important issue in 2012 ... if anyone cares to listen. The liberals would rather get their panties in a bunch over creationism vs. evolution and global warming, while the country spends itself into oblivion.

Obama is certainly the worst president of my lifetime, even worse than W or Jimmy Carter. I believe that most of Jimmy's points are on the money. His legacy is class warfare rhetoric, finger pointing, anti-business regulations and unconscionable expansion of the federal government through Obamacare.

Oh, and we can't forget a stimulus that turned out to be a slush fund for Obama's supporters and did nothing to spur private sector jobs.

What a disaster.

[squishyx]

I disagree that Romney is the only Republican who could beat Obama. Rick Perry is a formidable candidate. He is a successful governor. In a poor economy, Texas' economy did much better than most states. That's a powerful message in the most important issue in 2012 ... if anyone cares to listen. The liberals would rather get their panties in a bunch over creationism vs. evolution and global warming, while the country spends itself into oblivion.

Obama is certainly the worst president of my lifetime, even worse than W or Jimmy Carter. I believe that most of Jimmy's points are on the money. His legacy is class warfare rhetoric, finger pointing, anti-business regulations and unconscionable expansion of the federal government through Obamacare.

Oh, and we can't forget a stimulus that turned out to be a slush fund for Obama's supporters and did nothing to spur private sector jobs.

What a disaster.

I'm still mystified by the over reaction to the healthcare "overhaul". The government requires you to put money into SS so that when you retire you have some income, the government (states) require you to have insurance to drive a car, the government requires you to pay taxes which fund things you might not like (war, medicaid, unemployment insurance w/e you are fired up about). What is so earth shattering about making people pay for getting health care? If you have insurance, your benefits became a little more secure; if you didn't have insurance and you can't afford it, you will get subsidies; if you can afford it and choose not too, well too bad the free health care ride is over.

In 1986 congress passed "Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act" and it took them 25 years to finally realize they need to pay for it and everyone is having a socialist cow about it.

[95Crash]

Anyone watch the Republican debate last night? I thought it was pretty good.

[Jerrydevil]

Squishy, my negative reaction is based on this: What does the government run well?

I also believe that healthcare decisions should be made by consumers.

[Jimmy Leeds]

Not everyone pays into SS.

Driving a car is not a right.

Forcing people to buy health insurance is the death of Obummercare.

Edited September 8, 2011 by Jimmy Leeds

[squishyx]

Squishy, my negative reaction is based on this: What does the government run well?

You wont be getting healthcare from the government, the mandate says you need to buy insurance from private companies.

I also believe that healthcare decisions should be made by consumers.

I don't really disagree with this, but I would argue that if you opt out of health insurance you should be not treated for emergency care. Of course there in lies the problem, when its an emergency how many lives will be lost in the time it takes to check to see if people have coverage? So in the end if we require hospitals to care for everyone, everyone should have to pay.

[devilsadvoc8]

Shameful story out of the Pacific NW.

http://news.yahoo.com/longshoremen-storm-wash-state-port-damage-rr-144921214.html

Longshoremen storm a port, take guards hostage, destroy property all due to a labor dispute. That isn't bargaining, that's thugery. And just in case you were wondering, these thugs weren't replaced by non-union workers but simply by another union. So unions all ban together against the big bad old republicans but also have no fear fighting their own.

And these are the people we want to reward with federal money to create jobs? I'll wait and see what Obama has to say about job creation but I bet the projects he wants to provide money to will be union dominated. I could be wrong but am fairly confident. I also presume the term "shovel ready" will be avoided at all costs since we all know what a disaster that was.

[squishyx]

Not everyone pays into SS.

And not everyone who pays SS will collect it. Whats your point? the majority of people do, and the majority of people will have health insurance.

Driving a car is not a right.

Nor is healthcare... well until we declared it one without paying for it. 1986 was Reagan's term right? He's the real socialist if you had to pick one for this issue.

[maxpower]

I disagree that Romney is the only Republican who could beat Obama. Rick Perry is a formidable candidate. He is a successful governor. In a poor economy, Texas' economy did much better than most states. That's a powerful message in the most important issue in 2012 ... if anyone cares to listen. The liberals would rather get their panties in a bunch over creationism vs. evolution and global warming, while the country spends itself into oblivion.

Obama is certainly the worst president of my lifetime, even worse than W or Jimmy Carter. I believe that most of Jimmy's points are on the money. His legacy is class warfare rhetoric, finger pointing, anti-business regulations and unconscionable expansion of the federal government through Obamacare.

Oh, and we can't forget a stimulus that turned out to be a slush fund for Obama's supporters and did nothing to spur private sector jobs.

What a disaster.

Perry is well, he's Perry. Give six months of concentrated attention on him before a general election and get back to me. I don't care if he's the jobbingest creator in the history of the universe (which he probably isn't), I can't look past the other stuff. Maybe some people can, but I hold some regard for the position and would like to reverse the ignorant goofball trend we're getting, not deepen it. He's Palin and Bachmann with a dick. Wind them up and let them go and laugh at some of the stuff they come up with.

Romney is ugh... but at least he could win, in theory. Then again I'm not convinced he's any different than Obama. It would be nice if there was a true fiscal conservative that wasn't a lunatic/damaged goods/both.

[Jimmy Leeds]

Perry is an accomplished Governor over, like, the 13th largest world's economy. You slam him, yet know nothing about him, yet praise a failed community organizer who has never accomplished anything of substance in his life.

Congratulations and put your head back in the sand.

It really is a shame some people are even allowed to vote.

[devilsfan26]

Perry is an accomplished Governor over, like, the 13th largest world's economy. You slam him, yet know nothing about him, yet praise a failed community organizer who has never accomplished anything of substance in his life.

Congratulations and put your head back in the sand.

It really is a shame some people are even allowed to vote.

"PERRY SAID: "Ninety-five percent of all the jobs that we've created have been above minimum wage."

FACTS: The figures Perry pointed to represented all workers, not just the new jobs. That does not account for low-wage jobs that may be above the minimum wage. According to the Texas Workforce Commission, 51 percent of all Texas workers make less than $33,000 a year. Only 30 percent make more than $50,000 a year. Nationally, Texas ranked 34th in median household income from 2007 to 2009.

About 9.5 percent of Texas hourly workers, excluding those who are paid salaries, earn the minimum wage or less, tying Mississippi for the highest percentage in the nation."

My link

Also, do you agree with Perry that we should not be allowed to vote for our senators?

Edited September 9, 2011 by devilsfan26

[Devils731]

"PERRY SAID: "Ninety-five percent of all the jobs that we've created have been above minimum wage."

FACTS: The figures Perry pointed to represented all workers, not just the new jobs. That does not account for low-wage jobs that may be above the minimum wage. According to the Texas Workforce Commission, 51 percent of all Texas workers make less than $33,000 a year. Only 30 percent make more than $50,000 a year. Nationally, Texas ranked 34th in median household income from 2007 to 2009.

About 9.5 percent of Texas hourly workers, excluding those who are paid salaries, earn the minimum wage or less, tying Mississippi for the highest percentage in the nation."

My link

PERRY SAID: "Ninety-five percent of all the jobs that we've created have been above minimum wage."

That does not account for low-wage jobs that may be above the minimum wage.

I'm not sure why the fact checker feels Perry should include jobs that make slightly more than minimum wage when he is talking about only whether jobs were minimum wage or not.

[devilsfan26]

PERRY SAID: "Ninety-five percent of all the jobs that we've created have been above minimum wage."

I'm not sure why the fact checker feels Perry should include jobs that make slightly more than minimum wage when he is talking about only whether jobs were minimum wage or not.

They are saying that just being above minimum wage doesn't mean it's not still a low-paying job. He wasn't lying but it can be misleading. Also he is making it seem like 95% of the jobs he claims to have created are above minimum wage, but really it's just that 95% of all jobs are above minimum wage, and that Texas is tied for the highest percentage of hourly workers (excluding salaried) make minimum wage or less, so Perry shouldn't really be boasting about creating well-paying jobs.

Edited September 9, 2011 by devilsfan26

[Jerrydevil]

He's Palin and Bachmann with a dick. Wind them up and let them go and laugh at some of the stuff they come up with.

I'm not a religious person, so a lot of the God stuff doesn't resonate with me. Does it bug me that Perry says there's some holes in the theory of evolution? Yeah. But on issues of fiscal policy, I like what he has to say, plus he has experience running a big state. I'm focused on that because it's the most important issue. I'd like some Republican candidates to have a little more secular sensibility about them, but it's not a big enough problem where I decide to vote for Obama instead.

And how about Obama last night, imploring Congress to vote yes right away for his jobs plan, when he doesn't even have a detailed plan yet? He tells us that cuts will pay for the new stimulus, but he doesn't propose what he will cut. We have to wait until next week for that. Gimme a break.

[devilsadvoc8]

I'm not a religious person, so a lot of the God stuff doesn't resonate with me. Does it bug me that Perry says there's some holes in the theory of evolution?

If he suspends rational thought for one topic what's to stop him from being fanatical in another?

[devilsfan26]

If he suspends rational thought for one topic what's to stop him from being fanatical in another?

Indeed, I can't wrap my head around his idea that we shouldn't be able to vote for our senators and that they should instead by appointed by the state legislature. How can we spread democracy in the middle east while taking it away from ourselves?

[Devils731]

Indeed, I can't wrap my head around his idea that we shouldn't be able to vote for our senators and that they should instead by appointed by the state legislature. How can we spread democracy in the middle east while taking it away from ourselves?

So did we not have democracy before 1913? The amendment transferred more powers from the state to the federal govt. It's probably too late to change but I would support it's repeal to give the states back more power.

[devilsfan26]

So did we not have democracy before 1913? The amendment transferred more powers from the state to the federal govt. It's probably too late to change but I would support it's repeal to give the states back more power.

How does it give that power to the federal government rather than the people? I understand the idea of having the state governments have some kind of power over the federal government in this case, but I much prefer being able to vote on our senators myself than forfeiting that power to the state government.

[Devils731]

How does it give that power to the federal government rather than the people? I understand the idea of having the state governments have some kind of power over the federal government in this case, but I much prefer being able to vote on our senators myself than forfeiting that power to the state government.

I didn't say it gave less power to the people, I said it took power from the state govt. The founders didn't want the people to have direct control over everything, and I think they were correct about that.

The Senate was for the states and The House was for the people, this way the states and the people had to agree on things, now it's just the people hopefully agreeing with the people and the states are cut out.

For example, if the states still appointed the senators then I think we would have less pork going through Congress, since one half of Congress wouldn't have to pander directly to the people.

Do you feel that the US was not fairly representative of the people before 1913? Should we start a movement to have Supreme Court judges be elected by the people, since we should have these powers?

Edited September 10, 2011 by Devils731

[devilsfan26]

I didn't say it gave less power to the people, I said it took power from the state govt. The founders didn't want the people to have direct control over everything, and I think they were correct about that.

The Senate was for the states and The House was for the people, this way the states and the people had to agree on things, now it's just the people hopefully agreeing with the people and the states are cut out.

For example, if the states still appointed the senators then I think we would have less pork going through Congress, since one half of Congress wouldn't have to pander directly to the people.

Do you feel that the US was not fairly representative of the people before 1913? Should we start a movement to have Supreme Court judges be elected by the people, since we should have these powers?

You said the amendment transferred more powers from the states to the federal government. Maybe I just interpreted it wrong, whatever.

I don't like the idea of losing any control over who rules us. Maybe there would be less pork that way, but line item veto could accomplish the same.

I don't know if the US was fairly representative of the people before 1913 because I wasn't around then and I don't know enough about what it was like back then, but I'm not sure if electing Supreme Court judges would be that bad if you could cut down on corruption by eliminating campaign contributions from unions, corporations, etc. The Supreme Court is already politicized anyway since they are appointed by partisan presidents.

[Jerrydevil]

Again, yesterday Obama had no proposals about what to cut to pay for a new stimulus. He's leaving it to the new congressional budget "supercommittee" to figure it out. But House Republicans should vote this into law right away, even though they don't know what they're voting for. Maybe voting for bills without knowing what's in them works for Nancy Pelosi, but not responsible people.

No leadership, no balls, no surprise.

[squishyx]

Again, yesterday Obama had no proposals about what to cut to pay for a new stimulus. He's leaving it to the new congressional budget "supercommittee" to figure it out. But House Republicans should vote this into law right away, even though they don't know what they're voting for. Maybe voting for bills without knowing what's in them works for Nancy Pelosi, but not responsible people.

No leadership, no balls, no surprise.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/08/fact-sheet-and-overview

But that is not a 'bill'. The White house can't write bills (why the American people seem to have forgotten this baffles me). They can only list ideas and suggestions about what they would like in a bill and it's up to the house and senate to construct it. Usually when spending is involved the onus is on the house.

Understanding this, when he says his stupid "pass this bill" mantra it's clear he just wants congress to be urgent and not drag their feet. Not to literally pass a non-existent bill that he isn't allowed to write.

[Derlique]

what people dont realize about Ron Paul and his "radical" ideas is that not all of his ideas will pass through Congress. He's not gonna do a complete 180 here

[Jerrydevil]

Squishy, of course you're right that bills come from lawmakers. But when the president says he has a jobs plan, I want to hear exactly what it entails. I want to hear his cutting suggestions, but, what a shock, the empty suit doesn't have any.