Friday June 15, 2012, 8:11 pm

Our representatives in government aren’t just elected — they’re funded. It takes a lot to get elected to Congress, but most of all it takes cash. Members of Congress often spend up to 70 percent of their time fundraising, a problem that only gets worse with time — since 1982, campaign spending has increased fivefold.

Our friends at Rootstrikers are out with an infographic showing just how costly the problem is. Check it out above.
***
Go to Visit Site to see graphics.

by Suzanne Merkelson |United Republic | Nation of Change|

Saturday June 16, 2012, 11:43 am
Barack Obama largest recipient of political funds from mortgage giants Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae

The federal takeover of mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae may stabilize the economy and help the housing industry.

But some politicians could take a hit too, most particularly Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

Individuals who list their employers as one of the two entities, plus political action committees formed by the government-sponsored firms that own or guarantee half the nation's mortgages, have donated $4.3 million to federal elected officials and their various campaign committees since 2005.

The money has gone to both Republicans and Democrats.

But Obama is the recipient of the largest individual money, at $111,849, according to federal campaign finance reports compiled by Times researcher Maloy Moore.

One reason Obama has raised the most from the entities is that he has out-raised all other candidates, $390 million so far and counting.

The mortgage money has not influenced Obama's stands, Ben Labolt, a campaign aide asserted.

The candidate has “consistently supported stepped-up regulation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure that instead of....

...rewarding speculators who relied on the government to reap massive profits, taxpayers and struggling homeowners are protected,” Labolt said.

Republican nominee John McCain has taken $16,400 from Freddie and Fannie employees since 2005. But the groups have had an in with him. McCain campaign manager Rick Davis is past president of the Homeownership Alliance, an advocacy group whose members included Freddie and Fannie. In that role, he defended them against increased regulation.

Democratic and Republican committees set up to fund congressional and Senate races are the biggest recipients. Freddie PAC, Fannie PAC and their employees have given $171,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and $123,000 to the Republican Senate committee since 2005.

Other major individual recipients include House Republican Leader John Boehner and his political action committee, $71,750; Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell and his PAC, $62,500; and Senate leader Harry Reid and his PAC, $61,000.

Hillary Rodham Clinton took $56,100 and Christopher Dodd took $53,450.

Obama’s running mate, Joe Biden, brought up the rear during the period reviewed, receiving just one donation from one Freddie employee of $500. McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, is Freddie- and Fannie-free, having never run for federal office.

-- Dan Morain

Saturday June 16, 2012, 6:32 pm
It is simply past time to reboot our system. We must get past this money reliance to elect our representatives. The Supreme Court is so corrupt... but with the Citizens United ruling, they've proved to most of us probably just how corrupt. It's time to reboot, folks... and that means STARTING OVER! This system stinks!

Saturday June 16, 2012, 7:07 pm

Yes, Caitlin - reboot or revolt. Keep pushing us and sooner then later there will be backlash. How long can a country survive with this deep corruption and a "do nothing" Congress?

Saturday June 16, 2012, 7:21 pm
I agree with Caitlin as well.

This isn't the America of 12 years ago anymore. In addition to my noticing that the news media, even purportedly independent news media, abandoning Obama by how they subtly follow one portion of the news with a counter play, or preempt one with another I have noticed something else. In addition to Congress spending more and more money on campaigning and spending more of their time campaigning than doing the jobs elected to do, they are also more on the take from lobbyists than ever before. There were some 5oo lobbyist offices in DC some 40 years ago. Now it exceeds 35,000. Back to where I was going. I have noted that we aren't hearing much from the Democratic Party at all in this election. They are not standing behind or rallying behind the president. I think it is the fear they labor under that they will be exposed for being as much on the take as the GOP are. I think they figure it will be more business as usual under Romney than it will be under Obama. I am not completely happy with everything Obama has done like NDAA and some other things, but he is certainly the lesser of two evils in this case. It will be a GOP party if Romney gets in and this country will pay for that excess for at least decades to come. This is the wrong time for any representative of the GOP to be president. They have been willing to stimey the economy to bring Obama down, that means they are willing to sell us out for whatever they want. And they are selling us out. Here Here Caitlin IT IS TIME TO REBOOT this computer now, its got a bad virus that has been working insidiously for the last 30 plus years.

Sunday June 17, 2012, 1:07 am
Sad....and I'm not talking about the deliberate targeting of President Obama by an obvious (and well-known) stalker. I'm talking about the insidious PURCHASE of our political system. Remember...corporations can be considered as INDIVIDUALS....and they can anonymously BUY influence.

Another wonderful Republican idea.

Sunday June 17, 2012, 6:36 am

Noted ,,,,and your right Kit ,same in Ireland, dornations from wealty people keeps one party or another going,
The minimum they wanted from me was 10 Euro..too join the party ,the're still waiting...

Sunday June 17, 2012, 6:52 am
to change the world all one must do is to change ones own mind
protect life, prosecute those that seek to destroy our shared home and our fellow beings
life has value beyond measure
Peace and Love

*********** WALL OF SHAME ************
┬┴┬┴┬┴┬┴┬┴┬┴┬┴┬┴┬┴┬┴┬┴┬
┴┬┴┬┴┬┴┬┴┬┴┬┴┬┴┬┴┬┴┬┴┬
┬┴┬┴┬┴ The Wall ┬┴┬┴┬┴┬┴┬┴
┴┬┴┬┴┬┴┬┴┬┴┬┴┬┴┬┴┬┴┬┴┬
┬┴┬┴┬┴┬┴┬┴┬┴┬┴┬┴┬┴┬┴┬┴
DEMOLISH ------>>>>> THIS WALL

Sunday June 17, 2012, 7:28 am
Every elected & appointed official should take a cut in pay & pay for their own insurance & retirement. They have no idea how we live & what we have to worry about.

Sunday June 17, 2012, 8:25 am
Thew cost used to be insanely high, like an incumbent used to need to raise $7,000 every day, just to stay iun office. And that was before citizens united.

Sunday June 17, 2012, 9:33 am
Yes, Michael T., the US-system computer virus has been working for many more years than we ever realized. The symptoms are spelling it out for us in all glory these days. I'm afraid the Democratic Party is "laying low" for just the reasons you mentioned: They are as much "on the take" from BigMoney as the right is. President Obama is a very likable human being, but his performance in favor of what is needed for the people is quite poor. And I don't mean that it's poor because of all the unconscionable actions (or non-actions) of Congress. I think his actions are poor because he's just as indebted to BigMoney as the Teapublicans are. He hasn't even started his plans from a liberal standpoint -- e.g., he didn't even try to fight for a single-payer system for universal health care -- he concedes too much to the Right from the start, so we are left with very little progress. I'm afraid, as much as I hate to say it, that President Obama is just another cog in the corrupt system that has been growing more and more corrupt over time. In another time and space, I think he could have been the FDR we were looking for to save the economy. In this era of greed, only those who garner the backing of BigMoney will make it within the system, so he doesn't really have a lot of choice. AND THAT'S WHY WE MUST NOT CHOOSE EITHER OF THEM RUNNING FOR OFFICE TODAY. It's just as heartbreaking for me to say that as it is for many to hear it. It is a difficult choice to admit that our two-party system is broken irreparably and the only way to save it is for us not to support either of the existing parties. Unless we vote out EVERY person who's in Congress today and RESTART/REBOOT with more choice, we are doomed to suffer more of the same as today. We will become a feudal state with only the haves and have-nots/the masters and slaves, essentially. (I would keep Bernie Sanders in office, and possibly a very few more, but for the most part, we just have to get those in the system OUT!) As Kit said, we need a true revolution!

Sunday June 17, 2012, 10:25 am

What is wrong with public funded elections, for any level? I know perish the thought the these people might actually have to go into neighborhoods and meet the people they claim to want to represent. Elections are expensive because we allowed this current system. People want to be elected because it is a sure way of becoming wealthy during the term of office. Once elected it becomes easier for each re-election, name recognition is a factor, money from special interests is the larger more erosive factor. Get the money out of elections, and out of the offices of elected officials. We don't need lobbyist dictating what Congress or state legislatures should vote for or against this should be once again the purview of the people not the corporate interest. Revolt! Reboot - what ever name fits your thinking, but help end this suffocation of our government.

Sunday June 17, 2012, 10:40 am
I'm sorry I can't send you another star yet, Kit, because your words are wise and sure make a lot more sense than the election procedure as is.

Sunday June 17, 2012, 12:27 pm
Caitlin - can't send you another star in the same day - we need to note vote for either - but I bet if the whole USA wrote in Donald Duck that they would say Romney won.. The globalists get what they want - presidents, soft-killing the nations' people - in the end - what do we have left - I agree with Kit - reboot or REVOLT!

Sunday June 17, 2012, 12:59 pm
Thanks, Val, for both stars! (One received, one stated here.) I'm still writing in Bernie Sanders rather than Daffy or Donald Duck... but I'll bet you're right, the powers have chosen another shill named Romney. He's such an obvious idiot, as was cutey pie GWBush, but just an empty suit for them to fill with BS. What a world, what a life, I'm in love! (Might as well sing, dance, and be merry for the world is coming to an end.)

Sunday June 17, 2012, 1:01 pm
And I don't really have to say that reboot is another word for revolt, do I?

Sunday June 17, 2012, 1:16 pm
Recently I ran across some information that I found enlightening. It plays into all of this. Think about it. We are all complaining that these folks do not represent us, and that many/most are on the corporate tab. If you do a little hunting you’ll find that we are the least represented people in the world I believe. In many of the so called democratic countries of the world England, etc., each representative in the government represents between 80,000 to 120,000 constituents. Do you have any idea what it is for Americans? The ratio is 1 to 700,000. Nope that is not a mistake for 70,000. It is seven hundred thousand. 78% are white male, and a large percentage of them are millionaires. Anyone else see a thread here? Green stars to everyone.

Sunday June 17, 2012, 1:22 pm

Nope, that is very clear in your writing Caitlin. We have allowed this through apathy, now are we willing to take responsibility and do what is needed to reclaim and even remodel this so-called democratic society? A system can only function if it adapts to fit the needs of the people. When it no longer is functioning in the real world then it is time for it to be adjusted, remodeled, rebooted to fit the changing times.

Perhaps our Declaration of Independence says it best....

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —

Sunday June 17, 2012, 1:27 pm

Very good information, Michael thank you.

The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights intended that the total population of Congressional districts never exceed 50 to 60 thousand. Currently, the average population size of the districts is nearly 700,000 and, consequently, the principle of proportionally equitable representation has been abandoned.

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

Sunday June 17, 2012, 4:56 pm
What Is The Price of Getting Into Congress? Your soul or your sanity..

Sunday June 17, 2012, 5:17 pm
I miss the old days when politicians paid You to vote for them!;)

Monday June 18, 2012, 12:45 am
No matter what the politicians 'say' durng their campaigns, it's what they 'do' that counts. Once elected, I believe they are approached and informed they are in danger if they do not comply with the 1%

Obama is AFRAID of somebody!

Obama is 'afraid of somebody', that is why he does not keep his promises If he wants to keep his office (and self-respect) it is time to reveal of whom he is afraid.

If he comes out now, reveals the truth and returns to his original stated plan for America, he can win in a landslide.

If he cowers, does not change his ways, he will lose the next election. Democrats will also lose support of the independent voters - forever.

He will have to make a drastic move, like single-payer health care or decriminalizing marijuana - preferably both.

Otherwise, he is history aong with American's confidence in their government.

I predict he does not change. The elections are rigged anyway. Those who control us will get what they want either way.

When people realize the only way to change is through violence, that is what will happen. No matter which way things go there will be a great struggle ahead. We ain't seen nothin' yet!

This time next year will be vastly different. All empires crumble, one of them is due soon. Be it the U.S. government, the banking empire (Bilderbergs) or democratic republics everywhere, something is about to give. Hungry mobs are angry mobs, more and more are poorer (hungrier) every day.

Reckoning is right around the corner. 'Occupy' was a civilized request for justice, demands are coming. Unless honored, consquences will result.

Many of us want a little taste of freedom and justice before we die. When so many of us have so little life (to lose) left, they risk almost nothing if they fight.

Ths is why homeland secuity is so focused on our own people. They know, Obama said it all when running in 08. They know exactly what we want. They are 'just saying no' to us. We won't take that answer.

Monday June 18, 2012, 10:06 am
This tells the story, why Bush was so bad at the end of his term.

Some people aren't aware of all of this. Don't just skim over this, please read it slowly and let it sink in. If in doubt, check it out.

The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3, 2007... the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.

The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:

January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress. At the time:

The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%

George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH
Remember the day...

January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
OBAMA and the Democrat Congress
So when someone tries to blame Bush..

REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.
In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is "I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th."

Monday June 18, 2012, 11:57 am

The same copy and paste again? Really, Scarlett that's the best you have?

Obama's spending is 1.8% of GDP, though Clinton came close with just short of 4% in his second term, Obama does have the lowest numbers. Sometimes it's worth spending some time doing just a bit of research.

Monday June 18, 2012, 12:33 pm
Scarlet makes some assertions that are true. Her record of when congress was held by a democratic majority are accurate. But they do not reveal accuracy in what that means, what happened and what was going on.

Whether her stats for GDP and employment are correct remains to be seen. Further, added data shows that wages had slid to nearly their lowest for 99% of Americans during Dubya’s reign while it rose to its highest for the 1%. Whether the record for 52 months of job growth is accurate is highly debatable.

Greenspan interfered and caused Brooksley Borne to leave her post in oversight over areas of securities like derivatives and later appeared before a congressional committee admitting that his fiscal practices were completely in error and offered in a way an apology that he had gotten things very wrong. You state that Bush, who you idolize (and this warns me to be very skeptical about your statements) you say asked congress to stop Fannie and Freddie. As I recall, the President has the ability to veto which is a far stronger motion than warning. Which means that in effect, he agreed with the spending as he did not veto it.

The largest part of the deficit arose under Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. Even the GOP presidents referred to the republican driven spending and reduction of taxes on the rich as voodoo economics. Clinton actually managed to pay a large portion of it down but couldn’t do more because of the interest on that debt was still so high.

The spending you insist is obscene under Obama has been proven wrong by many before you as Kit pointed out.

Your other claims come off as frothing at the mouth.

You did a great job of misrepresenting things and I’d like you to pay close attention to what I just said. Don’t gloss over it. Do some unbiased research for a change.

Tuesday June 19, 2012, 5:49 am
That's right Kit B. - Obama's spending has been miniscule indeed. ROFLMAO!

Tuesday June 19, 2012, 12:16 pm

Analysis
Mitt Romney claims President Barack Obama’s spending amounts to an “inferno.” But who is really responsible for the huge jump that took place in fiscal 2009? Here are some undisputed facts:

■Fiscal 2009 began Oct. 1, 2008. That was before Obama was elected, and nearly four months before he took office on Jan. 20, 2009.

■President Bush signed the massive spending bill under which the government was operating when Obama took office. That was Sept. 30, 2008. As The Associated Press noted, it combined “a record Pentagon budget with aid for automakers and natural disaster victims, and increased health care funding for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.”

■Bush also signed, on Oct. 3, 2008, a bank bailout bill that authorized another $700 billion to avert a looming financial collapse (though not all of that would end up being spent in fiscal 2009, and Obama later signed a measure reducing total authorized bailout spending to $475 billion).

■On Jan. 7, 2009 — two weeks before Obama took office — the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued its regular budget outlook, stating: “CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion.”

■CBO attributed the rapid rise in spending to the bank bailout and the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – plus rising costs for unemployment insurance and other factors driven by the collapsing economy (which shed 818,000 jobs in January alone).

■Another factor beyond Obama’s control was an automatic 5.8 percent cost of living increase announced in October 2008 and given to Social Security beneficiaries in January 2009. It was the largest since 1982. Social Security spending alone rose $66 billion in fiscal 2009, and Medicare spending, driven by rising medical costs, rose $39 billion.

CBO and Fact Check

Tuesday June 19, 2012, 12:29 pm
Kit!!!!! 10,000 hugs and a big green star for taking the time and elbow grease to do the research on this. Great job!!! I am copying and pasting your response as a tool to use any time some poster, and if I ever run into Scarlets post again somewhere else, runs out that crap about Obama and spending. Kudo's to you girl!!!

Tuesday June 19, 2012, 12:35 pm
President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History

Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which, remember, won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending as a percent of GDP declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%, a huge achievement.

In sharp contrast to Reagan, Obama’s first major legislative initiative was the so-called stimulus, which increased future federal spending by nearly a trillion dollars, the most expensive legislation in history up till that point. We know now, as thinking people knew at the time, that this record shattering spending bill only stimulated government spending, deficits and debt. Contrary to official Democrat Keynesian witchcraft, you don’t promote economic recovery, growth and prosperity by borrowing a trillion dollars out of the economy to spend a trillion dollars back into it.

But this was just a warm up for Obama’s Swedish socialism. Obama worked with Pelosi’s Democratic Congress to pass an additional, $410 billion, supplemental spending bill for fiscal year 2009, which was too much even for big spending President Bush, who had specifically rejected it in 2008. Next in 2009 came a $40 billion expansion in the SCHIP entitlement program, as if we didn’t already have way more than too much entitlement spending.

But those were just the preliminaries for the biggest single spending bill in world history, Obamacare, enacted in March, 2010. That legislation is not yet even counted in Obama’s spending record so far because it mostly does not go into effect until 2014. But it is now scored by CBO as increasing federal spending by $1.6 trillion in the first 10 years alone, with trillions more to come in future years.

After just one year of the Obama spending binge, federal spending had already rocketed to 25.2% of GDP, the highest in American history except for World War II. That compares to 20.8% in 2008, and an average of 19.6% during Bush’s two terms. The average during President Clinton’s two terms was 19.8%, and during the 60-plus years from World War II until 2008 — 19.7%. Obama’s own fiscal 2013 budget released in February projects the average during the entire 4 years of the Obama Administration to come in at 24.4% in just a few months. That budget shows federal spending increasing from $2.983 trillion in 2008 to an all time record $3.796 trillion in 2012, an increase of 27.3%.

Moreover, before Obama there had never been a deficit anywhere near $1 trillion. The highest previously was $458 billion, or less than half a trillion, in 2008. The federal deficit for the last budget adopted by a Republican controlled Congress was $161 billion for fiscal year 2007. But the budget deficits for Obama’s four years were reported in Obama’s own 2013 budget as $1.413 trillion for 2009, $1.293 trillion for 2010, $1.3 trillion for 2011, and $1.327 trillion for 2012, four years in a row of deficits of $1.3 trillion or more, the highest in world history.

President Obama’s own 2013 budget shows that as a result federal debt held by the public will double during Obama’s four years as President. That means in just one term President Obama will have increased the national debt as much as all prior Presidents, from George Washington to George Bush, combined.

But this 2012 election is defined for the voters by the future, not the past. And that future is fully revealed by the stark contrast between President Obama’s spending, deficits and debt projected under his proposed 2013 budget, and the projections under House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget, adopted by the Republican House, and endorsed by presumptive Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

Despite all the controversy in Washington and in the media over Ryan’s budget, what it all adds up to is just to restore federal spending to its long term, postwar, historical average of 20% of GDP. That stable level of federal spending, with some modest variance, prevailed for over 60 years after the end of World War II, until 2009. Ryan’s budget reduces federal spending from an average of 24.4% of GDP during the Obama years to 20.1% after just 3 years, by 2015.

By contrast, under the budget policies supported by President Obama and Congressional Democrats, federal spending soars to 30% of GDP by 2027, 40% by 2040, 50% by 2060, and 80% by 2080. Obama’s 2013 budget proposes to spend $47 trillion over the next 10 years, the most in world history by far, increasing federal spending by $1.5 trillion above the current CBO baseline. Ryan’s budget proposes to cut that by $6.8 trillion. By 2022, Ryan’s budget would be spending nearly a trillion dollars less per year than President Obama’s budget.

Ryan proposes tax reform to consolidate the current 6 individual income tax rates, ranging up to 35%, to just two rates of 10% and 25%. His budget would otherwise retain the Bush tax rates of 15% for capital gains and 15% for corporate dividends, and repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax. Ryan also proposes corporate tax reform, closing loopholes and reducing the federal corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%, which is roughly the international average. CBO scores these reforms, even with the rate cuts, as again restoring federal revenues to their long term, postwar, historical average of 18.3% of GDP by 2015.

Obama’s budget, in sharp contrast, proposes to increase federal taxes by nearly $2 trillion over the next 10 years above the CBO baseline. The budget projects that under Obama’s tax policies federal income tax revenues will double by 2020, federal corporate tax revenues will double by 2017, and federal payroll taxes will double by 2022.

Forbes

Tuesday June 19, 2012, 12:46 pm

That's a blog from Forbes and FACTS from CBO repeated by Fact Check.

Tuesday June 19, 2012, 12:51 pm
Facts are facts. Of course you weren't able to dispute anything specifically.

Tuesday June 19, 2012, 12:57 pm
Ho hum....it's the KING (or should I say QUEEN?) of trolls...back again. THIS time with two female personas...for the moment, anyway.

Kit...you DO seem to attract "them," don't you? Must be that they can't resist seeing you as a challenge to their lunacy. Logic has a way of doing that.

In any event.....IGNORE, IGNORE, IGNORE!

Tuesday June 19, 2012, 1:28 pm
Way to go Pamela. You added absolutely nothing of value.

Tuesday June 19, 2012, 7:25 pm
Scarlett, I suggest you watch the award winning documentary "INSIDE JOB" AND also "MAXED OUT". Watch them and LISTEN.

Tuesday June 19, 2012, 7:41 pm

Another excellent documentary is "Addicted to Money" thanks, Robert.

Tuesday June 19, 2012, 8:15 pm
The article to which "Janelle" refers was written by Peter Ferrara.

According to Wikipedia:

"In 1987, The New York Times published an op-ed by Ferrara in which he advocated capping the Social Security payroll tax.[21] The newspaper also interviewed Ferrara that year about a proposal by Secretary of Health and Human Services Otis R. Bowen to expand Medicare; Ferrara criticized the program for "a lot of gaps in medical coverage for the elderly" and found "no basis for just expanding Medicare to take over coverage that private sector provides now."[22] The George W. Bush administration championed Ferrara's plan to privatize Social Security.[1]"

Also: "Ferrara took money from erstwhile lobbyist Jack Abramoff to write op-ed pieces favorable to Abramoff clients. (Ferrara did not disclose which pieces he was paid to write, but Business Week noted that he wrote favorable articles in the Washington Times about the Northern Marianas Islands and the Choctaw Indian tribe, both Abramoff clients.) Ferrara argued those writings were entirely consistent with his independently held views, remained unrepentant, and intended to pursue the practice in the future: "I do that all the time. I've done that in the past, and I'll do it in the future."[15]

"Ferrara was a senior policy adviser at the conservative Institute for Policy Innovation. In April 2011, Ferrara became senior fellow for entitlement and budget policy at The Heartland Institute. Concurrently, he serves as general counsel for the American Civil Rights Union and policy director of the Carleson Center for Public Policy.[5]"

"National Review magazine published his essay "What Is An American?" in its September 25, 2001 issue, after the September 11 attacks.[13] In the essay, he claims that "there are more Muslims in America than in Afghanistan"[13], a statement which is patently false.[23] The essay was reproduced in a chain e-mail claiming that an Australian dentist wrote it.[24] Ferrara, reflecting on that essay in 2007, still stood by it and supported "more selective immigration so that the U.S. gets a 'better-educated class of Mexican immigrants.'"[25]"

What a guy!

Tuesday June 19, 2012, 8:54 pm
Hugs and Kisses and a Big Green Star Suzanne R for doing the background work on this!!!!

Wednesday June 20, 2012, 5:13 am
When someone picks and chooses things from the CBO and the like and portrays them as representative of some point in order to try and make a case, that can be misleading. We also see this in the less reputable media where only part of a news item is reported. This is typically done to try and slant the facts to ones personal opinion rather than presenting an unbiased story.

Wednesday June 20, 2012, 7:16 am
Rather like following someone from post to post and attempting to get their attention by picking at their comments?

Wednesday June 20, 2012, 7:37 am

Sending a Green Star is a simple way to say "Thank you"
You cannot currently send a star to pam because you have done so within the last week.

Wednesday June 20, 2012, 9:47 am
@janelle wRong writes When someone picks and chooses things from the CBO and the like and portrays them as representative of some point in order to try and make a case, that can be misleading. We also see this in the less reputable media where only part of a news item is reported. This is typically done to try and slant the facts to ones personal opinion rather than presenting an unbiased story.

You mean like you did?

Wednesday June 20, 2012, 11:13 am
Kit B. "from CBO repeated by Fact Check"

Wednesday June 20, 2012, 11:29 am
@janelle wRong writes Kit B. "from CBO repeated by Fact Check"

You fail to mention your positioning, narration and slant which do not follow CBO or Fact Check, which for you seems to translate to Fat(head) Check.

Wednesday June 20, 2012, 12:59 pm
You no comprende? Cut and paste from Kit B. "from CBO repeated by Fact Check" Got it?

Wednesday June 20, 2012, 1:16 pm

Well...dopey, sneezy and doc, of course it was a copy and paste, never said it was not. You know copy and paste...like 99.9% of all of your comments.

Wednesday June 20, 2012, 1:23 pm
No matter who wins, it's always the American workers who pay.

Wednesday June 20, 2012, 1:30 pm
@janelle wRong writes You no comprende?

You no comprende? You becoming TEDIOUS. Here let me spell it for you without spell check. T e d i o u s.

Friday June 22, 2012, 7:32 am
If anyone wants to know the true price of "getting into Congress," all they need do is ask the Koch brothers. They've bought and paid for so many congressmen that they probably qualify for quantity discounts...

Friday June 22, 2012, 9:12 am

The Tea Party movement's dirty little secret is that its chief financial backers owe their family fortune to the granddaddy of all their hatred: Stalin's godless empire of the USSR. The secretive oil billionaires of the Koch family, the main supporters of the right-wing groups that orchestrated the Tea Party movement, would not have the means to bankroll their favorite causes had it not been for the pile of money the family made working for the Bolsheviks in the late 1920s and early 1930s, building refineries, training Communist engineers and laying down the foundation of Soviet oil infrastructure.

http://exiledonline.com/a-peoples-history-of-koch-industries-how-stalin-funded-the-tea-party-movement/

Friday June 22, 2012, 10:57 pm
Great point, Kit!

Sunday June 24, 2012, 10:53 am
This just in. And while we knew this, here are some names and amounts of money involved. They are nearly all on the take. They don't represent us anymore. They can't when they are in someone else's pocket.

One-hundred-thirty members of Congress or their families have traded stocks collectively worth hundreds of millions of dollars in companies lobbying on bills that came before their committees, a practice that is permitted under current ethics rules, a Washington Post analysis has found.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/members-of-congress-trade-in-companies-while-making-laws-that-affect-those-same-firms/2012/06/23/gJQAlXwVyV_story.html?wpisrc=al_comboNE

Getting elected is the membership fee one pays at the country club to be part of the inner circle. What a cabal.