jump to last post 1-30 of 30 discussions (285 posts)

Were you tricked by President Obama also?

  1. rrhistorian profile image61
    rrhistorianposted 4 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7172597_f248.jpg

    1. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The whole failed system is tricking us all. We are allowed to vote for the two that have been offered because they are the annointed by the Banks and Corporate America. There are too many instances where capable and competent candidates have been presented but not allowed the media access and party favor others enjoy. Why is it that somebody like Hillary Clinton can win a senate seat in her first try in a state she did not in reality live in? The system is corrupt and failed us.

      Term limits, lobby reform and publicly financed campaigns is the only solution. The money is the problem and we all play their game.

      1. taburkett profile image59
        taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        agree - you will soon see a state by state ensemble on the tea party site where we plant to begin to formulate an agenda to cleanup and restore our Constitutional guarantees of government by the people for the people..

    2. 0
      Justsilvieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes I was! I assumed when I voted for him he would raise his magic wand and do my biding and also give me three wishes and all the rightwingnuts would finally be able to think beyond Kinder, Küche and Kirche. but did not happen the rightwingnuts are still nuts.

      1. Billie Pagliolo profile image60
        Billie Paglioloposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        so glad you wrote this comment (1.) because I'm totally insync with your view (and appreciate that in your profile you mentioned the smile with which you take on politics) and (2). because when I viewed your profile and found your work in Austria fascinating as well as the hub listings! can't wait to read the Molly Ivans quotes!  I loved her! I'll have to check how you got that slide show on your profile page - very attractive

    3. twosheds1 profile image60
      twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      He made promises he didn't keep. How does that make him different than any other politician in the history of the western world?

      1. taburkett profile image59
        taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It doesn't.
        That is why he must be replaced.

        1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
          Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/422624_472067442815961_1852064884_n.jpg

          1. taburkett profile image59
            taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7200204_f248.jpg

            1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
              Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You're a one-trick pony (with no mouth or nose), aren't you?

              1. JSChams profile image60
                JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Dang son you are a good one to talk.

            2. twosheds1 profile image60
              twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Instead of posting poorly-made cartoons, why not some actual facts? And from a reliable source, not Fox News or The Blaze.

    4. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      We are all being tricked into thinking we have some control over the government and the elections. They are controlled by two parties who get their corporate and banking backing equally. The powers that be don't care who wins because they own both candidates.

      Term Limits,
      Publicly Funded Campaigns,
      Lobby Reform.

      Their our only hope of a representative government.

  2. Xenonlit profile image59
    Xenonlitposted 4 years ago

    Nobody was tricked by President Obama, but a whole lot of dummys were tricked by the Tea Party...where are they right now, by the way? Are they hiding out with Palin, Bush and Rumsfeld?

    1. Repairguy47 profile image62
      Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      They are running congress. I guess you missed that.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image86
        PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, and Congressional Republicans have the lowest approval rating in the history of approval ratings.

        1. rrhistorian profile image61
          rrhistorianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          ratings are like farts-in-a-space-suit
          always smelly

    2. rrhistorian profile image61
      rrhistorianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      everyone was tricked by the o-do-nothing-one.
      he takes credit for Navy Seal accomplishments and then pretends not
      he claims success where there is none
      he has put more people out of work
      he has put more people on welfare
      he has put more people into poverty
      you sure know how to pick them????????

      1. 0
        Sarra Garrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You couldn't have said it better.  Not to mention the fact that Osama Binladin has been dead for 10 years.  Obama and the Seals had absolutely nothing to do with this.  This was all a ruse to make Obama look good in the eyes of We The People.

        1. Cody Hodge5 profile image84
          Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Please tell me you are joking?

    3. donotfear profile image91
      donotfearposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yee-ha!!!!   Here comes the "Bashin' Bush Forum"!!!!

      http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000305405/polls_woman_vomiting_in_toilet._thumb2424889_3243_726400_poll_xlarge.jpeg

  3. rrhistorian profile image61
    rrhistorianposted 4 years ago

    Yes, just like everyone else, I was tricked into believeing that Hope and Change meant better days ahead.
    However, the man did not follow through on anything that would improve the nation.
    In fact everything has gotten worse.
    more unemployment, more people in poverty, more people on welfare and no relief in sight.
    I guess that's what happens when you elect a novice.
    I am voting for Romney this time because he is a doer, not a promiser.

    1. phion profile image61
      phionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Wow, I wish more people looked at cold hard truths.

    2. 0
      Deb Welchposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I totally agree 100%. Tricked or fooled  - yes.  We got change obviously but not the kind we expected.  I don't want to be fooled a second time. I am voting for Romney as well.

    3. Wayne Brown profile image87
      Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Please don't forget 16 million people who are now receiving free cell phones via the government.  Covers everyone at the 135% or below range of the poverty level.  Helping those in poverty with necessities of life is one thing.  Mobile phones are not life necessities.  This is nothing more than vote pandering with the taxpayers money.  It needs to stop like so many other things.  No wonder we cannot get a handle on spending. ~WB

      1. Josak profile image61
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You mean the program started under Reagan? Ever tried to get a job without a phone? When line rental is taken into account a good mobile plan is cheaper hence the law was altered under Bush to include mobiles.

        Obama has nothing to do with it, it's a Republican initiative and I gotta say it's a good one.

        Might want to start checking your facts.

        1. taburkett profile image59
          taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          the FCC runs all these programs and the program has increased substantially under President Obama where phones and internet are now provided as a free service to families under poverty level rules.
          However, under President Obama, these families can now receive multiple phones and so the costs have skyrocketed and are now requiring increases to the cell phone bills of the hard working citizens to provide multiple phones to these families.
          It is simply another generous gift for vote getting that is taking place.
          The receivers know this because they broadcast their gain everytime they can when asked about their welfare status.
          the original bill was introduced by democrats.
          the modified bill was produced by democrats.
          the latest funding bill was passed by democrats.
          the current FCC policy was endorsed by President Obama.
          you might want to really check your facts...................

          1. Josak profile image61
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Wrong wrong and wrong again, the original bill while proposed by Democrats passed with bi-partisan support under Reagan's administration.  The bill was modified under Bush and Obama has changed nothing in the lifeline program.

            Just another conservative totally ignorant of the facts.

            1. taburkett profile image59
              taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              here you go -
              The 1997 Universal Service Order, Section 8  established the framework for the current Lifeline and Link Up program, including the eligibility criteria, discount rate, and basic services.
              President - Bill Clinton
              before you blast your claims you should possess the real facts - not your tales of blasphemy and deceit

              1. Josak profile image61
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Lifeline program was launched 1984 under Reagan

                program was expanded and made cellular 2008 under Bush

                None of which had anything to do with Obama, just the usual lies from the clueless.

                http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp

                1. taburkett profile image59
                  taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  the FCC has modified the rules 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 under Obama
                  in 2008 the democrats in the House and Senate pushed a bill through as an attachment to one of their great "read it after you pass it" fiascos - twinkle-toes
                  you blasphmer dew

              2. junkseller profile image91
                junksellerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Actually the Universal Service Fund (USF), by which the Lifeline program is funded, was created in the 1930s based upon the Communications Act of 1934 (Democratic Congress and President). That piece of legislation had the goal of Universal Service:

                "...so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication..."

                The Lifeline program was started in 1984 under Reagan, however, it seems to me to be an FCC program, so I'm not entirely certain that Congress or the President had anything to do with it.

                The Telecommunications Act of 1996 essentially codified the programs as they already existed. It was passed by a Republican congress with bipartisan support. Cell phones have begun to be provided under the program simply due to the evolution of communications. I'm really not sure where the current administration or Congress comes into this issue at all. The only recent actions I have seen are measures to reduce fraud and improve the program. I am unaware of any changes that in any way change eligibility, so the whole "Obama phone" spiel is kind of silly. We'd really have to call it the Roosevelt-Reagan-Clinton-Bush Phone but that's a bit of a mouthful.

                Regardless, this has nothing to do with taxes, since the USF is money collected from fees charged to customers (that little universal service fee on everyone's phone bill), administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (a non-profit organization), and monitored by the FCC.

                1. taburkett profile image59
                  taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  your facts are correct.
                  however, until the 1996 effort, there was little fraud taking place.
                  also, the budget every year does provide funds to the FCC that is used to supplement the fees provided by the current phone subscribers.
                  additionally, the FCC just approved installation and payment of internet service for these same folks which is not included in the fees for the cell phones.
                  as usual, the politicians have created a nightmare because they have generated multiple support programs managed by multiple agencies and multiple activities within the agencies without a central control system.
                  the corruption is currently estimated at 30% of the overall program.
                  however, little is done to the individuals who are found to be abusing the system because they fall into the lower level income brackets.
                  the real crooks are the companies that push the product out the door fast so they can show support for the program and continue to receive payment through the federal government.
                  the problem is not the requirement of the needy but the government lack of control as usual.
                  we do not wish to remove the phones from those who deserve them but to create a better management system to preserve their right to have them.
                  the government currently has 30 different programs managing the welfare system - they should only need one.

          2. Quilligrapher profile image91
            Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Howdy, taburkett. I am sorry to jump at this point but your statement above appears to be wrong.

            According to the FCC: “Federal rules prohibit eligible low-income consumers from receiving more than one Lifeline discount per household. An eligible consumer may receive a discount on either a wireline or wireless service, but not both. A consumer whose household currently is receiving more than one Lifeline service must select a single Lifeline provider and contact the other provider to de-enroll from their program. Consumers violating this rule may also be subject to criminal and/or civil penalties.” {1}

            As for the origin of the program: According to FCC documents, the Lifeline program was implemented in 1985 in the wake of the 1984 divestiture of AT&T. {2} However, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 codified the FCC policy.

            Again, I’m sorry, taburkett, to interrupt the discussion but I think facts are important.
            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
            {1} http://www.fcc.gov/lifeline
            {2} http://www.universalservice.org/_res/do … cc/FCC-12- 11.pdf,  p.7

            1. taburkett profile image59
              taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              yep, that is what the rules say.  and as usual, those rules are broken by many who know them.  the corruption is rampant.
              some low income households consist of many people using multiple names.
              the fraud is estimated at approximately 30 percent of the claims processed.
              this is due to the multiple government programs for the welfare state.
              additionally, anyone over the age of 18 can submit for a phone even if they live at the same address where a phone is already provided.
              this is why we have been insisting on providing landlines only because only a single line would be provided.
              the taxpayer will always get screwed when the government creates rules like this, because the corrupt individuals will always figure how to screw the system.
              in my current town, they have found individuals with the same name registering for 2  or more phones using government buildings as their address.
              one individual just caught was selling phones on the internet by purchasing them from others who would then report them stolen or lost.
              we do not believe that the support should be removed, just that the corruption should end.

  4. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    He is a doer. He will do you in, even more so than Obama. The powers that be cannot lose.

  5. taburkett profile image59
    taburkettposted 4 years ago

    My wife and I are voting for Romney also because Romney can spur the nation just like he did the company I work for.
    The current crew has failed for 4 years, why give them any more?

    1. Cody Hodge5 profile image84
      Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Even though Romney believes that 47 percent of Americans are worthless?

      1. Repairguy47 profile image62
        Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Where did Romney say that? Oh, he didn't you made it up.

        1. Cody Hodge5 profile image84
          Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So is that why the GOP is renouncing it. Admit, Romney is a terrible candidate and the GOP is a complete mess. It's OK to admit that your voting for the wrong guy....

          1. Repairguy47 profile image62
            Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I will admit that the GOP establishment are idiots and dont represent me. This is actually the first time I thought Romney showed he was the right guy for the job.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image86
              PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Interesting how eager you are to defend those you call idiots.

              However, I agree with you that they are.  See?  If you and I can find common ground, Tex, anyone can.

              1. Repairguy47 profile image62
                Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Why is our economy worse? Why are there more people on welfare? Why isn't our unemployment rate below 8%? Your failed president promised he would fix it. Why isn't it done? I know the answer do you?

                1. Cody Hodge5 profile image84
                  Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Ask the CEO's who aren't hiring?

              2. JSChams profile image60
                JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Hey you defend your idiots and we will defend ours. They are all the same.

            2. Cody Hodge5 profile image84
              Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              By furthering a lie and completely off-base conservative talking point? Do you or Romney realize that the people he is denigrating are the elderly, students or those who are disabled?

              1. rrhistorian profile image61
                rrhistorianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                My guess is that you have been more than tricked by the o-sinister-one because you like so many others take words out of context to blow smoke over the failure.

              2. phion profile image61
                phionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Good gracious Cody. Really? He never said that, I guess the wool is secure on your eyes.
                Talking Points...You want to talk about Talking Points? Check the mirror bud. Are you a college kid who thinks Obama is going to give you better loans or something?
                Unlike the material and deflective "talking points" of the Obamaniacs, these are hard facts.

                1. Wayne Brown profile image87
                  Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Romney indicated that he was not going to put any energy or campaign money into attempting to sway the 47% of the the vote that was locked in with Obama....he justified that lock in with some level of description as to why those folks were locked down.  That in no way says that he does not care about them or thinks they are worthless, he simply sees no practical way to gain their vote...Obama has already given them everything in the welfare trough.  ~WB

                  1. junkseller profile image91
                    junksellerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    He's wrong that that 47 percent is locked into Obama. Some of that 47 percent are Republicans. He's also grotesquely wrong that the 47 percent are somehow apathetic or content with their situation in life. Whether or not we agree that his comments were insulting isn't the main problem with his comment. the real problem is that if he really believes in the Republican agenda, and that it will drastically improve economic outlook, than he SHOULD have something that is very sellable.

                    So which is it? Does he not believe in his own product? Does he not actually have the product (as in its just smoke and mirrors)? Does he not believe he is good enough to sell it? Does he think people are too stupid to realize its value? or, does he truly believe that 47 percent of the country sits around sucking their thumbs like babies and wouldn't be interested in it? Even without it being insulting, his comment says unbelievably bad things about the supposed product he is selling. Seriously, I don't get what he was thinking. If your an investor and a guy running for a popularity contest who wants your money basically says that there is 47 percent of the vote that he isn't even going to try for, what would you say to that? I'd say, "you're out of your damn mind."

      2. rrhistorian profile image61
        rrhistorianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        you like so many others are duped by the o-sinister-one.
        you are one of the 47% that will vote for the o-tainted-one religiously.
        Romney is smart not to try to convince you that the o-denegrade-one is not worth supporting.
        your loss.

        1. Cody Hodge5 profile image84
          Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Huh, you're not much of a historian are you?

          1. rrhistorian profile image61
            rrhistorianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            where's your proof?

      3. taburkett profile image59
        taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Romney did not say that 47% of americans are worthless.
        What he did say was that 47% were definitely voting for President Obama and that it would be foolish of him to try to convince those that they were wrong in their thinking.
        Obviously you fit into the 47% who will vote for the President.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
          Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          He said, in effect, that they are leeches on society and don!
          T want to take responsibility for their lives. This is a gross inaccuracies and an insult to millions. Of hard working Americans and refugees living on Social Security to which they are entitled by virtue of their contributions.

          1. taburkett profile image59
            taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            where was the word "leeches" spoken?

            please provide complete sentence quote.

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Do you know what the words "in effect" mean?

              1. rrhistorian profile image61
                rrhistorianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                "in effect" does not apply if the reader confuses the actual statements by reading between the lines.
                when dissecting the recorded conversation, that includes the 47 percent statements, the astutue researcher finds that there are 3 separate statements recorded where each indicates a new thought pattern not a continuing thought pattern.  Item 1 is the 47% who will vote for President Obama, Item 2 is the 47% who do not pay taxes, and Item 3 is the focus on the 5% to 10% who are independents who may be won during the campaign. 

                People confuse the 47% in the first 2 statements as if they are the same statement, but they are not - unless you are in the Obama camp where you spin the tale.

                this is the quote -

                Item 1 - voters for President Obama
                "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what.  All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number.

                Item 2 - tax reform
                There are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years.  And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

                Item 3 - the critical independent voters
                What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what it looks like. I mean, when you ask those people…we do all these polls—I find it amazing—we poll all these people, see where you stand on the polls, but 45 percent of the people will go with a Republican, and 48 or 4…"

                this is where the recording stops.

                1. Cody Hodge5 profile image84
                  Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yea, you are really not a historian.....or at least not a good one...

                  1. taburkett profile image59
                    taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    your mumbo slumbo is quite hilarious.
                    but you have provided no proof to your statement.

                2. SparklingJewel profile image66
                  SparklingJewelposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  ...I haven't scrolled all the pages of this thread, but did anyone debate this (your point made in this post, I mean) or did they  justt continue to reiterate the spin?

            2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
              Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I said, "in effect," Look it up your self. I don't have time or inclination to spoon feed individuals like you. My comment was 110% accurate.

            3. twosheds1 profile image60
              twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              He didn't say "leeches" he said "dependent on gov't." Here's the video:
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUEHpc6JKw8

          2. phion profile image61
            phionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Ralph~
            The first thing you said was “in effect”  NO not in effect, have you heard the entire tape? You know, not the one that had two minutes edited out, and not spliced together to sound the way you apparently took them?

            Thanks Josak, I just saw what you wrote. Like he said, he definitely didn't put it eloquently, but I understood exactly what he meant, without the spin. Even if he does feel that way, he probably should have said that he is going to hope for that 47%, because he wants them back to work providing for their families. That still leaves the huge amount that have blinders on, and only vote along party lines

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
              Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, I heard the entire tape. Romney insulted many hard working Americans, many of whom are his own supporters and Tea Partiers who are benefiting from the very programs Romney and Ryan intend to eliminate or gut or privatize, such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

        2. sabrebIade profile image84
          sabrebIadeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No...he said that that 47 percent of voters consider themselves to be "victims" are "dependent upon government." and "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing,".

          You know that "God" person the Republicans seem to like to side with so much?
          His book has a few words about that....
          "He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the Lord; and that which he hath given will he pay him again."
          Proverbs 19:17
          "He that oppresseth the poor reproacheth his Maker: but he that honoureth him hath mercy on the poor.."
          Proverbs 14:31
          "Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard."
          Proverbs 21:13

          But when the Republicans were so worried about making sure God was in their platform...I guess they didn't have time to research what he actually said.
          Either that or Machiavelli, Nietzsche and Ayn Rand didnt test well with the focus groups.

          1. phion profile image61
            phionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Sabre~ Where does federal government programs fall into anything you just talked about? It’s an individual’s responsibility to follow the teachings of their faith. I love the things you spoke of, but the Government isn’t the Church, in fact they attack the Church as much as possible. So please don’t think that the failed government programs that are corrupt like a rotting apple are equal to the love lessons taught in some scriptures.
            Jeremiah 8:8  “How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.”

            Genesis 3:19 “By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

            2 Peter 2:19 “They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved.”

            1. sabrebIade profile image84
              sabrebIadeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              If they are not gonna follow God...why keep pushing him as their guiding force?
              Just admit they admire Machiavelli, Nietzsche and Ayn Rand more and be done with it.
              I dont think Jesus would have ever said "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing,"....I think he would have said they WERE.

              And if the Government isn’t the Church...why do the Republicans keep using God's name so much?

              1. JSChams profile image60
                JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Because the Democrats keep trying to remove His name. Maybe if one stops the other will. Ya think?

          2. SparklingJewel profile image66
            SparklingJewelposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            ...and while we waste time putting each other down standing up for "our side" they laugh all the way to the bank at our expense...

            neither democrats or republicans deserve your service (to line their own pockets) or your defense of their wayward, cheating deeds that manipulate your life to line their pockets...

            it's the system that sucks and the people that run it...throw all the usurpers of our freedom out!

      4. paintphd profile image60
        paintphdposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That's the way the left framed what he said. What he really stated was the fact that Obama held a strong grip on 47% of American voters who adhere to his policies of more government hand outs, along with the fact that Obama has convinced 47% of Americans that they're victims being held down by the wealthy, the pseudo 'War on Women', 'The War On Gay's', 'The War on illeagal Immigrants', 'The War On The Poor', 'The War on Blacks', This president has created a 'WAR' on everyone. ROMNEY WAS BIG ENOUGH TO SAY IT OUT LOUD AND CALL IT WHAT IT IS.
        http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/02/obama … orleans/3/

        1. Cody Hodge5 profile image84
          Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So THIS is how members of the GOP keep getting elected. Apparently their voter base just spins everything to be some sort of conspiracy. Republicans are never wrong, it's just the left making stuff up?

  6. taburkett profile image59
    taburkettposted 4 years ago

    It is always difficult for people to admit they made a mistake.
    But my wife and I now know that we did and so will be voting for Romney.
    Fool me once -shame on you.
    Fool me twice - shame on me.

    1. Repairguy47 profile image62
      Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Nice to see the kool-aid wore off.

      1. donotfear profile image91
        donotfearposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        http://images.clipartof.com/small/432696-Royalty-Free-RF-Clipart-Illustration-Of-A-Yellow-Emoticon-Rolling-On-The-Floor-And-Laughing.jpg

      2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Another thoughtful, well intended and ingenious, Repairguy analysis.

  7. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    Speaking of being fooled . . .

    https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/216875_518348934846420_123059559_n.jpg

    https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/548228_519664281381552_2058915667_n.jpg

    https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/422958_527192760628704_1534200615_n.jpg

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Oh Wizard, still don't care about the truth, do you?

      If I were to point out a factual error in one of those pictures, would you care? I think you cared once... I had hope for you...

      1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
        Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I suspect you take issue with the last image, Jaxson and that's fine; however, I suggest you end your magazine subscriptions—they'll only make you more crazy-angry when Obama wins! smile

        http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7190064_f520.jpg

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well, the last one is blatantly false, and I have proven that to you(although whether or not you will acknowledge that or not, who knows?).

          Let's test. Do you acknowledge that I proved the claims about GE's tax rates to be false?

          See Wizard, I actually think for myself, and do so by checking facts. Just because a picture on the internet says something doesn't mean it is true.

          Although, I'm sure you know that you are spreading lies, and don't care, just like some other libs on these forums.

          1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
            Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The glaring point, Jaxson, is that you chose to focus on only one of the many elements in those graphics (on a wonkish technicality and one that I can't affix a "Jaxsonian" asterisk to) when the majority of that argumentation is salient to the justifiable criticism of corporate behavior and unbridled greed when it comes to evading taxes and allowing America and the American worker to be sold down the river for Darwinian profits. 

            So please, don't accuse me of "spreading lies" when I argue for my own point of view with graphics that conveniently (if not always accurately and to your liking) condense the points of debate.  We all know your bias as well as mine and if you think I'm going to concede anything to someone who ignores the essential argumentation for some arcane element that you "think"  is crucial, then you are indeed wasting your time and mine. 

            Besides I love the fact that it gets under your obcessive-compulsive skin and you always make my day when you get apoplectic over some nonissue.  smile

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You're right... I'm obsessed with facts and the truth.

              I have this weird thing... I think that if you want to talk about corporate taxes... You should use what they actually pay instead of incorrect figures. Facts just don't matter that much to you apparently.

              Nor am I ignoring the big picture... You are trying to paint a big picture that isn't true using false information. For instance a business owner bakes the cookies...he doesn't just take them.

              1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
                Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Well if you were genuinely "obsessed" with the truth and the facts, you'd acknowledge that Romney and the NeoRepublicans reason for being is to exploit anything and everything for a buck—where  success is solely measured in profits, houses and offshore bank accounts. 

                https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/264297_427518370639868_115216730_n.jpg

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  If that were the truth, then I would acknowledge it.

                  Firstly, you erroneously group everyone together so you can paint with a broad brush.

                  Secondly, you ignore simple facts in Romney's history at Bain, where a company was months away from closing down completely, and Bain(through painful measures) saved it.

                  Third, your little list of success measuring sticks is just completely ignorant of reality. If Romney's only desire in life is money, houses, and offshore bank accounts, why would he work as governor for free? Why would he work at the olympics for free? Why would he leave his lucrative position as CEO of an extremely successful firm, to run for president? Being president won't even come close to being a drop in the bucket of what 'success(your standard)' he could achieve at Bain.

                  You posted a chart that was nearly 100% false information about tax rates, but then claim that the information it presents doesn't really matter. I call you out on it, and look what happens smile

                  Liberal playbook: Ad hominem, redirect.

                  1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
                    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You're zealotry has you conveniently delusional, Jaxson, and the fact is your candidate is defective.  We obviously assess Romney's pursuit of success differently but to answer your question, in short, I would suspect his drive to be POTUS stems from witnessing his father's despair (at not winning the presidency) at an impressionable age.

                    As far as my "ignorance,"  posting "false information"  and you "calling me out on it," all fit the  "ad hominem" label  much better than anything I've said here.

                    Finally, this is my last response to your mountain of ideological-driven  b.s.; so just scroll by my posts as I do with yours.

                  2. Mighty Mom profile image91
                    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Why would Romney work for the Olympics for free or not take a salary as governor?
                    Uh, he didn't do either job for the money, obviously.
                    He did them to bolster up his resume so he could run for President.
                    That has always been his objective.

                    "Salary" is a silly word that does not apply to Romney and his ilk.
                    Simply not in his vocabulary. He outgrew "salary" decades ago.
                    Since he has not released his actual tax returns, we don't know how much he continues to make from Bain even now.

                    I don't believe money is his primary motivator, either. I mean, how many houses, car garages and Cadillacs are enough?
                    He's already palling around with billionaires.
                    Think how much broader his power and influence would be as POTUS. Orders of magnitude.
                    If you are offended by the word "greed" maybe "power lust" is more palatable.

                2. Billie Pagliolo profile image60
                  Billie Paglioloposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Wizard of Whimsy:  Your postings indicate that you are a true intellectual and person of substance, ethics, and patriotism, with a true sense of whimsy as your name implies!  I MUST read your hubs!

    2. rrhistorian profile image61
      rrhistorianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I can see that there is definitely little hope for reviving truth and knowledge through your acceptance of the koolaide illusions.

    3. JSChams profile image60
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7190165_f248.jpg


      http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7190166_f248.jpg


      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7190168_f248.jpg

      1. Chad Claeyssen profile image85
        Chad Claeyssenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You should make one of those Obama's record charts for Bush so we can see how the most recent Republican measured up. 4.2% unemployment when Bush took office. National debt when Bush took office was 6 trillion. Gas was cheaper and the median houshold income fell $2,500 while he was president. Not to mention there was an almost $200 billion budget surplus.

        1. taburkett profile image59
          taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          do ya think we should look at George Washington's record so President Obama would look bad?
          if not, then don't ask me to consider President Bush's record.
          Neither one of these records has anything to do with President Obama's failure.

    4. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The links don't seem to be working.

  8. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    Ralph is right on the Rmoney with his perceptions . . .

    http://youtu.be/xdJOo2OWJN8

    1. JSChams profile image60
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7190306_f248.jpg

      1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
        Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/297718_416131055119772_1550399136_n.jpg

        1. phion profile image61
          phionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Wow Wizard of his own mind~ This poster is totally off. I don't think weed is evil.
          J/k they were all wrong, but funny none the less. Wait, is that what you think the people who plan to vote for Romney are like? or do you just spend too much time on the net?

        2. taburkett profile image59
          taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It is obvious you live in the immoral world.
          I am color blind - always have been always will be.
          By the way, it was my family that ran the underground railroad through Indiana and Ohio.
          And - it was the Democrats that started the KKK.
          So - maybe you should start living in the real world.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
            Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "Democrats started the KKK."

            True and now they all are Republicans.

            1. taburkett profile image59
              taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              why do you continue to convey untruths.
              Is it because you cannot support your thoughts with true facts.

          2. twosheds1 profile image60
            twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            And Lincoln was a Republican. My how times have changed...

        3. JSChams profile image60
          JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well isn't it fortunate that I do none of those. Thanks for the stereotype, it really shows how tolerant you are.

      2. Cody Hodge5 profile image84
        Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ah yes, because the GOP has just been a bastion of ideas for the last 30 years. How's that trickle down economics thing working out?

        1. JSChams profile image60
          JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It would work just fine if it were left alone to work. There gets to be so much caterwauling about it from the left if it gets instituted that the nervous Nellies in the independent wing jerk their knees and vote for the next bill that kills it.

        2. taburkett profile image59
          taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          it was working great until we had to pass laws before reading them.




          http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7193495_f248.jpg

  9. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/60183_416109721788572_1598289632_n.jpg

    1. taburkett profile image59
      taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      OH - look - isn't it great what I have done.
      http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7195195_f248.jpg
      http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7195178.png
      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7195180.png
      http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7195183_f248.jpg
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7195185_f248.jpg
      http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7195186_f248.jpg

  10. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7422716n

    Bob Schieffer asked Clinton if Romney’s 47% comments were smart politics.

    The former president answered,

    No, but it’s interesting. You know, I know a lot of higher income people. A lot of whom help me do my work, and they’re supporting Gov. Romney, and a lot of people say things like that. But I think it’s worth pointing out, if you look at that 47%. First, they do pay taxes. They pay Social Security taxes. They pay Medicare taxes. They pay state and local taxes.
    Second, they are out of the federal income tax pool for two reasons. One is the economic crash, which lowered a lot people’s incomes. Even a lot of the newer jobs don’t pay high incomes. Now, the second reason is interesting. It’s a bipartisan reason in the past. It’s because the combined impacts of the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the Child Tax Credit. I doubled the Earned Income Tax Credit, which I think President Ford signed into law, and which President Reagan supported. And it’s refundable, if you work and you got kids and your income’s low, the government will actually refund the credit if you drop out of owing income tax. It was designed to support working families.
    Then we put in a Child Tax Credit, which when President Bush passed all of those tax cuts that’s what he did for middle class people. He doubled the Child Tax Credit to a thousand dollars. Then when President Obama came in, and he had a Democratic Congress, and the economy was reeling, they increased the Earned Income Tax Credit so you could get a little more if you had more than three kids. So an enormous number of these people who were dropped out were dropped out for reasons of work and family, not dependents. These people are working their hearts out. They would love to make enough money to pay federal income tax. We were all before trying to help them with their work and their child rearing.


    Schieffer asked former President Clinton if Romney understood who he was talking about, and he answered, “I don’t know. Because, you know the primary they ran kept pushing them all to the right. I remember when they all raised their hands and said would you oppose the budget, a new budget, if it had ten dollars in spending cuts for every one dollar of tax increase, and every one of them said, yeah, I’d be against that. So they got pushed further and further, and further out there, and I think you know, you don’t just purge all that out of your system when you start running for the general election.”


    If you read between the lines, President Clinton was telling America that Romney is just another member of the super rich and his comments about the forty seven percent are what a lot of wealthy Republicans believe. Clinton showed the difference between a leader who understands who the working class of America are, and a candidate who has absolutely no clue.

    Either Romney has no idea about the role former Republican presidents Ford, Reagan, and George W. Bush playing in cutting taxes for a group of people that he labeled victims, or maybe he does know, and that’s why his tax plan has to eliminate a lot of deductions the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit. Romney could very well believe that the moochers don’t deserve the EITC or Child Tax Credit.

    Bill Clinton used history and facts to show Mitt Romney and everyone on the right who shares his beliefs how wrong they are about nearly half the country.

    The giant contradiction in all of this is that Romney claims to value work, but he doesn’t want to reward Americans for working hard and taking care of their families. Mitt Romney has no clue what it is like to be middle class or a member of the working poor in this country. As evidenced by his own remarks, he appears to be absolutely clueless as to who half the country is and what their daily lives are like.

    Mitt Romney is running for president based on a country club ideology that looks down on everyone who isn’t rich. Romney seems to believe that by virtue of their wealth, the super rich are superior human beings. This attitude leads one to believe that Romney isn’t running a presidential campaign. He’s engaging in a hostile takeover.

    President Obama and the Democrats still feel your pain. Mitt Romney and the Republicans think you are a deadbeat.

    If this is part of the argument that Bill Clinton is going to take to voters on behalf of President Obama, Mitt Romney is in a world of trouble.

    1. Dillon Cook profile image62
      Dillon Cookposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Over 75% of what you stated is inherently faulty.  Oh and at least Romney is pro-life (that means it's wrong to abort/kill babies fyi.)  Romney may have no clue what it's like to be us, but at least he has morals compared to Obama.

      1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
        Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Oh okay, Dillon, we should all just take your word for that because you are a trustworthy source of opinion?  You shouldn't be required to provide proof for your 75% faulty claim or tell us what specifically is the 25% accurate part and the 75% faulty. roll

        And some of us see through the kind of "pro-life" hypocrisy Mittens and so many neoRepublicans preach . . .

        https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/380033_416258168440394_1587422134_n.jpg

        1. Dillon Cook profile image62
          Dillon Cookposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Ad hominem.  Cute picture but were not talking about troops or children in need (nor am I denying their needs).  According to you it's still ok to kill babies.  If that's true you're not even worth discussing this with anymore, nor do I have the time for you.

          You've done all you're research but you put it together all wrong...

        2. taburkett profile image59
          taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Whimsy - you really need to get off the drugs......

    2. taburkett profile image59
      taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Bill Clinton did not know what sex was......
      So how do you think he could know what was meant by the 47% statement.
      you really need to get into the real world

  11. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    Apparently, the original source of the quote is from "thinkexist.com" and it's making turns in wing-nut circles on the web. The quote doesn't have a date, and it doesn't state whether Carville said this on TV, in a news paper etc. It doesn't have an author either.

    Conclusion, it's a lie...!

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Wow! Thanks, I took the bait, hook, line and sinker.

  12. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    Sorry, it was 23%.

    So Wizard, in case you forgot, here is what you said when I showed you the tax rates GE actually paid.


    http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/98395#post2106401

    So why are you still posting misinformation?

    1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
      Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If anything, it shows I can be reasonable.  And stop your nonsense, write to HuffPO and complain to them if you mistrust the article and leave me alone!

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Reasonable? You admit the lies about GE were wrong. Now you have gone back to reposting them. How is that unreasonable?

        I'm trying to help you see past news articles... they are not a good source for facts.

        1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
          Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Jaxson, many corporations have been irresponsible and ruthless and you are incapable of appreciating that fact; so let's just agree to disagree and you can go back to your worship of Darwinian Capitalism while the world turns to crap!

          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7106313_f520.jpg

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Wizard, that's not even the topic. The topic is taxes.

            Just because I believe the information in SEC documents, instead of what people erroneously say those very documents contain, doesn't mean I am 100% apologetic of every action of every company.

            So, let's get back to the topic... why would you suddenly disagree with the SEC filings I showed you earlier?

            1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
              Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No Jaxson, the topic is "being tricked" and with a 57,000-page GE federal tax return, it's easy to be hoodwinked—especially for the average person who doesn't have your passionate obsession with arcane economic details.

              I also now disagree because I no longer trust your conclusions because you have no objectivity or inclination to be appropriately reasonable. 

              https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/419537_417448274976969_2040518420_n.jpg

              https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/542200_472063436149695_235786178_n.jpg

              https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/598828_472062419483130_1826222421_n.jpg

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Trust has nothing to do with it Wizard... if you just believe things because people you trust say it, that's a problem.

                You shouldn't have to trust, you can look at the figures for yourself.

                Answer this please:

                If the NYTimes tells you that a document says $15,000, and I link you to the document, and show you exactly where it says $10,000, why would you trust either one of us? Why wouldn't you just look at the figure yourself?

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                  Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You didn't link a tax document.

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No, I didn't. But the CTJ, and news articles that claim GE paid no taxes, make that claim BASED ON THE SEC FILINGS.

                2. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
                  Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  To answer your question, I'd have a tendency to trust the document, Jaxson.

                  FYI Department: Mitt Romney Tax Return Reveals GOP Candidate Outsourced Payroll, Shielding Household Labor Costs

                  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/2 … 11081.html


                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Then why go back to posting lies 'because you don't trust me' even though the documents show that ge paid taxes?

                  2. taburkett profile image59
                    taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I outsource all my payroll through legal contracts and follow all the rules currently required by law.
                    So - what is that you want - you want me to break the law?

          2. taburkett profile image59
            taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            crap is as crap does
            you need to get into the real world where the big boys play fair.
            we do not chastise those that make money.
            we do not agree that we need to redistribute wealth.
            we work hard to make our own money.

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I am sure the French aristocracy felt the same before the revolution. I work hard for my money too and there is nothing wrong with making money but having the biggest wealth gap in the first world and the fastest growing one is unsustainable and ultimately dangerous for everyone.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Why is a wealth gap bad?

                If every group of people are constantly getting more wealthy, why is it really that big of a deal?

                Do you understand that there isn't a fixed amount of wealth to go around?

                1. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Of course I understand that wealth can be created but that's not the point at all.

                  The wealth gap is bad because #1 it creates imbalance in other areas and maximizes that imbalance, for example its a fact that wealthy people are a lot less likely to be convicted of a crime because they can afford better lawyers etc. maximize that effect and you create a small group of people who are to a greater extent above the law.

                  #2 Wealth can be created but that doesn't mean that the wealth gap is not caused by the wealthy taking too much, low wages continue to fall while the income of the upper percentages continues to skyrocket.

                  #3 The economy is denied stimulation, the wealth of the rich is far less economically active usually remaining in stasis and often overseas rather than directly stimulating the economy through use like the wealth of the middle class and working class.

                  #4 Perception, people will only tolerate living in poverty while others get richer and richer to a certain extent, eventually that line is crossed and usually the reaction is violently and excessively in the opposite direction the French revolution being an excellent example but so is the Bolshevik revolution the Cuban revolution etc etc. to me there are plenty of indicators that that point is getting close in the US, support for capitalism is falling fast and movements like Occupy are the first warning signs.

                  #5 The wealth gap in itself and it's growth is an indication that we can afford to give a lot more than we are.

                  #6 It creates aristocracies, wealth is further and further accumulated in one corner of society .

                  #7 and perhaps most importantly wealth is power and when it is concentrated so intensely on unelected individuals the premise of democracy becomes stretched as certain individuals through the ownership of wealth begin to have a far larger effect on the political schema than they otherwise would.

                  1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
                    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/255402_472066889482683_2077716987_n.jpg

                2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                  Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Joe Nocera's op-ed today explains why the GROWING wealth gap is bad. I would add that it is undermining many people's faith in our democratic, free enterprise system. Inequality in this country has gotten to a point comparable to a banana republic or Middle East Sheikdom.

                  " What was illuminating was not so much who was on the list but what they collectively told us about the state of the richest of the rich. Thirty years ago, when Forbes published its first Forbes 400, a net worth of $75 million would get you on the list. Today it takes $1.1 billion. In the last year alone, the cumulative net worth of the wealthiest 400 people, by Forbes’s calculation, rose by $200 billion. That compares with a 4 percent drop in median household income last year, according to the Census Bureau. One would be hard pressed to find a clearer example of how powerfully income inequality has taken root.

                  "Like Romney, Forbes magazine is a little defensive about this — and, like Romney, Forbes has adopted a self-justifying narrative. Luisa Kroll, one of the magazine’s “wealth editors,” nods toward “concerns” about income inequality in her introduction to the list, but she goes on to write that “a deeper analysis instills confidence that the American dream is still very much alive.” In fact, it does nothing of the sort.

                  "The fundamental reason the Romneys pay so little in taxes is that the bulk of their income comes from investments and thus is taxed at the capital gains rate of 15 percent. Although Romney himself isn’t close to being rich enough to join the Forbes 400, his reliance on capital gains is a trait he shares with most of the ultrawealthy. It is the thread that ties together the Forbes 400.

                  "Financiers, who make up a large percentage of the Forbes 400, long ago found ways to convert their compensation to capital gains, for instance. Romney, of course, did the same thing when he was running Bain Capital, a private equity firm. But even those who are not on Wall Street rely on capital gains. A large number of the Forbes 400 — “roughly 40 percent,” according to a group called United for a Fair Economy — inherited their wealth. Many others on the list — people who started companies that they’ve since left — are classified by Forbes as investors.

                  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/opini … ef=opinion

                  1. taburkett profile image59
                    taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    the growing wealth gap is not due to the individual, but the pundit politicians who are lobbied to support various tax loop holes.
                    we plan to attack these during this next year to establish a fair tax system that will charge for every financial transaction processed.
                    this will equate to a 1% charge for every million dollar purchase of stocks and bonds.
                    the overall revenue generated by this simple system along with the elimination of government fraud, waste, and abuse will pay down the debt in 5 years.

                3. twosheds1 profile image60
                  twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Some more specific reasons why the wealth gap is bad: spreading the wealth around, not through charity but by adding jobs, creates a lot more consumer spending, which in turn benefits owners and shareholders of corporations. If, for example, Mitt Romney had an extra $1 million laying around, would he buy a new car with it? Probably not. But if that million was divided among 10 or 20 people, they'd buy 10 or 20 cars with it. Just using cars as an example. It could be anything.

                  Robert Reich's book Aftershock explains it better.

  13. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/415659_503061953039032_805376214_o.jpg

    https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/282360_501692716517340_2129738940_n.jpg

    1. taburkett profile image59
      taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7197796_f248.jpg

      1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
        Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Gosh, what a wonderful imagination you have—that's such a new and original line!

        1. taburkett profile image59
          taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I guess you do not like to answer legitimate questions because you do not live in the real world.

  14. Ralph Deeds profile image68
    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago

    Jaxon, how do you feel about this comment from Senator Carl Levin?:

    September 2012
    In recent weeks, Sen. Levin reported the results of an investigation into how multinational companies use loopholes in tax law to shift income offshore and avoid billions of dollars in taxes; introduced bipartisan legislation with other colleagues to protect the Great Lakes; warned of the dangers to financial markets from high-frequency computerized trading; and called on the IRS to enforce clear rules requiring disclosure of donations to independent political campaign organizations.

    Corporations build loopholes, avoid taxes
    U.S. multinational corporations benefit from the security and stability of the U.S. economy, the productivity and expertise of U.S. workers and the strength of U.S. infrastructure to develop enormously profitable products here in the United States. But a new report from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which Sen. Levin chairs, shows that too often these corporations use complex structures, dubious transactions and legal fictions to shift the profits from those products overseas, avoiding the taxes that help support our security, stability and productivity.

    Read Sen. Levin's statement from the Subcommittee on Investigations hearing »

    Read a news release summarizing the findings, including a memo detailing the investigation »

    This is my point. I could care less about GE. The real issue is whether the current tax code serves the public interest when the country's debt is however many trillion it is and growing. The public interest is not well served by continuing the loopholes for international corporations like GE, the oil depletion allowance loophole for EXXON, the carried interest loophole for hedge fund operators and private equity tax avoiders like Romney and tax cuts proposed by Ryan and Romney for the alleged "job creators."

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      How do I feel about it? Well, it's a very general statement that I'm sure is true in some instances... but I don't deal with broad claims like that.

      If it were talking about specific examples, I would be happy to comment.

    2. taburkett profile image59
      taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      you continue to use jealousy rather than logic in your statements.
      no laws were broken.
      if we want to fix this problem - we need to attack the laws, not those who follow it.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "you continue to use jealousy rather than logic in your statements.
        no laws were broken.
        if we want to fix this problem - we need to attack the laws, not those who follow it."

        Did you read my comment?

        "This is my point. I could care less about GE. The real issue is whether the current tax code serves the public interest when the country's debt is however many trillion it is and growing. The public interest is not well served by continuing the loopholes for international corporations like GE, the oil depletion allowance loophole for EXXON, the carried interest loophole for hedge fund operators and private equity tax avoiders like Romney and tax cuts proposed by Ryan and Romney for the alleged 'job creators.'"

        1. taburkett profile image59
          taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          that is my poiint - there is no reason to attack the past.
          we need to work on the future.
          the TEA party Patriots are beginning to form a tax code team to address this issue through a mandated citizen code that will become a modification to the tax controls set within the constitution.  We intend to return control to the citizens.  Keep an eye out for this on the TEA Party web pages.

  15. taburkett profile image59
    taburkettposted 4 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7199873_f248.jpg

  16. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/561088_4112343764558_1952000274_n.jpg

    1. rrhistorian profile image61
      rrhistorianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      you ares so full of lies and jealousy.
      the rich have not created the problem with you or the nation.
      the rotten politicians have created the problems.
      but with whimsical deceit the corrupt politicians will continue to burden the nation.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        There has been such a huge redistribution of wealth, income and healthcare in the past 30 years from the poor and middle class that many Americans are losing their faith in our democratic, market capitalism system. Romney and Ryan have pledged to lower taxes for the rich and increase the disparity.

        1. taburkett profile image59
          taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          disparity is not the problem - lack of production and manufacturing in the USA is the problem.
          the disparity has not been created by the reduction of taxes.
          the disparity will not be fixed by increasing the taxes.
          the disparity was created by foreign goods imports that eliminated our innovation and job growth.
          the only way to fix the disparity is to create a flat standard tax that would be paid for every fund transfer transaction including foreign activity.
          this means that GE would pay the same percentage for purchase of raw materials as you would pay for the purchase of shoes.
          Today, GE pays nothing, but you may pay 5 different taxes on your money.
          with the flat fair tax, everyone would pay the same for all fund transfers.
          based on the flow of money ratio, the revenue generated within each district would more that offset federal revenue, state revenue, sales tax, and inheritance tax for all government.
          Since the fair tax would now generate a large amount from the corpporations and individuals who pay little tax on most of their money, the debt could be paid off in as little as 6 to 8 years.
          our international enemies will fight this fair tax because they know they can only destry us if we are financially crippled.

          1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
            Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/251012_531053643587954_1634517834_n.jpg

            1. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The reason none of us take you seriously is you have no ideas..only insults based on the talking points you hear. That's why I send you little pictures to match your pictures because it really takes no mental energy.

              1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
                Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Cliches and imitative behavior take even less mental energy.

                1. JSChams profile image60
                  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Basically your work is that of a troll.

                  1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
                    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Thanks for your criticism, JS. I won't take it personally. smile

                    https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/548196_10151275054678132_1902061451_n.jpg

      2. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
        Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7106318_f1024.jpg

        1. taburkett profile image59
          taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7202770_f248.jpg

      3. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And you are so naive!

        1. taburkett profile image59
          taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I have 40 years of world-wide intelligence experience.
          So, I guess your statement must be made up of lies.

          1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
            Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            LOL! One would never know it from your posts.

            1. taburkett profile image59
              taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              you are correct - only if you mean those who are unwilling to accept the truth.
              those who are competent in accepting the truth understand the dire circumstances that are plaguing the USA.
              the impending chaos is one that I do not wish to see occur
              but others want to drink the koolaid and ride the devil-train.
              I lived in a country where you could not speak the truth because you would be imprisoned if you did.
              The USA is slowly becoming a third world nation through covert activity to remove all this freedom from the individual.
              no other government can possibly provide the freedom that the USA has enjoyed.
              no other govdernment can implement or sustain growth like the USA and so all foreign governments steal USA intelectual property.
              the current USA government wants to place additional burden upon the citizens.
              you drank the koolaid and so I am now convinced you will be unable to comprehend the demonic nature of the current situation - therefore, all your future blasphemy will be disregarded because you cannot understand the truth.
              May GOD have mercy on you.

      4. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Who do you think owns the rotten politicians?

        1. taburkett profile image59
          taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          everyone - you do not change things by attacking people.
          you change things by utilizing the Constitution.

  17. maxoxam41 profile image80
    maxoxam41posted 4 years ago

    Yes, I was tricked by Obama but it doesn't mean that I will opt for less, meaning for Romney!

    1. taburkett profile image59
      taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      then your country will perish.

  18. taburkett profile image59
    taburkettposted 4 years ago

    It appears that the Obama backers are getting a little frustrated since they now have discovered that their candidate will be losing to Romney.
    I guess the nation's citizens have finally figured out that promises do not bing a solution and that what is needed is a team of action in the White House.
    Congrats to the Romney group for such a wonderful effort.
    The nation may yet be saved from all the evil turmoil and distress.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Where do you get your information??

      COLUMBUS, Ohio — For weeks, Republicans in Ohio have been watching with worry that the state’s vital 18 electoral votes were trending away from Mitt Romney. The anxiety has been similar in Florida, where Republicans are concerned that President Obama is gaining the upper hand in the fight for the state’s 29 electoral votes.
          Document: The Latest Quinnipiac University/New York Times/CBS Poll
      A one-stop destination for the latest political news — from The Times and other top sources. Plus opinion, polls, campaign data and video.

      Those fears are affirmed in the findings of the latest Quinnipiac University/New York Times/CBS News polls of likely voters in both states, which show that Mr. Obama has widened his lead over Mr. Romney and is outperforming him on nearly every major campaign issue, even though about half said they were disappointed in Mr. Obama’s presidency.

      The polls, along with interviews with supporters and advisers in the nation’s two largest battleground states, lay bare an increasingly urgent challenge facing Mr. Romney as he prepares for his next chance to move the race in his favor, at the first debate with Mr. Obama next week. Mr. Romney’s burden is no longer to win over undecided voters, but also to woo back the voters who seem to be growing a little comfortable with the idea of a second term for Mr. Obama.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/us/po … da.html?hp

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I'm sorry, Ralph.
        All the polls you cite are wrong.
        The Romney campaign has its own polls they say Mitt is winning everywhere.
        lol

        http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romn … ction.html

      2. taburkett profile image59
        taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        MSM is biased and always uses a calculation model to depict their victicious numbers.
        we run a boots on the ground poll.
        currently, the only areas Obama will win in the swing states are those same numbers he won previously in the larger cities.
        These represent roughly 41% of the votes in most of the swing states.
        however, the rural and small community numbers will change drastically in those swing states because 95% of pervious Obama voters have indicated they will vote for Romney because the country needs a change.
        this means that in most swing states, Romney will get a 51 or 52 percent of the total votes.
        our polls are calculated every Saturday as we hit all the streets in the small communities where real America lives.
        We have already identified potential fraud in those large cities of the swing states also through our boots on the ground effort.  so this time, the dogs and dead folks will not be able to cast a ballot.

  19. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    This speaks volumes about being fooled . . .

    See what Massachusetts legislators have to say about Gov. Mitt Romney's claim that he knows how to reach across the aisle.

    http://youtu.be/-Pe4WjlR5SA

  20. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    And yet more for the "Don't-Be-Fooled-by-Either-Party-Department . . .

    In this brief video essay, Bill examines how the Citizens United decision has candidates campaigning for cash more than votes, and how that money - pouring into TV ads and high-paid political consultants - is creating "a racket, plain and simple."

    http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/11789 … -democracy

  21. taburkett profile image59
    taburkettposted 4 years ago

    interesting reading concerning Mr BarrySoetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama
    could this really be 2 different children?

    "The Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset." -- Barack Hussein Obama, 2007.[1]

    Obama then recited the Shahada, the opening lines of the Adhan (Azaan) or Muslim call to prayer, "with a first-class [Arabic] accent."

    "Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme!
    Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme!
    I witness that there is no god but Allah
    I witness that there is no god but Allah
    I witness that Muhammad is his prophet... "

    "According to Islamic scholars, reciting the Shahada, the Muslim declaration of faith, makes one a Muslim. This simple yet profound statement expresses a Muslim's complete acceptance of, and total commitment to, the message of Islam. Obama knows this from his Quranic studies."[2]

    "Barack Hussein Obama was registered under the name 'Barry Soetoro' serial number 203 and entered the Franciscan Asisi Primary School on 1 January 1968 and sat in class 1B. … Barry's religion was listed as Islam."[3]

    Obama studied the Islamic Quran in native Arabic and excelled in "mengaji" classes, reserved for only the best students of Islam.
    Piety: Obama himself says that while living in Indonesia, a Muslim country, he "didn't practice [Islam]," implicitly acknowledging a Muslim identity. Indonesians differ in their memories of him. One, Rony Amir, describes Obama as "previously quite religious in Islam."[4]

    "... if he was born and raised a Muslim and is now hiding that fact, this points to a major deceit, a fundamental misrepresentation about himself that has profound implications about his character and his suitability as president."[5]

    "I remembered that he had studied 'mengaji' (recitation of the Quran)" -- Tine Hahiyary. (One of Obama's teachers and the principal from 1971 through 1989.)

    "The fact that Obama had attended mengaji classes is well known in Indonesia and has left many there wondering just when Obama is going to come out of the closet." As Plato said, the images and stories we feed our children affect them for life."[6]

    "My whole family was Muslim, and most of the people I knew were Muslim," -- Maya Soetoro-Ng, Mr. Obama's younger half sister.[7]

    Citations.
    1. Nicholas Kristof, The New York Times, "Obama: Man of the World" http://select.nytimes.com/2007... (March 6, 2007)

    2. Beckwith, The Obama File, "Obama and Islam" http://www.theobamafile.com/_I...

    3. Daniel Pipes, FrontPageMagazine.com, "Barack Obama's Muslim Childhood" http://www.danielpipes.org/554... (April 29, 2008)

    4. Ibid

    5. Ibid

    6. Beckwith, The Obama File, "Obama and Islam -- The Early Years" http://www.theobamafile.com/_I...

    7. Jodi Kantor, The New York Times, "Barack Obama's search for faith" http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04... (April 30, 2007)

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      None of your links worked???

      1. rrhistorian profile image61
        rrhistorianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        ...

      2. taburkett profile image59
        taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        1. Nicholas Kristof, The New York Times, "Obama: Man of the World" http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/opini … istof.html

        2. Beckwith, The Obama File, "Obama and Islam" http://www.theobamafile.com/SearchResul … ;sa=Search

        3. Daniel Pipes, FrontPageMagazine.com, "Barack Obama's Muslim Childhood" http://www.danielpipes.org/5544/barack- … -childhood
        6. Beckwith, The Obama File, "Obama and Islam -- The Early Years" http://www.theobamafile.com/_Islam/Obam … yYears.htm
        7. Jodi Kantor, The New York Times, "Barack Obama's search for faith" http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/world … d=all&

        1. Cody Hodge5 profile image84
          Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          100 percent fake. Not a single source is factually or even contextually correct....

    2. junkseller profile image91
      junksellerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Why would him being a Muslim matter? Maybe he's both. A Muslim by day and a Christian by night. Perhaps he changes on the full moon.

      I don't know, personally, I don't care if he is a Muslim or a Kenyan or a socialist. None of those things would affect my vote.

      1. taburkett profile image59
        taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Muslim Brotherhood utilizes the religion of Islam as a shield to destroy America.
        The President is doing a great job protecting those who wish to destroy the nation.
        you may wish to destroy the nation - I do not.

        1. junkseller profile image91
          junksellerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Destroy the nation? No, I want an America that sees the world for the beautiful colorful place it is, not a simplistic black and white pastiche that uses imaginary bogeymen to frighten people into justifying military might which is designed to generate favorable balance sheets for the worlds rich and powerful. The strong arm of stupidity is the greatest enemy we face and it is attached to the barbarian in the mirror.

          1. taburkett profile image59
            taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The Barbarians you speak of are the radicals who wish to ruin this nation.
            Last Wednesday President Obama said this:
            "A Republican majority in Congress would mean “hand-to-hand combat” on Capitol Hill for the next two years, threatening policies Democrats have enacted to stabilize the economy."
            Politics in Washington does not require hand-to-hand combat - it requires statesmen who know how to compromise and move the country forward.
            the battle mentality of the President has already ruined many countries around the world.
            now the radical is trying to ruin America - NObama 2012.

  22. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    ???

  23. 0
    Justsilvieposted 4 years ago

    Stop rolling on the Floor Wizard. I can hear you laughing all the way to my house!

    1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
      Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Indeed and it's more genuine than Mittens' phony, "Ha! Ha! Ha!" . . .

      http://home.comcast.net/~wizardofwhimsy/mittwoface.gif

  24. taburkett profile image59
    taburkettposted 4 years ago

    the nation is drowning and citizens who drink the fantasy kool aid distributed by decietful corrupt politicians distort such nonsense further trying to degrade the nation.

    "Patriotism is not a short frenzied burst of emotion, but the long and steady dedication of a lifetime."
    Thomas Jefferson

    True patriots utilize great ethics and solid logic when dealing with the tragedies currently being experienced within the USA.

    True patriots have always provided the best defense, the best innovation, and the best support to all other citizens who are unable to provide these things for themselves.

    The current administration attacks these true patriots because the patriots refuse to allow the nation to be destroyed under guise of immoral factions.

    The nation's true patriots will stand fast against all tyranny.

    1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
      Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Agitprop!

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      What is a "true patriot?"

      1. taburkett profile image59
        taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        a person who loves, supports, and defends the country and its interests with devotion.
        a defender, especially of individual rights, against interference by the government.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
          Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Like Barack Obama.

  25. rrhistorian profile image61
    rrhistorianposted 4 years ago

    well, President Obama is still tricking the nation.........
    especially when he wants to remove freedom of speech from our citizens.
    President Obama, Sep 23, 2012 - "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

    1. Cody Hodge5 profile image84
      Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hahaha nice one......

      I guess Obama haters don't ever bother to read his entire speech before picking out a line or two that suits them...

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        When your own candidate has nothing coherent or relevant to say, the only defense is the same offensive play over and over.
        It's seeming a bit half-hearted these days, though. Isn't it?
        lol

        1. Cody Hodge5 profile image84
          Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Its getting a little scary that people are so desperate to cling to his somehow being a Muslim sympathizer as the other thing that they can point to in order to get him out of office.

          I thought America doing well benefited everyone regardless of party...

          I guess not?

          1. rrhistorian profile image61
            rrhistorianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I guess your crystal ball is filled with the mocked transparency.
            Otherwise you would recognize that the nation is not doing better.
            In fact, the nation is sliding further into depression every day through a lack of leadership.

            1. Quilligrapher profile image91
              Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Greetings.

              How strange! I monitor the progress of the economy pretty closely. Most economic indicators reveal that the nation’s economy is improving every day.  Can you point us to the empirical data that indicates to you we are sliding into a depression?
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

              1. JSChams profile image60
                JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yes indeed like the unemployment numbers that get better when people drop off as they stop looking for work because it isn't there.

                1. Quilligrapher profile image91
                  Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Good evening, JSC.

                  Of course, we do not agree on the direction the country is going. Many Americans, however, take the time to study what is really going on in this country. No one can learn the real facts by standing on a soapbox. You have to burrow into the data, peal away the spin, the rhetoric, and the hyperbole to discover the things you are never going to learn from a TV sound bite.

                  This country is coming out of a recession whether you wish to admit it in public or not! The unemployment number is an economic indicator. It IS NOT a head-count of able-bodied Americans in need of a job. Therefore, to fully understand what is happening in this country, you have to study a range of indicators to identify the trends.

                  In this case, the 8.1% unemployment rate indicates the trend toward an improved job picture. The rate maxed at 10% in October 2009; remained above 9% for 22 of the next 23 months; fell into the 8% range in October 2011; and has been declining gradually ever since. This country has been successfully clawing its way out the Great Recession. That, my friend, is a positive trend.

                  Ah, but the uninformed will argue, there is no positive trend. Your numbers lie! Just like you said, JSC, “Yes indeed like the unemployment numbers that get better when people drop off as they stop looking for work because it isn't there.”

                  You must keep digging. The facts are there if you look for them. Instead of trumpeting the unemployment rate and trying to figure out why an estimated 6.4 million job seekers are not working, more folks are counting the 4.5 million Americans in NEW jobs created during the Obama administration in the private sector since January 2010. FACT: The job picture has improved under this president during the last three years even though many misinformed citizens continue to deny this reality. 
                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7228537_f248.jpg{1}
                  According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics nonfarm private payrolls hit a post-recession low of 106.8 million jobs in Jan. 2010 and has risen to 111.3 million jobs as of July 2012. {1}

                  So, while many are content to parrot the mantra “the glass is half empty,” others are doing the necessary research and are finding for themselves the glass is filling up faster then you would like to admit.
                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                  {1} http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=abw

                  1. Mighty Mom profile image91
                    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Next you'll be proving the Dow Jones Industrial Average has doubled since 2009* and is within spitting distance of breaking the all-time high set in 2007.
                    You and your facts, Quill.
                    You seem to take delight in ruining perfectly good irrational rants with them!
                    Keep 'em coming!
                    MM
                    lol lol







                    *From nadir point of 6,547 in March 2009.

                  2. taburkett profile image59
                    taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    your positive trend is slightly tainted because you are using the DOL statistics that do not include the unemployed whose unemployment has run out and still not found a job.  this includes 2.8 million individuals.
                    another 3.5 million are actually counted twice due to part-time jobs.
                    therefore, the unemployment rate is actually 10% for those whose unemployment just ran out this year.
                    therefore, the unemployment rate for all individuals seeking work is actually 11.4% when you include those who are still seeking employment but are not counted due to the unemployment running out or because they dropped off the list due to part-time work that is not counted as seasonal.

                    so while you continue to boast about the recovery, 23 million people are still looking for fulltime work in the USA.

              2. paintphd profile image60
                paintphdposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Sure, 16 trillion in debt, stagnant GDP, 8.4% unemployment, skyrocketing healthcare cost, skyrocketing fuel cost, skyrocketing cost of food. Things are improving for some folks. My construction business, thats actually deversified into three business in the new economy has seen some improvement in revenue, but the average citizen is'nt a business owner, and there's many out of work.

                1. Cody Hodge5 profile image84
                  Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Nice use of talking points.

              3. taburkett profile image59
                taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                look no further than QE3

  26. taburkett profile image59
    taburkettposted 4 years ago

    Muslims deserve no more and no less freedom
    Muslims must abide by the laws of the nation just like everyone else.
    placing Muslims above others is the blasphemy being orchestrated.
    many radicals continue to support a President who wishes to remove freedom of speech from anyone who does not agree with his agenda.
    many radicals continue to spout propaganda about Islamaphobia to deny that the freedom of speech is being attacked.
    many radicals continue to spew racism and hate as their own agenda when liberty for the citizen is being taken away by the President.
    many radicals proclaim desperation for Islamaphobia when the true nature of the attack is on freedom of speech in the USA.
    many radicals are those same people who evoke violence at the sight of a Christian who has the same rights as any other person.
    many radicals lack the ability to comprehend the truth about the loss of freedom in the USA because they lack ability to actually view the truth.

    1. rrhistorian profile image61
      rrhistorianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      you forgot one important part - the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood
      they have been using our freedom of religion as a shield for their covert activities

  27. taburkett profile image59
    taburkettposted 4 years ago

    when you vote for hope and change------
    you expect to see it................
    when it does ot happen -  what do you do?
    you vote the guy out................

  28. Billie Pagliolo profile image60
    Billie Paglioloposted 4 years ago

    "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves..."  President Obama, like President Roosevelt, requested Progressives to push him to his more progressive side.  That is my only disappointment - that we let centrists and those on the right push him toward their agenda and block legislation that perhaps in its boldness, would have helped us recover sooner than we are recovering.  But who among us did ONE SINGLE THING to help out the economy?  When my husband was laid off, IT WAS PRESIDENT'S OBAMA'S stimulus package that contained AN EXTENSION OF COBRA HEALTH COVERAGE that helped MY family get through until my husband found another position.  And who among us was bright enough to see that an EXTENSION of the part of the stimulus package such as the "first time" home buyers $8000 credit would have had new owners buying MORE refrigerators, furniture, fixtures for their new homes, thus stimulating that aspect of manufacturing. Many took advantage of that credit, but that part of the package was stopped.  And who among us pushed Congress to extend such legislation - not many - because most people were duped by the media, especially the Super "Duper" Rush Limbaugh.  Just as you can never prove what lives an extra lane on the highway saved or who exactly was spared from a life of paralysis by receiving the polio vaccine, neither can you prove who or what President Obama did save. I know, however, for one thing, that the Cobra extension saved us and I'm grateful. But all politics aside, I just plain feel great love for the President and for the First Family.

    1. Reality Bytes profile image93
      Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      How nice that qualified homebuyers were able to get the federal government to extort wealth from hard working Americans, (many of which can only dream of owning a home), so they can purchase some shiny new appliances for their new home.  I would hate to have these qualified buyers be forced to pay for their own damn appliances!  What a pity that the government no longer is confiscating hard earned money from one individual to benefit another to purchase their own home, how unfair!  Who wants to move in to a nice new house with old appliances.  It is the governments responsibility to provide for those that are able to provide for themselves?

      Why would hard working citizens struggling to make ends meet not want to have their tax money given to others that are more affluent to begin with!

      1. Billie Pagliolo profile image60
        Billie Paglioloposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Whoa!  My husband is 65 and I'm 67.  We have worked and CONTINUE to work full time.  When he got laid off in 2001 after 19 years with a company, we followed the jobs around the country from the East Coast to the West Coast, living in hotels and then in an RV.  In  2009 just after the election, we were living in an RV in an RV park. My husband was laid off once again. That RV is approx. 400 sq ft. Sometimes in summer I didn't use the air-conditioning because of the electric bill.  We lived in that RV for 6 years, so please don't talk to me about "shiny new appliances" Finally last year we were able to get back into the housing market and now have doubled our space to a 940 sq ft. condo.  I bought my "shiny" refrigerator, our bed, and recliner from craigslist.  I buy my clothes at the Goodwill Store and last month we had 96 cents in our checking account, so please, please, don't assume that I'm talking about wealthy individuals.  We have one car, a 2007 Toyota (We never, in our lives, have had a brand new car)  Funny that I who struggle hard to make ends meet as you apparently do, understand the sources of poverty and don't begrudge paying taxes.  My mother was a kind and compassionate, non-judgmental person who taught me well that we are all in this together.  She sang to me nightly the lyrics "If I have looked aside from want and pain, dear Lord, forgive."  I am working hard to build up my husband and my financial life, even at this point, and I only hope that when I do, I can pay the share that you so obviously resent paying.  In fact, I really do wish that those people who don't want to pay taxes, don't!  Let those who understand take it on.  Honestly, it would be more tolerable than listening to those who want to shirk there responsibilities for living in a nation as wonderful as ours!

        1. Billie Pagliolo profile image60
          Billie Paglioloposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          ps - aside from the Cobra extension during our lay-off and unemployment which we had paid in to, we have taken NOTHING from the government!

    2. taburkett profile image59
      taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If he were a true patriot - he would never be pushed, bent, or ridiculed.
      he is a rediculous politician and so he panders to the political nightmare that is destroying the nation.
      so much for hope and change on the political scene
      more corruption and deceit than all previous Presidents.
      the radicals will stop at nothing to eliminate the republic - one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

  29. lone77star profile image90
    lone77starposted 4 years ago

    Both halves of the Corporate Party work for one boss so it doesn't matter if Republicrats or Demopublicans win the election. Rombama = Obamney on every issue critical to the survival of America.

    And didn't you know? America is almost dead anyway. HR 347 is just one of many examples of tyranny in action. Now it's a felony to protest. So much for the Constitution and its liberties. Don't you feel really safe with all these laws "protecting" you? Ben Franklin said that if you sell your liberty for a little security, you will deserve neither.

    Here's 2 short videos showing how the political process in America is effectively dead. Welcome to the new Soviet Amerika, Inc.

    RNC Scripted:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKaXqoC4DjE

    DNC Scripted:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmaE2Aez_XY

    Don't be fooled like the Germans 80 years ago. A vote for either Obamney or Rombama is a vote for the new Hitler 2.0.

    ---------------------------

    America!
    Land of the slave, home of the coward. Not what it used to be.

    (Want to prove me wrong? Then do something the Rockefellers and Goldman-Sachs crowd didn't predict. Put a 3rd party candidate in the White House.)

  30. taburkett profile image59
    taburkettposted 4 years ago

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7238288_f248.jpg


    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7238321_f248.jpg


    http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7238323_f248.jpg


    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7238324_f248.jpg


    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7238326_f248.jpg


    http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7238327_f248.jpg


    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7238329_f248.jpg


    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7238330_f248.jpg


    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7238332_f248.jpg


    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7238334_f248.jpg


    http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7238335_f248.jpg


    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7238337_f248.jpg


    http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7238339_f248.jpg

 
working