Obama Speech Transcript 7-25-11

The President ‘stepped in it’ several times tonight. Once again, he told us Social Security and Veterans check “would not go out.”  He called on you to light up the Congressional switchboards tomorrow. It won’t just be Obamabots dialing in. He blamed everything on Bush, and quoted Reagan, yet again. What he didn’t say is that even Reagan got screwed-over by Congress, and in Reagan’s Grand Bargain, the spending cuts never materialized. This Congress, and particularly, the Freshman Congressmen/women know it, and they get it. See the transcript below. All green text with the transcript is my commentary.

Barack Obama

Note: I heard Bob Beckel on with Hannity after the speech, and he said the members of the Tea Parties are anarchists!

9:27 pm CDT: Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) is on with Greta this minute, saying that the only solution is a Balanced Budget Amendment. That we will lose our credit rating, and it will cost this country hugely. He says we cannot continue to borrow money, and if anything other than Cut, Cap and Balance passes, we are in serious trouble.


Transcript of Obama Speech from White House 7-25-11:

Via the White House press office: 

Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery

Primetime Debt Speech

Monday, July 25, 2011

Washington, DC

As Prepared for Delivery –

Good evening.  Tonight, I want to talk about the debate we’ve been having in Washington over the national debt – a debate that directly affects the lives of all Americans.

For the last decade, we have spent more money than we take in.  In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus.  But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation’s credit card.

[From new book by Iain Murray, Stealing You Blind, How Fat Cats are Getting Rich Off You – Kindle edition

George W. Bush entered office with a budget surplus of $302 billion. He left office with a deficit of $467 billion. President Obama’s 2010 budget included a deficit of $1.5 trillion.]”

Obama has had three straight budgets, none of which were enacted, and each of which called for over $1 Tillion in spending, never done by any other president and no other president has even asked for a $1 Trillion budget. According to this article, Obama’s three year spending bings if 37% higher than G. W. Bush’s entire 8-year presidency.

As a result, the deficit was on track to top $1 trillion the year I took office.  To make matters worse, the recession meant that there was less money coming in, and it required us to spend even more – on tax cuts for middle-class families; on unemployment insurance; on aid to states so we could prevent more teachers and firefighters and police officers from being laid off.  These emergency steps also added to the deficit.

Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable.  But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy.

Words…just words. The jobs are gone, the debt has already done serious damage. He has wasted Trillion on giveaways, and the jobs went with them.

More of our tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on our loans.   Businesses will be less likely to open up shop and hire workers in a country that can’t balance its books.  Interest rates could climb for everyone who borrows money – the homeowner with a mortgage, the student with a college loan, the corner store that wants to expand.  And we won’t have enough money to make job-creating investments in things like education and infrastructure, or pay for vital programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Because neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem, both parties have a responsibility to solve it.  And over the last several months, that’s what we’ve been trying to do.  I won’t bore you with the details of every plan or proposal, but basically, the debate has centered around two different approaches.

The first approach says, let’s live within our means by making serious, historic cuts in government spending.  Let’s cut domestic spending to the lowest level it’s been since Dwight Eisenhower was President.  Let’s cut defense spending at the Pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars.  Let’s cut out the waste and fraud in health care programs like Medicare – and at the same time, let’s make modest adjustments so that Medicare is still there for future generations.  Finally, let’s ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their tax breaks and special deductions.

This balanced approach asks everyone to give a little without requiring anyone to sacrifice too much.  It would reduce the deficit by around $4 trillion and put us on a path to pay down our debt.  And the cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on our economy, or prevent us from helping small business and middle-class families get back on their feet right now.

This approach is also bipartisan.  While many in my own party aren’t happy with the painful cuts it makes, enough will be willing to accept them if the burden is fairly shared.  While Republicans might like to see deeper cuts and no revenue at all, there are many in the Senate who have said “Yes, I’m willing to put politics aside and consider this approach because I care about solving the problem.”  And to his credit, this is the kind of approach the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was working on with me over the last several weeks.

The only reason this balanced approach isn’t on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a cuts-only approach – an approach that doesn’t ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all.  And because nothing is asked of those at the top of the income scales, such an approach would close the deficit only with more severe cuts to programs we all care about – cuts that place a greater burden on working families.

So the debate right now isn’t about whether we need to make tough choices.  Democrats and Republicans agree on the amount of deficit reduction we need.  The debate is about how it should be done.  Most Americans, regardless of political party, don’t understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask corporate jet owners and oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don’t get.  How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries?  How can we slash funding for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks we don’t need and didn’t ask for?

The answer is easy: the wealthy can send in all the money they feel they want to contribute to education

That’s not right.  It’s not fair.  We all want a government that lives within its means, but there are still things we need to pay for as a country – things like new roads and bridges; weather satellites and food inspection; services to veterans and medical research.

Keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98% of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all.  None.  In fact, I want to extend the payroll tax cut for working families.  What we’re talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade – millionaires and billionaires – to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make.  And I think these patriotic Americans are willing to pitch in.  In fact, over the last few decades, they’ve pitched in every time we passed a bipartisan deal to reduce the deficit.  The first time a deal passed, a predecessor of mine made the case for a balanced approach by saying this:

“Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment?  And I think I know your answer.”

Those words were spoken by Ronald Reagan.  But today, many Republicans in the House refuse to consider this kind of balanced approach – an approach that was pursued not only by President Reagan, but by the first President Bush, President Clinton, myself, and many Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate.  So we are left with a stalemate.

Now, what makes today’s stalemate so dangerous is that it has been tied to something known as the debt ceiling – a term that most people outside of Washington have probably never heard of before.

Understand – raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money.  It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up.  In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine.  Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every President has signed it.  President Reagan did it 18 times.  George W. Bush did it 7 times.  And we have to do it by next Tuesday, August 2nd, or else we won’t be able to pay all of our bills.

Unfortunately, for the past several weeks, Republican House members have essentially said that the only way they’ll vote to prevent America’s first-ever default is if the rest of us agree to their deep, spending cuts-only approach.

If that happens, and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills – bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans’ benefits, and the government contracts we’ve signed with thousands of businesses.

For the first time in history, our country’s Triple A credit rating would be downgraded, leaving investors around the world to wonder whether the United States is still a good bet.  Interest rates would skyrocket on credit cards, mortgages, and car loans, which amounts to a huge tax hike on the American people.  We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis – one caused almost entirely by Washington.

Defaulting on our obligations is a reckless and irresponsible outcome to this debate.  And Republican leaders say that they agree we must avoid default.  But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now.  In other words, it doesn’t solve the problem.

First of all, a six-month extension of the debt ceiling might not be enough to avoid a credit downgrade and the higher interest rates that all Americans would have to pay as a result.  We know what we have to do to reduce our deficits; there’s no point in putting the economy at risk by kicking the can further down the road.

But there’s an even greater danger to this approach.  Based on what we’ve seen these past few weeks, we know what to expect six months from now.  The House will once again refuse to prevent default unless the rest of us accept their cuts-only approach.  Again, they will refuse to ask the wealthiest Americans to give up their tax cuts or deductions.  Again, they will demand harsh cuts to programs like Medicare.  And once again, the economy will be held captive unless they get their way.

That is no way to run the greatest country on Earth.  It is a dangerous game we’ve never played before, and we can’t afford to play it now.  Not when the jobs and livelihoods of so many families are at stake.  We can’t allow the American people to become collateral damage to Washington’s political warfare.

Congress now has one week left to act, and there are still paths forward.  The Senate has introduced a plan to avoid default, which makes a down payment on deficit reduction and ensures that we don’t have to go through this again in six months.

I think that’s a much better path, although serious deficit reduction would still require us to tackle the tough challenges of entitlement and tax reform.  Either way, I have told leaders of both parties that they must come up with a fair compromise in the next few days that can pass both houses of Congress – a compromise I can sign.  And I am confident we can reach this compromise.

Year-after-year of “compromise” has finally hit the wall. You can only compromise with the devil for so long until it leaves nothing more to compromise on. We’ve spent and bent and watched these jokers steal our wealth and funnel it to worthless and false environmental initiatives. We’ve let regulations be levied when Congress did not act. We’ve let the Department of Justice stomp on State’s Rights, protect the lawless, murder their own citizens, and allow voter intimidation. There is nothing more to compromise on, unless we compromise with the devil.

Despite our disagreements, Republican leaders and I have found common ground before.  And I believe that enough members of both parties will ultimately put politics aside and help us make progress.

I realize that a lot of the new members of Congress and I don’t see eye-to-eye on many issues.  But we were each elected by some of the same Americans for some of the same reasons.  Yes, many want government to start living within its means.  And many are fed up with a system in which the deck seems stacked against middle-class Americans in favor of the wealthiest few.  But do you know what people are fed up with most of all?

They’re fed up with a town where compromise has become a dirty word.  They work all day long, many of them scraping by, just to put food on the table.  And when these Americans come home at night, bone-tired, and turn on the news, all they see is the same partisan three-ring circus here in Washington.  They see leaders who can’t seem to come together and do what it takes to make life just a little bit better for ordinary Americans.  They are offended by that.  And they should be.

The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn’t vote for a dysfunctional government.  So I’m asking you all to make your voice heard.  If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your Member of Congress know.  If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message.

America, after all, has always been a grand experiment in compromise.  As a democracy made up of every race and religion, where every belief and point of view is welcomed, we have put to the test time and again the proposition at the heart of our founding:  that out of many, we are one.  We have engaged in fierce and passionate debates about the issues of the day, but from slavery to war, from civil liberties to questions of economic justice, we have tried to live by the words that Jefferson once wrote: “Every man cannot have his way in all things…Without this mutual disposition, we are disjointed individuals, but not a society.”

History is scattered with the stories of those who held fast to rigid ideologies and refused to listen to those who disagreed.  But those are not the Americans we remember.  We remember the Americans who put country above self, and set personal grievances aside for the greater good.  We remember the Americans who held this country together during its most difficult hours; who put aside pride and party to form a more perfect union.

That’s who we remember.  That’s who we need to be right now.  The entire world is watching.  So let’s seize this moment to show why the United States of America is still the greatest nation on Earth – not just because we can still keep our word and meet our obligations, but because we can still come together as one nation.  Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

End Obama transcript.

Linked by Right of Middle (thank you!) – read a quote from Obama in 2006.

  • Dennis

    The wealthiest 10% of our nation are already paying 90% of the nations taxes, how can you possibly claim that the wealthy are not paying their fare share. The problem lies with the democrats inability to spend within their means. Any individual or company that is short on cash must cut back and go without something, they cannot spend themselves into ridiculous debt or they will go bankrupt. The government, Mr. Obama, needs to stop spending money and stop raising taxes.

    • Chris

      “The wealthiest 10% of our nation are already paying 90% of the nations taxes, how can you possibly claim that the wealthy are not paying their fare share.”

      The wealthiest 10% of our nation pays 73% of all taxes and controls over 90% of the nation’s wealth. Also, the 400 wealthiest people in the country pay an average federal tax rate of 18.3%. Capital gains rate in this country is 15%, no one in this country even pays 15%. They are allowed to net there gains verse their losses and pay tax on the difference. Example you have a capital gain of $1,000,000.00 and a capital loss $500,000.00, you pay 15% on $500,000.00 that is a tax rate of 7.5%, not 15%.

      “The problem lies with the democrats inability to spend within their means.”

      Democrats and Republican both spend they just spend differently, the big problem is their idea of compromise. I’ll give you everything you want, then you give me everything I want and we will just f@ck the stupid tax paying sheeple.

      “Any individual or company that is short on cash must cut back and go without something, they cannot spend themselves into ridiculous debt or they will go bankrupt.”

      Not if you work in the financial system or one of the many groups lobbying for bailouts and handouts.

      “The government, Mr. Obama, needs to stop spending money and stop raising taxes.”

      People get the government they deserve, until we vote them out, we deserve everything we get.

      • Eric

        If you gain $1,000,000 and lose $500,000, you have a net gain of $500,000. You pay 15% on your gain for a 15% tax rate. Your figure of 7.5% does not work because it only looks at taxes paid on gross income from capital gains and ignores losses.

        Right now, the problem indeed does lie with the Dems’ inability to spend within their means. This was a problem under Bush as well when he had control of Congress, but the probably has escalated exponentially since 2006 when the Dems retook the House, Senate, and again in 2008 when Obama was elected.

        It’s true that many companies took bailouts in 2008, but as a general rule, companies and people in general cannot spend more money than they make on a consistent basis. A company or employee cannot go to their customers or employer and force them to give a raise because their spending habits are not in tune with their budget. If you don’t want to pay more for products, you can choose another company. If you don’t make enough money for what you spend, you can get an extra job or find a new one. The government can force you to pay more though, and that’s why it is such an issue.

    • Sharon

      I am so tired of people saying that Obama didn’t bring change. First of all things were screwed up when he took over. The mess Bush made will take years to clean up and for some reason. NO ONE SEES THAT!!!! That is the dumbest things to me. So continue your blogs, continue your criticism, “He is trying to clean up what bush messed up and that will take more than one term. The republicans want him to fail, thats why they shoot down every thing he trys to do that will cause our nation to gain. They want him to fail!!!! The sad part is half of our nation CAN’T SEE THAT!!!! I applaud his efforts his committment and his dedication to our Nation. Its tragic that the republicans can’t see that he only wants whats best for our nation…. TRAGIC!!!!

      • Curtis

        “I am so tired of people saying that Obama didn’t bring change. First of all things were screwed up when he took over. The mess Bush made will take years to clean up and for some reason. NO ONE SEES THAT!!!!”

        They don’t see it because it isn’t there. Yes, the Bush-era left a deficit. But the Obama deficits have eclipsed it exponentially in less than half the time. To Bushes credit, he said he actually had to set his conservative principles aside to go along with it – – I think that was a huge “compromise”. And it didn’t work. Then Obama comes in and does it again . . . and wants to do it again . . . and again.

        Spite out the Kool-Aid and listen up. Unchecked deficit spending will not buy an economic recovery. But that is what democrats want. They want no limits – – Hell! Harry Reid doesn’t even think we need a budget.

        Democrats will get their debt limit increase in this battle AND WILL RENEGE ON SPENDING CUTS. They always do. Obama tried to invoke Reagan. Reagan agreed to a tax hike in return for promised cuts that were never delivered. Obama forgot that part of the story; the part where Reagan said, “never again.” Exactly what will Democrats cut? Show me one line item in entitlements that is a real cut and not some nebulous “efficiency.”

        No budget. WHY? This time last year the dems owned Washington. they didn’t have to ask the Republicans for anything. Nancy Pelosi came right out and said it. The dems in Congress with their guy in the White House have NO EXCUSE – NONE – for not passing a budget last year. They just didn’t want to because they would have to OWN it.

        I have spent a couple of years tempering my feelings about Obama. but I am done. I will vote for a TEA-bagger of any sort before I ever vote for a D-bagger again. Obama is a exactly what the extreme right wing said he was. I hate to say it, but it’s true.

        • justin

          omg its so funny how everyone has there opinions about what they think is right and how everything should be done and if they did this and that everything would be ok. i love that the internet is over 65% opinionated CRAP of a bunch of chair riding, desk sitting, think they know how everything should be done idiots. seriously, you guys probably sit on the couch during baseball, football, etc and think you could probably coach the team better or call better plays. these people are in there positions for a REASON… YOU VOTED THEM IN!!! And if you didn’t well you got out-voted. It happens so suck it up and deal with it!

          • justin, you’re right we voted them in. Now we’ll vote them out. We got a good start in November 2010, and if we could have voted Obama out then, we would had.

            • I’m voting for Obama in 2012. Simply because he is so clever and civil. He’s fair and balanced (sorry FoxNews). He works hard, despite all the anti-black rhetoric Republicans feed their constituents. God bless Obama and America; and God bless American bigots and change their hearts.

        • Curtis you are right about the spending cuts and Reagan. They never materialized. Same with G. H. W. Bush. As I’ve listened today, I hope when we hear about the “spending cuts,” that they are real cuts. There are lots of ways to cut spending. We’ve been known to tell the people we cut spending when in truth, we cut only items that were not being renewed anyway.

      • Ronald

        The best reply I have read on the internet on this issue today.
        Somewhere i read “I fucked you all and thanks for blaming it on the black guy”. Wasn’t that Bush? He should have gone for a 3rd term to clean up the mess he created.

      • I totally agree. Those of us in Alaska who have suffered through Sarah Palin and the drama that goes along with her know the truth. She will stick to her talking points whether they are based on any educated information or not. Like many others in her party, she thinks if she says something often enough it will become reality. A large percentage of Alaskans, more everyday, support the President and won’t be duped by Sarah Palin or Tea Partiers. In some cases their behavior has been treasonous and when the fallout happens, they may have more to worry about than being re-elected. I’ll bet that Saddam didn’t think he would ever be hanged for crimes. If our nation defaults and those of us who have worked our whole lives lose our retirements,which were required to be placed in 403B’s, we will seek redress from those who refused to work with the President, elected officials and others who openly thwarted the democratic process, who refused to discuss and debate, and from those who had only corporate interests in mind.

    • Corporations that have been receiving tax payer subsidies, some for over 40 years and are making billions in profit, do not deserve those subsidies anymore. They have become entitlements. My neighbors make millions of dollars a year in profit, they haven’t added any jobs, most of their business is overseas. They take a private jet wherever. They pay the same percentage tax on the income they claim which is about the same as mine and our family income is under $80,000. We have paid into medicare and social security all our lives. Its time for subsidized corporations making billions to pay back!!! My neighbors don’t think anything of buying a thousand dollars worth of shoes and maybe never wearing them. Are you telling me they can’t pay a few more dollars in tax?

      • Patrick, what do you not understand about their money being their money. If they have as much money as you say they have, then they are among the 10% paying 90% of all the taxes.

        Think of all the people that have jobs making those shoes. That’s how it works. I’m not telling you they “can’t” pay more, I’m telling you they should not have to pay more, but as I mentioned in my article, that riled many commenters here, anyone wanting to help out can just send a check to the guvm’t. There is no good chance, however, that that money will go toward paying down debt. More likely, it will be in the president’s slush fund (every president has one) to be used to soothe political appointees.

  • sarah

    your comments are horrible, idiotic, uneducated nonsense. what the fuck are you even talking about?

    • Eric


      Clearly you are exactly the idiotic, uneducated person here if you do not understand the facts behind the comments. Of course, most liberals make decisions based on feelings, not facts or logic, so it’s not really surprising.

      • sarah

        i have yet to see any facts or logic

        • sarah

          but i would love to, please, feel free to bring some forward

          • Eric

            It’s not my job to bring you the facts. It’s your job to educate yourself about the issues, not mine – I’m not going to do your work for you. Most of this can be found on government websites like that of the Congressional Budget Office, etc.

            Too many people tow their party line without really knowing much information.

      • Teena

        obviously the GOP love the uneducated (and those too lazy to find the information needed for themselves to make INFORMED decisions)because that allows them to shepherd them with the propaganda and biased rhetoric that they are so fond of. For God’s sake people…stop listening to the politicians and look up the information for yourselves. find the truth…and act on it!! Oh and Sarah….I am a person that you would consider “liberal” because I refuse to blindly follow a party line and search out FACTS and then decide how I vote. Your statement was just another example of what the GOP is reduced to to keep their “status quo” instead of voting to preserve this great country and it’s citizens. sometimes grasping and hanging onto traditions for their own sake is more of a hinderance than a help.

        • Curtis

          Good grief! Who are the stupid sheep?

          The ones following a President that has mastered the art of saying nothing and doing nothing. Following a naked emperor.

          Wait a second. Obama has done something. Just halfway through his first, and likely last term, he has left a trail of economic destruction larger that all of his predecessors combined. And he blames the party that, for most of his tenure, was completely out of power.

          • Your math is horrible. 2 years versus 8. The fraction is 2/8 or 1/4. Was President Obama supposed to fix this economic mess mainly caused by wars that have cost tens of thousands of lost and damaged lives in 1/4 the time it took to create the trillions of dollars of debt President Bush authorized and initiated? Get real! The facts obliterate your position.

            • Patrick, I believe Curtis was saying Obama did more to bring the economy down in 2 years than 8. Mathematically, that is true. One example, the deficit at the end of Bush’s 8 years, and the massive deficit of Obama in just one year.

              Look at the Bush deficit. It tells the story. When you attribute TARP to Bush, the fact is most of that money has now been paid back, so that attribution goes to Bush as well.

  • sarah

    i especially like the idea that the wealthy “can send in all the money they feel they want to contribute to education.” that’s a wonderful idea. let’s just stop collecting taxes altogether and have people send anonymous envelopes to washington with however much they would like to contribute. i’m sure that we won’t have to close all our schools, libraries, hospitals, roads and everything else within a few weeks. these comments are a joke and anyone who can read them without laughing needs to reevaluate their beliefs about reality and/or go back to grade school.

    • Eric

      No one said to abolish the tax system. Rather, if you feel you are not paying enough taxes (as many liberals with money say), you can write a check to the government – they will accept it.

      • sarah

        i believe the suggestion was that instead of imposing actual regulations on the wealthy contributing to government funding, they should just be able to contribute what they “feel”… how does that translate to me not paying enough taxes? i’m saying if that was even remotely a legitimate suggestion, why should only the wealthy get to decide for themselves how much to contribute, why not everyone? and yes, that would be abolishing taxes altogether in favor of a voluntary donation system. all i’m saying is… i think we all know how well that will work out

        • Eric

          As in “contribute what you want past what you pay in taxes, if you don’t think it’s enough.” Anyone can contribute more than they already pay if they choose to.

          Abolishing the entire tax system, resulting in no government at all is not a common conservative principle and is truly only supported by anarchists, whereas wealthy liberals complaining about themselves not paying enough taxes is.

      • Cw

        this is the new mantra of the lunatic conservative bunch. Read your own comments, the don’t make sense and some of them are grammatically unintelligible.

    • Sarah, I especially like that idea too. I do not want tax increases and as Eric has explained, everyone except the 45% of Americans who pay no taxes at all, are already paying their fair share, and the wealthy are paying more than their share.

      Obama keeps saying, over and over (but perhaps you have missed that) that people like him, who don’t really need all their money, should have a tax hike, so I invite them just to send their wealth in. If they to share, then let them do it. If you are not satisfied to keep what you already have after taxes, then mail them (us) a check.

      No one but you mentioned “everyone” could stop paying taxes. Read it again. You are way off track.

      Speaking of facts, did you see those in green within the transcript. Are you going to ignore the deficit research?

      Really, you are the joke.

    • Eleuthero


      I agree with the idea that Maggie’s statement about
      the rich “donating” so that we can have an educational
      system is the height of Republican “let ’em eat cake”
      ideology. This is NOT the Party of Lincoln.

      The Gang of Six AND even most Republicans actually agree
      that SOME new revenues are needed and I find it amazing
      that some of the Republikooks on this website talk about
      the rich “already paying their fair share” (though that
      illiterate person spelled it “fare”). The super rich
      have every tax dodge in the book at their disposal. Even
      Democrat Warren Buffett said that his SECRETARY paid a
      higher percentage of her pay in taxes than HE did.

      Perhaps some of these Republikooks would like to comment
      on how our country avoided collapse during the Eisenhower
      Administration when million dollar earners were taxed at
      seventy plus percent?? I’ll tell you why … because you
      kooks are still sniveling about “Supply Side Economics”
      which REPUBLICAN David Stockman refuted as a viable economic
      theory when he resigned from the Reagan Administration …
      the FIRST Administration in the last sixty years to run
      huge deficits.

      I’m a disenfranchised “Stockman” Republican and I see no
      resemblance between what is now called a Republican and
      true conservatism. Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. all
      spent like drunken sailors so get off your high horse,

      Finally, since a lot of the “wealthy” that the kooks don’t
      want to tax are the THIEVES in the investment banking industry
      that ought to be in jail. It’s one thing for Republicans to
      support big industry and another thing entirely for them to
      support SOCIALIST BREAKS for such industries and the
      aforementioned THIEVES. We live in a country now where
      gains are privatized and losses are socialized.

      We’re more than half way to becoming a banana republic with
      a few thousand people strangle-holding all the wealth and
      who do NOT take part in CAPITAL FORMATION. The rich are,
      and ALWAYS have been HOARDERS. Banks aren’t lending and
      other plutocrats are just trading chits on Wall Street
      since we’ve gutted the country and there’s nothing left
      to invest in.

      We cannot “grow” our way out because sociopaths have sent
      all your jobs to Vietnam, Malaysia, China, Sri Lanka, India,
      etc.. So I say … it’s time that government bridled the
      monied interests that Thomas Jefferson warned us about.


    • Phil

      Why should the wealthiest Americans be afforded the luxury of “volunteering” the extra money that is imposed on the rest of us? That’s a severe catch 22. They make more money, therefore they’re entitled to give less of it to they’re country through tax breaks? That’s the kind of insanely twisted logic that has led in large part to our nation’s current financial situation.

      • Phil, if they are paying their taxes as the tax code provides, and considering Obama has said many times, they should pay more, then let them send a check if they want to. It’s called “free will.” There is not catch 22. Anyone can pay more right now – this minute – if they believe they are not paying their fair share, or whatever.

        Get it? First they pay their due taxes, then they “volunteer” to pay more. It’s not difficult to understand.

        • Karen

          If the 45% who now pay $0 in taxes would “vountarily” pay in $25 each to cover all the wonderful benefits they get all year for free (housing, food, utilities, health care, eduation, etc) that would add $3,487,500,000.00 a year to the federal coffers.
          (That’s using 310,000,000 for population estimate X 45% x $25).
          The rest of us pay for all that stuff for ourself, and pay the governemnt to provide it for them, too.
          I have no problem helping out the orphans and widows and those who are in a bad place due to circumstances truly beyond their control – but I am tired of handing over my hard earned money to the government to give it away to lazy bums who have learned to milk the entitlement system.
          Go sit in a Medicaid office some day and observe closely. Many patrons have manicured nails and coifed hair and designer clothes and handbags, and 95% have a cell phone. Apparantly all those things take priority over them spending their own money on such silly things as rent and utilities and food. Our government perpetrates that mentality because it assures them a very large voting block. A 45% of the population voting block. Almost a guaranteed victory if you can keep enough people on welfare.

          • Karen, well said. I learned recently that a person can be on both Medicaid and Medicare. What happened to all the talk about slashing fraud in both of those institutions? We desperately need tax reform and government program-fraud reform.

            Every single adult in this country should pay something in taxes and have something invested in the place they reside. What honor many people around the world would feel it to be to pay taxes to the U.S.

            Thanks for stopping by and commenting. I appreciate it.

  • Eric and Chris, thanks for the information. I appreciate it.

  • chris

    In 2008 when things went very sour for the average middle class American. A big contribution to the economy turning south was people afraid to spend money on unnecessary expenditures.

    One market hit especially hard was the automotive industry; people stopped buy new cars. So how do we “fix” that? Give the manufacturers a break, lend them some tax dollars and then offer ridiculous incentives to the public to go out and buy new cars (cash for clunkers).

    Fast forward to the present, new car sales are going to dive again if the interest rates go up (happens every time), used car prices are already higher than normal (some to the extreme), used car availability is limited and major foreign manufacturers with plants in the US (Honda and Toyota) are already way off last years earnings due to natural and man made disasters.

    We as a general public have had to learn the hard way how to make do with less income (no real pay raises for those of us lucky enough to keep our job these past 3 years) and less credit availability at higher rates. Why should we demand any less of our government?

    • Eleuthero


      I agree that financial intervention in the car
      industry just allowed anti-competitive companies
      continue to make their crap. Ford was recently
      rated something like TWENTY-THIRD in quality.

      However, the flip side of that particular coin
      is that you do NOT give tax incentives to the
      oil industry and you do NOT allow banks and
      insurers that should be allowed to fail to
      thrive and overcompensate themselves at the
      taxpayers expense.

      It appears to me that it is very frequent that
      Republicans only see the “redistributionist”
      side of the Democratic revenue argument but they
      do NOT consider that a lot of that “redistributed”
      money was either stolen from the government via
      tax breaks or stolen from the American people who
      were forced to bail out incompetence.

      If anyone sees BOTH sides of this equation, the
      need to increase taxes on the very wealthy as part
      of the debt reduction equation is, to my mind,
      absolutely irrefutable.

      Our country is increasingly at peril because of the
      debt and deficits but BOTH parties need to see the
      simple truth about WHO has the money and HOW they
      got it. The titans of industry today are NOT Henry
      Ford. They usually didn’t create the industries
      they are CEOs of and they don’t mind rewarding
      themselves for failure.

      Government is often a REACTION to private sector
      malfeasance and THIS is one of those times. I’ve
      never seen a more sociopathic American plutocracy
      so I say that the “Newtonian” government reaction
      should be to tax them and force them to make money
      the way Henry Ford made it … through production
      and capital formation … not embezzlement, thievery,
      and the bad citizenship of giving away good jobs to
      foreign nationals.


  • Maggie, you and I agree that Obama is full of shit. The only problem is that your perspective is really skewed. In your comments, you actually SAY…that the wealthy can send in as much as they want to pay? So, when they send in NOTHING, then what? Pretty sure we can’t count on the “kindness of strangers” to fund our education. What are you on about?

    And then the bit about “they” and “spending” on “false environmental initiatives”. What? No, a whole ton of our money went two places: to bail out unlawful corporations who contributed, if not outright caused, the economic collapse – big finance heads like Goldman Sachs, who, incidentally, sent a good number of people into Obama’s cabinet. Our money also went to the wealthiest citizens, via the so called “Bush TAX CUTS” that amounted to $44 billion. Finally, the largest chunk of all went to our plethora of illegal wars and campaigns in the Middle East.

    False environmental initiatives? Even if you could cite any facts whatsoever to back that up, I assure you that any money that has been spent on this initiatives pales in comparison to the things I’ve named. You’re right that there’s been a lot of waste, but you seem to misunderstand where the money is GOING.

    You have one finger pointed at Obama, which is correct, because he is a pro-corporate snake with a charismatic smile. But you need to have that other finger pointed at these corporations and Wall street fat cats who line his pockets and shape his agenda.

    And you know why he quoted Reagan? Because his approach is JUST LIKE Reagan’s. Give money to the wealthy and let it ” trickle down” – an idea that failed miserably in the 80s, and continues to fail today. It’s mind boggling how those on the right are so critical of Obama when he’s just as conservative as Bush – not fiscally, because both were big spenders – but in terms of where the money is allocated.

    • Kermit, I have written about “environmental initiatives” over and over. It’s all throughout my blog. If you don’t believe that EPA regulations allowed by Obama to be instituted by the EPA, after Congress refused to pass them, has not hurt us financially, then you need to do some more homework.

      But Kermit…I understand why he quoted Reagan, but as I said we know what happened and it had nothing to do with Reagan’s policy. It had to do with Congress not keeping their promise to the American people.

      We have had big spenders for year in the Oval and the Chambers. As I said, compromise has hit a wall.

  • Not sure when you people are going to figure out that Obama is no different than Bush is no different than Clinton is no different than Bush Sr is no different than Reagan. The two parties have got both the liberals and the conservatives duped into thinking that there’s any substantive difference between them, that they’re not both equally beholden to the demands of powerful corporations and lobbies. The right is confused and angry and ignorant, and the liberals are mindless followers.

    I have such “HOPE” for the future!

  • In all seriousness take a look at what both speeches tonight told us about the Representatives in Washington DC whether it be House, Senate, or Administration as some like to refer to the President and his staff of many.

    In the past 15 years I have lost 1 job due to a corporate meager which moved a companies offices from local to 220 miles away, just a little far for commuting, a job when a patnership disolved due to one of partner’s not paying his share of the bills, including his half of my salary and I had 3 paychecks bounce in a row when the one partner pulled out and filed suit, a job when a company was closed by the bank on a Friday afternoon out of the blue for many of us, a job when the owner’s decided the office staff needed to have their CNA’s and let 4 of us go the Friday before Christmas all of us over 50 and clerical with no CNA’s. A position because Kelly Services failed to get my background check completed after I had resigned my previous position to accept a job offered me at the interview by the corporation, (or does that count as 2 jobs???), a job because the State Governement didn’t sign their contracts in time to keep us on, and a job because the Grant money paying my salary was transferred to a new location when 2/3’s of the students were moved out of the location I was working in to two other locations from the Indiana Girl’s School. Now I have problems finding work. Why? I am over qualified, under qualified, my credit is bad, my job history looks bad, I don’t have a college degree, and I have no money to go back to school at age 59 to obtain one.

    I have had to make serious cuts in my budget. I don’t give money away, I don’t go to movies, I don’t go on trips, I don’t pay people to do work for me, I don’t purchase unnecessary groceries, clothes, etc. Gee, what a novel concept, I had to stop spending money on unnecessary items all together and find a way to make do with what I had.

    Social Security is not an entitlement program. I paid in, my employers paid in and the money was to be in a Trust Fund for me to draw on at a later date, oh, yes, earlier retirment at 62 or normal retirement at 65. What’s that? Oh, people are living longer so I need to be 67 plus? Hmm. What do you mean the 2 trillion dollars that was sitting in the fund is missing and it is full of Federal Govenment IOU’s???? Did they ask if they could borrow from the fund by the contributors? What do you mean I elected them they didn’t need my permission? Well, here is the truth I didn’t vote for all of those people and if I had they never asked us, did they?

    You aren’t going to send Social Security checks but you gave how many billion to Greece? How many Billion to Palestine and by the way this is not a recognized nation or country by the UN. How much money to you continue to send to Afghanistan and you spent how much bombing Lybia? You better get your head out of the clouds. We aren’t that ignorant anymore. Old dogs can learn new tricks.

    • Pamela, they will not stop Social Security checks. I feel confident they will not. You are exactly right that Social Security is not a burden on the budget. I’ll also mention that Medicare is not free. People pay into the Medicare fund.

      About the $2T SS trust fund, the government as borrowed the money, and left an IOU in the empty box.

      Your job situation is like many in the U.S. these day. I hope soon things will get much better for you, and one good way for them to get better is to abolish government grants for jobs. As you well know, they can jerk those jobs at anytime.

  • Steve Ellis

    If tax breaks stimulate the economy and create jobs why did the Bush tax cuts have the opposite effect? Why do the oil companies, with their generous tax breaks, employ fewer Americans every year? Is it possible to pay off acredit card debt by simply spending less? Isn’t “trickle down” a debunked theory (see post-Reagan assertions by Stockman”. Does compromise mean getting 100% of what you want?

    • Steve Ellis, in 2007 the unemployment rate under Bush was 4.6%. The highest under him was 5.7% in 2008. Bush let the Democrat Congress spend wildly – simply so they would fund the war. In the article I said, “compromise” has hit a wall. This is the time when compromising means going over the cliff, or over to the dark side.

      Oil companies aren’t hiring because regulations will not allow them to drill. A simple drilling permit takes years. The administration has grabbed land in good yield areas – and with this president, he plans to strangle our energy companies, and he has done a good job of it.

      Maybe you didn’t pay attention when the first two years of the Obama administration compromised on NOTHING. Arrogant and unyielding – just look at ObamaCare.

      • Steve Ellis

        What was the unemployment rate under Bush in January 2009?
        Fund the war…you must mean Bush’s Trillion dollar hunt for WMDs in Iraq!
        I’m sorry for the oil companies who have only had profits in excess of a trillion dollars under strangling regulation.
        No compromise in health care…what happened to the public option.
        You are a distorting lying misinformer and twister of the truth Shame on you!

        • Karen

          For real misinformation and twisting of the truth listen to our leaders. They tell us lies in order to pit us against one another to take the focus off their misdeeds. Obama says in his speech how we are “from many, one”. BS. Our country is divided along so many lines – political, social, economic….

        • don

          Maggie, I’m just a reader here, but I am waiting for a response to Steve Ellis’ last comment as well -a rational argument that doesn’t keep skirting the issue. -‘Strangling our energy companies’, what a joke! Record profits just aren’t enough to start hiring people, huh? They need more? How much do they need? And please explain to me why. Bush tax cuts TOTALLY created tons of new jobs in our ‘jobless recovery’last decade -so thus these tax cuts will continue to create them -that’s rich. Why were the most prosperous times of the last century when taxes were higher? Please explain this as well. Please please please. These corporations that you blindly support have figured out how to run their companies without all of the middlemen that were laid off in ’08-’10 so WHY would they hire anybody? Their purpose, as governed by law, is to make money for their shareholders by any legal means possible. You are FAR disconnected from the reality of corporations, and the Republican Party for that matter. These aren’t fiscal conservatives (actually, some honorably are),they support the wealthy because the wealthy supports them, they are only Team Red fighting Team Blue NO MATTER WHAT TEAM BLUE DOES.

          No compromise…. that is a dictatorship Maggie.

          Obama is FAR from a perfect president, but ideologues are FAR from perfect patriots as well. I believe that you love this country as much as I do, but skewing info to suit your needs is ridiculous. You connect dots with arcs bowing the your beliefs, not straight lines. Just be honest.

          For example, I like the first green comment “George W. Bush entered office with a budget surplus of $302 billion. He left office with a deficit of $467 billion.” So you lead people to believe that there was a surplus before the 700 billion dollar bail-out? Or you don’t attribute the bail-out to him? And then you sidestep the fact that the TARP was also spent to save jobs, yet (even if it failed, which it didn’t actually) you paint it out to be give-aways when it kept you and millions out of bread lines. How does an economy proceed when no one is spending money? Once it comes to a stop, it takes a LONG time to get it going again.

          • don, you really think no compromise is a dictatorship? Was that your opinion when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid compromised on nothing for two years? Have you left comment around the web stating they were dictators?

            A dictatorship is one, a Congress is many, and each has a vote, if allowed to vote. So with the votes, someone wins (to quote Pelosi) and if there is no vote to compromise, than that is republicanism.

            I believe the TARP was horrible and unnecessary, and I believe Hank Paulson was criminally responsible for it. Yes there was a surplus, as you can see from the numbers above, but that surplus couldn’t survive for long. Nevertheless, those are the facts. I absolutely attribute TARP to Bush. I attribute the bailout (different from TART) to Obama.

            But here’s the thing Steve, TARP by law was to be used to buy up toxic assets from lending institutions. It NEVER did that. It shored up Wall Street, banks that didn’t want the money and foreign banks. The banks sat on their toxic assets. Paulson lied. TARP did nothing to create jobs.

            At the same time, Barney Franks, Maxine Waters and Frank Dodd, all Democrats postured on Freddie and Fannie. The housing market brought down the economy for the most part, and you know what Steve, this administration is still insisting that home buyers with lousy credit or no credit continue to get their loans, on which they will default sooner or later. You and I pay for this irresponsible program.

            Look, I’ve written about all of this many times. My comments in this post were not intended to review all of the egregious economic turmoil we are going through.

            The economy succeeds by removing regulations that will allow the creation of jobs. It succeeds by assuring business owners there will not job-killing ObamaCare or tax hikes. That’s how we succeed.

            If I didn’t mention it earlier – TARP DID NOT SAVE JOBS. Do your homework. Good Grief!

            • don

              Ok, you make a fair point about ‘dictatorship’, but at least I can honestly say it.

              So you are saying that no vote to compromise = Republicanism?
              So Republicanism = gridlock for America? Well, thank you Republicans.

              Also, inversely then, you could say that the Republicans were the ones who wouldn’t compromise during the health care debate, -Dems offered compromise but the Republicans wouldn’t take it. WHO gave up the public option? Was it Pelosi, or was it Reid? I honestly can’t remember who compromised that. More filibusters than ever before in history, and from which party? (I already realize that you would probably counter counter with ‘because the left is so radical’ -which would be a joke, considering Obama has tried more than once to meet in the middle -matter of fact he constantly says it, and has offered up previously rejected Republican ideas only to be rejected by the Republicans)

              Who has come off of their platform the most to reach a bargain? He conceded to your Bush tax cut extensions (which does no good, as it didn’t over the last decade) The only good that came of it is that the wealthy now own MORE percentage of the money. Weird how that happens everytime we cut taxes for the wealthy. Why has the average payroll not followed inflation, yet the wealthy’s coffers have surpassed it? Because you keep voting for it. Because it is good for the country, correct?

              Why is it that Cap and Trade was a republican idea, until Obama proposed it to the Republicans, at which point it’s a big fat ‘no’. This is the true nature of this party. It doesn’t matter what it is!

              That is the policies of the party you keep supporting. It is getting to be a religion with the right. We must oppose everything that they propose or we will lose our credibility/plausabilty/viability as a single party altogether.

              And being “FOR” everything that the right has to say is just as ignorant as being “AGAINST” everything the right has to say. (or the left in both of those cases) It’s just silly.

              And I admit that I haven’t read all of your blogs, but I am curious if there has ever been one thing positive said about anyone from the left proposing a good idea. Or is it that half the educated population that votes Democrats are just somehow total idiots -that have PhD’s, small business owners, entrepreneurs, etc?

              -I do apologize though, as this post was more about the ‘compromise’ issue and common ground than the POTUS speech and your slants on it.

              • I’m saying when something cannot pass a vote, that is republicanism. Not hard to understand, especially when I said after compromising on the same issues over the years, there will come a time when compromise meets a wall.

                Either you believe spending is out of control, or you believe it’s okay to continue to spend. That’s the bottom line. Our spending recently has been 25% of our GDP, thanks to two wars. Today I saw on TV it is now 37% of our GDP. Insane, if true, to continue spending. Insane not to cut spending.

                But Don, here’s the only question I will reply to: Why do Democrats not want a balanced budget amendment? hmmmm?

            • don, Just noticed the Republican Cap and Trade. That was in the ’80’s and much different than today. That was before anyone conceived of making money on Carbon Credits.

              There was no compromise on Health Care coming out of the Pelosi-Reid non-negotiations. Republicans were even shut out of all meetings – but really, to compromise on the Democrat uncompromisable mandate – completely unacceptable, and today we see everyone but a few hard core understanding why it is unlawful to make us buy insurance.

              Oh yes, I’ve applauded many Democrat statements and plans, BEFORE the rest of the Democrat Congress got hold of it. Sestak’s plan to keep abortion out of Health Care is just one example. Obama gave him a ridiculous Executive Order to convince him there would be abortions paid for in ObamaCare. Sestak bought it (and was paid for it for goodies in his district) and paid for it at the polls.

              • don

                I believe (note -I believe, as I can’t honestly speak for them) that the Dems don’t want a balanced budget ammendment is precisely for issues like this Great Recession. Or if we have to go to war, it will be possible. Where we all of the sudden have to stop payments to our creditors to go to war. Where we have to stop payments to our elderly when another financial collapse happens.

                EX: We can pass up packages like TARP and still make payments to the elderly and creditors, and watch the economy collapse around us, at which point we eventually can’t make payments anyway, or we can do TARP and not make payments to our elderly and our creditors, at which point, the nation suffers horribly in the short term, and yes, eventually after years, it will stabilize but not after lots of irreparable damage to Americans that had nothing to do with it.

                Again, this is why I believe they don’t want it as a mandate. -And I hope that there would be fine print for such occurrences, but again, these are easy, “big” examples as to why. It is the unforeseen ones that the fine print might not cover that poses the greatest threat. I imagine that is why there hasn’t been one ever legislated in the first place. -So it doesn’t hem us in to an unforeseen nightmare -and I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY that we are in a nightmare at the moment, but Obama did not directly get us into this nightmare, nor did Bush directly, but until the housing market bounces back (was way over inflated, so it will be a long while) and until people start hiring (-record profits, they just don’t need the manpower) we are going to be in it for a while.

                I recall Obama trying to pass some legislation for incentives to companies that keep jobs here, but, the right opposed it. -Perhaps he should have been against it so that they would actually vote for it. But even though it would help American workers, it would be bad for corporate profits so, guess what, ….they opposed it.

                Also, Obama signed an executive order in March of 2010 banning the use of any federal money to be used for abortion in the health care bill, so that is moot.

                And let’s not forget that any spending has had the legs chopped off so that it couldn’t function properly in the first place (not that I agree with so much spending, I don’t) -the design being to kill re-election. I am sure that you remember McConnell talking about his MAIN PRIORITY is to make him a one-term president. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc&feature=player_embedded)

                And Obama even agrees spending is out of control at this point, I am not sure that anyone in the whole entire world disagrees with that. Hasn’t he conceded trillions of dollars in spending? Heck, what has he NOT conceded except that the rich that vacuum up the fruits of America pay a fair share. Again, payrolls have not kept up with inflation, yet the rich get richer. And like your other commentators said, these aren’t titans of industry, they aren’t John Galt, they aren’t Hank Rearden, they are CEOs, whose main goal is to pinch and squeeze as much out of the American worker as possible, as mandated by law, and they are not as honorable as you believe them to be.

                I appreciate you taking the time to visit, Maggie.

                • don, On the abortion Executive Order, it was a scheme. It held no weight. It was simply to get Sestak’s vote. Everyone looking at and analyzing it knew it couldn’t hold water, and Sestak decided not to run again because the people in his district were outraged. EO’s are not law.

                  I don’t there are any state Balanced Budget Amendments that do not have provisions for national emergencies or war. Those are small problems that have been demonstrated successfully across the country to give protections assuring that the country won’t shut down.

                  As for TARP, I was against it – completely, but the fact is, every check went out.

                  Obama agrees spending is out of control, but his budget that didn’t become a budget called for more stimulus, more public works projects, more bailout, more money for schools that continue to fail and never show improvement. He is still wanting to spend: rail, communications, roads, dams. We simply cannot do that.

                  I do not believe that all titans of industry are honorable, but I do believe we have the right to work where we want, without joining a union, and go elsewhere when the employer is a jerk. Most of these titans offer matching funds of some type for 401-K’s, pick up some of the health insurance.

                  It begs the old question: have you ever been hired by a man or woman poorer than you?

                  I appreciate you too don.

  • Shizzo

    I came here to read the transcript of Obama’s statement. Unfortunately, I also had to read your ignorant comments.

    Please stop watching the Fox News propaganda machine. Glenn Beck lost his contract for a reason.

    I worship the ground that awaits your corpse.

    • Shizzo, you didn’t have to read my comments. All you had to do is move on. BTW, is that a death threat?

  • While most of you are talking about the righteousness of tax increases and closing “loopholes,” which are simply a tax hike on someone, know this: the Republicans has said we need huge tax reform. Cut, Cap and Balance does everything needed done.

    Can anyone tell me why Democrats are not supporting a Balanced Budget Amendment? Just one good reason why anyone who believes “responsibility” should be a part of our government, will oppose a BBA?

  • Pingback: Let Your Voice Be Heard « Right of Middle()

  • jim

    facts: 2008 study – the top 1% wage earners take .53 cents of every dollar made in this country and the other .47 cents is divided by the bottom 99%. the rich have had their taxes cut for the last 30 years while the middle class has seen a wage decrease when adjusted for inflation… bill clinton was the only president to have a balanced budget in the last 30 years and added a big tax increase on the wealthy. more jobs were created under clinton than under both bush’s put together. GE paid no income tax last year on billions in profits.

    during the good old days (1945 – 1970’s) the average tax on the top wage earners was 50% and the rich still did well. medicare cut the senior poverity rate in half. entitlements are not for free – we pay into the system, they are deserved.

    that some hedge fund managers (~20) today can take in one billion a year (or more) and only pay 15% tax is put into context when you look at the average persons 30% tax rate.

    ignorance is rampant. the tax increases President Obama wants are on the wealthy. it’s been written that if congress does nothing and lets the bush tax cut (for the super rich) expire, it will fix our budget shortfall for the short term and leave health care as the only real long term issue.

    i’ve worked in health care for over 30 years and they are stealing from us all. the technology that drives health care is cheap. for example, no one uses film anymore, x-ray departments use to have huge costs with film. not today. ultrasound machines use to cost $250k, today you can put one in a cell phone or by a machine for less than a car.

    republicans play morons as pawns and get them to vote against their own interest with incorrect information.

    and racist peoiple will swallow hard to keep their bigot views alive.

    those are the facts.

  • Jim, what are you saying: the rich TAKE .53 cents of every dollar. They earn .53 cents of every dollar. Huge difference.

    I certainly agree that health care needs an overhall, but I will always believe profits should be a possibility. Someone invented the changing technologies. Surely you don’t expect them give them away or receive nominal payment.

    I agree that we desperately need tax reform. I prefer the Fair Tax, could live with the Flat Tax.

  • Don G

    Boy, just reading this blog tells everything you need to know about why this country and even the world is in so much trouble. I know its impossible for any of you to take a step back and listen to your selves. You who think you are so much better then others because you think you are informed and you who think it is the fault of others. We are all the blame for this mess. We could, just like the Republicans and the Democrats, stop any of this at anytime buy joining together and agreeing, but this is impossible because we are all just to selfish and lazy. People who can afford the higher prices just pay it because they can afford it even though they are unnecessarily to high, and the people who can’t afford the prices pay it and only give it lip service by complaining about it. We are truly divided and conquered. They, and if you don’t know who they are you are really not as smart as you think you are, have really down a magnificent job and are on track to do with this world exactly what they plan. And I believe there is no stopping them.


    Dear Mr. President,
    It is not fair to make everyone pay the exact amount of taxes. It is also not fair to hold this nation hostage by refusing to budge on a budget. The only fair thing to do is to have the people who make the most, and that includes people who are hiding money in LLC’s and then refusing to pay their fair share of taxes just because they found all of the loopholes. At my job, I declare no one on my payroll taxes and then I have $10.00 additionally taken from my paycheck and held so that when I declare just myself on my taxes, I can get some back. The government has the use of that money during the year and just has to pay me back at the end of the year. I do this because when I first started working, they weren’t holding enough out and one girl had to pay a huge amount that April. I decided I wanted to get a refund, so this is what I do and I never miss that $10.00. It totals $260.00 a year.
    What would happen if the millionaires and the billionaires who have their own companies and get W-2’s held out extra each month just to help out the government? They could then file their taxes and get a refund, or they could decide to give it to the government. It would be up to them. They probably would not go for it, but it was just a thought.
    I will close for now. Just know that we have to pass a budget that will keep America afloat.

  • Great job here. More people need to step up!

  • Pingback: HTTP Dynamic Streaming - Part 2: Late-Binding Audio with OSMF | RealEyes Media()

  • completely amazed

    I’m not one to censor freedom of speech. You said what you said, and you have a right to it. However, I am hurt when I see so much fixated hate. Its clear there are things in the speech you did not care for, but you left the majority of the speech ignored.

    I feel that he was right to say our current government is dysfunctional. Based on what you’ve said you may include him in that, but you seem to agree with that as well. Understanding that it may be with caveats – and asking you to state them – was there anything said here you felt was accurate?

  • Pingback: HTTP Dynamic Streaming – Part 2: Late-Binding Audio Using OSMF | Realeyes A/V Club()