Have to disagree here. We need to v**e Constitutionalist and Libertarian with some Moderate Democrats and Republicans. The hard-core and hard-nosed Right- and Left-wingers have to go. But, that is just my opinion.

For every story like yours with positive, in your view, outcomes, there is a tale that tells the opposite story. Just because you have a positive experience does not mean all have or will.

Unfortunately, that is not the case, they, the politicians and their staffers and associated l***hes, are still working, if it can be called that.

[very sarcastically)BUT THE POOR!!! We cannot have the poor paying taxes, IT WOULD NOT BE FAIR. A National Sales Tax would make the poor have to pay taxes.

Oh, wait, there has been a proposal for years talking about The Fair Tax that would create a National Sales Tax and help all people with certain tax burdens.

All the information one could ask for regarding the "FAIR"est tax proposal to date.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

The same could be said for things that are just "too far right" as well. But, then again, who determines what is "too far left" and "too far right"? Some of the people might believe what you think as "too far left" as not being far enough left. It is all a matter of perspective.

The Federal Government should only handle things that affect the greater number of people, but they now want to have the power to micromanage all the people.

Agreed.

Why do you think the Tea Party was started? They just cannot get any real foothold because they are a minority offshoot Conservative/Libertarian group of white people. Oh, yeah, and they cannot get 527, or is it The 501 ( c ) ( 4), tax-exempt status because of the IRS. :twisted:

Most politicians, on both sides, more so on one side than the other, have forgotten the oath they took.

P**********l Oath of Office:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Vice P**********l Oath of Office:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Supreme Court Justice Oath of Office:
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Representatives to the House and Senate Oath of Office:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

In the Supreme Court Justice Oath of Office it clearly states "impartially discharge and perform all the duties" and yet each and every Justice on the bench was nominated and confirmed along political party lines. Think of the balance of power in the SCOTUS if Barack Obama is able to appoint a Supreme Court Justice before his second term is finished.

I see nothing in any of my posts that indicates anything about the size of a man's penis. Once again, you, just like many Liberals, see things that are not there.

But to continue this line of crudity. I assume that if you lay on the floor on your stomach with an engorged penis, the head of it does not touch the floor at all in any capacity no matter how you roll.

We would not need such a large IRS if we didn't have the ~70,000 pages of tax code on the books. Unfortunately, think of the number of tax lawyers, CPA, and accountants that would no longer have a job trying to find ways for people and companies, who can afford the, to evade paying their "fair share" of taxes. We need to simplify the tax code greatly, but the lobby and special interest groups have far more interest in keeping it as complex, and even more complex than it is, as possible.

Taxes are an evil necessity, but when there are billions of dollars each year spent trying to comply with or find ways to skirt around the tax laws, there is something seriously wrong the system.

It is the politicians, main Democrats and Liberals, who want to "maintain the status quo", a statement consistently attributed to the Republicans and Conservatives, with plenty of those same Republicans and Conservatives who like the current system because of the power it gives them over the people. If people really took the time to compare their income with the amount of money paid in the various tax expenditures each year, they would be amazed. Some estimates, with all the blatant AND all the more obscure taxes, put the amount at just over 70%. Obviously, the lower the income the less that value becomes.

That is not true. The corporation you work for has no choice. Not only are they required by law to take 7.65% of your paycheck to send to SS, they are required to match those funds at the same rate 7.65% of the money they pay you each month. It has been proposed many times over the years to allow wage earners to be able to take some of that money and put it into some sort of retirement investment account by the Republicans, but it has always been shot down by the Democrats time and again using the same tactics used by the Republicans today involving ACA.

There is nothing hypothetical in your premise. It is fact. I believe it is Chile or Argentina or some other South American country, I cannot remember which, nor can I find the information again that this information came from, but in one of them, the workers, both private and public have the option to put their equivalent SS money into private investment accounts. The ones who "opted-in" to the private accounts receive more money from their investments than the people who "opted-out" with equivalent time of paying into each system. In many cases, in retirement, the ones who "opted-in" to the private retirement investment accounts get more monthly than they were paid as a working employee, their return on investment was very high.

T***slation please.

As long as you have two or more groups of people with differences of opinions on any singular topic you will have political parties. There is no way around this.

Well, since the people v**e the representatives into office, only the people can v**e them out. That should be what limits terms, but as long as there is a politician who can convince the people s/he is working to further their interests s/he will continue to be elected. Gerrymandering does not help the cause. If there is no chance for someone from the opposition party to get elected in a certain area, there is no need for spending money in that particular area regardless of the veracity or integrity of the message you put forth. I am all for term limits myself because I do not think politics should be a career, but something like jury duty. Everyone can be called to do it, no one wants to be there, everyone wants to get it over with as soon as possible and everyone hopes they will never be called again. Politicians like the power. If WE, the people, revoke that power, then there will be no long running politicians. We can only do that through v****g our consciences not along party affiliations. Unfortunately, that will never happen. Many people think they are one and the same, but they are not. Others v**e the same way year after year because they refuse to listen to the message of the "opposition" for the sole reason that it is the opposition. Too many people are unwilling to listen to the other side for the most petty reason of all, they MAY NOT believe 100% as we do.

As the members of the Supreme Court are appointed for life, mainly because the average lifespan during that time was not close to what it is today, it was not considered an issue. That is something even I can agree the Founding Fathers were rather short-sighted on. As they are selected as Candidates by the President and Approved upon by the Senate, that part of the system is fine, in my book. But, yes, we need to have term limits on SCOTUS.

You lost me at:
"The following is a sworn testimony from Alan Greenspan that won't take place in front of the committee but it may in the very near future."

I quit reading after that.

Oh, it stings, it stings.

As you have been impotent since birth and could not get it up with a hat pin stuck through it, I can be assured there is no possibility you can be my father.

Aside from that, my real father was more of a man than you will ever be able to lay claim.

You are the one who is more than willing to call out the mistakes of other but are unwilling to accept when you make a mistake and are called out for it. Do not presume you are infallible. The more you talk, the more it is proven that you are nothing more than the mistake that proves your father should have pulled out early.

As you seem to not clearly understand how things work in the Federal Government, I guess it is time for a lesson.
1) The House of Representatives write the budget
2) The Senate v**es to approve or disapprove the budget
3) The President signs into law or vetoes the budget.

During its time in 2) the Senate can make amendments which have to be sent back to 1) for a v**e. The House then v**es up or down. If v**ed up, it goes back to 2), who will immediately approve it, it has already been approved by the House and Senate, so I am trying to figure out why this second v**e in the Senate is necessary. After that it is sent to the President for his signature or veto.

When a budget is amended by the Senate and sent back to the House, if the House v**es the budget down, they will amend it and send the amended budget back to the Senate for an up or down v**e. They cycle repeats.

How is it not clear? Everything but ACA was funded. So they, the House, of course along party lines because a Democrat would never have the courage to v**e against the party will, were trying to propose a budget, fund everything but that which they did not want.

Why must they cut areas that were already in existence, and also fund something that goes against their principles and the wishes of their constituents?

This statement here goes to show me that you do not have a clue about the budget process. THEY WERE FOLLOWING THE RULES and have been since the beginning. Their, the House, second submission put in a delay of the implementation of ACA for 1 year, just like all the other parts of the law were given. That is FAIR, as you Liberals always want to purport you support. Businesses, special interest groups, others were given the option to delay, why should not the conman man of the this country?

Do you know that members of the House and Senate are exempt from the laws against insider trading? Do you have any clues the number of laws passed by Congress and signed into law exempt them from being prosecuted or having the need to obey those laws?


What if I want to keep my insurance, my provider, my healthcare provider and such but my employer, because of the burden of ACA and the need for compliance decides not to continue to offer coverage. Then I have to search for new insurance on the private market. I do not necessarily get to keep any of what they say I will. How many employers have dropped coverage for employees or dropped employee hours to below the full-time employment position so they do not have to abide by the ACA rules?

And the majority of those not on the left want ACA gone. So those who are v****g against it are v****g for their constituents. How is that different from what those in the Senate are doing? You want ACA, I do not. My Representatives are v****g my wishes. Why is that an issue.


As I am not really sure how to t***slate this and make sure I get the message as intended, I can only hope I have it right. You are talking here about a party affiliation(Republican) and an elected official(Senator). An elected representative is supposed to represent the best interest and desires of his/her constituents. If they v**e against those interests and/or desires, they can get fired. So what the Republicans in the House are doing is v****g in the best interest and according to the desires of their constituents. The Senate, and this is opinion, are the ones v****g in spite. There was no reason to reject the delay other than it prevents the start of the implementation of ACA for one year to give time to better work out the bugs. Something that should have been done during the last 4 years it has been law. I can see their reasoning, while not agreeing with it, for v****g down the first budget that defunds ACA. The last one, I cannot see why it was unreasonable as well, considering they would not be affected by it anyway and a budget would have been passed. The only reason they v**ed down the second two proposals because they are unwilling to compromise. They want the Republicans in the House to compromise but are unwilling to do so themselves. The last two proposals were very good attempts, to me, at a compromise.

Who is in the wrong now?

After five years, you cannot continue to blame Bush for the mess we are in. When are you Liberals going to stand up and take blame for this continuing mess, oh, wizard of whitewashing the t***h?