Republicans & Conservatives Archives

Obama’s polling is the same as Reagan’s at this time in his first term, and that of a couple others since including Clinton, another 2 term president. Not very prophetic more than 2 years away from the next presidential election.

One has to keep a perspective, this poll will be more than two years old and buried in archives as meaningless by the time Obama stands up for reelection. It is a snap shot in time.

Obama was handed an economy in near ruin. He tried clicking his heels and wishing it to go away while awaiting inauguration, but, he wasn’t in Kansas anymore. So on day one as President he began to create policies that would ameliorate a nose diving economy and arrest its fall. For his part, his measures were successful in that. The public is never happy with politicians during a recession, even with presidents who weren’t president when the recession began.

Perspective and appreciation for the transitory nature of public polling is always required, if anything useful is to be gleaned from the poll.

David

It is not the polls. It is the attitude. Reagan seemed to like us and to be proud to be one of us, so did Clinton. Obama seems vaguely ashamed of ordinary Americans.

And Reagan didn’t start as high as Obama, so he didn’t fall as hard.

The Republicans currently do not have a good front runner. (I couldn’t vote for Sarah Palin.) But if they come up with anybody reasonably good, I think Obama will follow Jimmy Carter down and not Reagan and Clinton up. One term is enough to convert blind hope into bitter experience.

C&J,

“Obama seems vaguely ashamed of ordinary Americans.”

Gee, I wonder why. I mean it’s not we haven’t been treating him well?

Rocky

To paraphrase, tortuously, Gaius Julius Ceasar, ‘All good presidents start with high polls before they drop, only to rebound again.’

(Actual quote: “All bad precedents began as justifiable measures.”

Rocky

It is not right for the president to cop that kind of attitude. He is the president elected by the people. And actually the people have been treating him well.

Of course I am partisan and I liked Ronald Reagan, but I think objectively Reagan just had a much more open personality than Obama does. If you look at the old news footage, Reagan gets off the helicopter, smiles and waves. He likes people. Obama gets off puts his head down and walks off as fast as possible.

We also could criticize Reagan for his “off the cuff” remarks. But Obama never says anything not written on the teleprompter. It is just not authentic. Beyond that, we know that each one of his words has been carefully scripted, so there are no slips. When he is so practiced and cold it is because he wants to be.

David

You are familiar with the term “dead cat bounce”. That is the kind of rebound Jimmy Carter got and the one that is stalking Obama.

C&J,

Obama has been under constant attack since the moment he took the oath. Surely that is going to wear on anybody.

Rocky

Your comparing Obama with Reagan?

You do understand that at this point in his presidency Reagan had lower approval ratings than Obama now has?

C&J, wrote: “It is not right for the president to cop that kind of attitude. He is the president elected by the people. And actually the people have been treating him well. “

You are grossly misinformed. Obama has received more death threats and hate mail from day one in office than any other president in modern history.

The news has been filled with his image as native African, in White Face, as a monkey, etc. Bush was treated this way after 9/11 and Katrina and it was shameful. But, liberals aren’t as prolific in writing death threats to the president and his family as conservatives, according to the Secret Service.

C&J,
Why I’m not sure any president could have high marks given the inability of the media to understand Regan’s Economic Nuke Theory or why the Players on Wall Street failed to act in the best interest of their corporations and stock holders. I do believe President Obama should use the last few weeks of the mid-term election and Ohio to have a discussion with the House Minority Leader about what can be done to put America back to work.

In fact, I’m surprised the Democratic candidate running against the House Minority Leader has not invited the President to discuss how the Republicans have used the No-Nothing Party to obstruct Ohio’s recovery and no plan to reonvest in the state.

Reagan seemed to like us.

Well, unless you were “dirty, long haired hippies”, or gay, or black, or poor, or sick, or his daughter, or belonged to a union……..

This has to be the dumbest analysis……ever.

The only difference is one of these guys talked down to us like a senile old grandpa telling us bedtime stories, the other didn’t treat us like an idiot…..maybe that’s the problem. Obama sometimes uses big words?

Is this your Kanye moment? Obama hates white people?

Thanks, Kanye. Now, leave Taylor Swift alone.

The theme continues, albeit it at a more sophisticated level. He is an outsider. He is not one of “us.” He is elitist, arrogant, overly intellectual, talks down to “us” laughs at “us”, etc. On a more primitive level; he is a Muslim or practices some unrecognizable form of Christianity (Black liberation theology), he is not a naturally born US citizen, he is a socialist, he is a nazi, he is unpatriotic, he is an apologist for anti-American and Muslim opinion, etc.

Attack the man. Obstruct his policies. Disavow any responsibility for the problems resulting from the Bush presidency as a personal failing of Bush. Avoid discussion of alternative policies. It is a cynical strategy.

Henry Schlactman’s point is well taken. Obama and the Democrats need to force conservatives into a discussion of their alternatives to solving national problems. What such policies (if any) would mean in a practical sense for the common man. To expose the obstructionistic, nihilistic approach that the Republicans and conservatives have taken over the past two years.

“You always get the feeling that he is judging you and you are not measuring up, that you are tolerated but not appreciated”

Is this a verifiable fact? You know how everyone “always” feels? Not likely. That may be how you feel but you can hardly know the feelings of all Americans.

“He hid this from us during the campaign, or maybe we just weren’t looking very hard.” Did you, C&J, vote for Obama?

Jan. 1982-1983 -Reagan’s approval rating was 43%.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/11887/ronald-reagan-from-peoples-perspective-gallup-poll-review.aspx

quote text

C&J wrote; “Obama lacks the generosity, the big spirit of a Ronald Reagan. Reagan laughed with us. Obama is laughing at us. You always get the feeling that he is judging you and you are not measuring up, that you are tolerated but not appreciated.”

I believe you hit a homerun with that statement. Reagan had both wit and wisdom along with a big generous heart and an unashamed love for God, America and its people. He was the genuine article…what we saw and heard was what he believed. He traded in clear and unambigious talk. One didn’t need to listen to the talking heads to understand exactly what Reagan meant.

I recall reading an article written by his speechwriter concerning nearly everyone’s objections to his uttering those famous words…”Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall.”

Reagan listened carefully to their objections and went with his own counsel and kept the words in his speech. And, Gorby knew that what Reagan said, Reagan meant. I’ve read stories from Secret Service members assigned to guard Reagan who were impressed with his private gift giving to those in need. He would write personal checks to be delivered by Secret Service members for some in need he wished to help. And always, the messenger was told to tell the recipient to keep the gift to themselves. He wanted no publicity for his private generosity.

For me, and millions around the world, I slept better at night knowing that we had the “Gipper” in control. Reagan was in love with America and America was in love with Reagan.

God bless this wonderful human being.

And one of his favorite advisors, Bonzo.

NO Jane, Barry was in grade school then.

That is right, many of Reagan’s advisers were from the criminal elements and quite a few of them went to prison. I think the Reagan Administration holds the record of criminal indictments and convictions, but I could be wrong, Nixon and Harding are up at the top as well. Sorry Grant, didn’t mean to slight you.

Reagan was a highly skilled actor.

Oh, I do miss your comments, woman…..
Miss you and hope you’re doing well!

President Regan limited to a Race to the Bottom

President Obama limited to a Race to the Top

Now, how do you deal with a Government and Society held in the Center by forces beyond Mans’ Control?

You are correct C&J on your analysis of Obama. He cannot connect with Americans. He is dropping, like a rock, in the polls and liberal’s like David and Stephen are in complete denial. They can slam the polls and compare them to Reagan, Bush, or anyone else they want, but he is done. There is not one picture of Obama, unless it is when he bows to an Arab, that he does not have his nose stuck straight up in the air. He has an air of arrogance about him, and American’s see it. The approval index you show is rated at –12, about 2 weeks ago the number was –21. If the polls are wrong and Obama really is popular and loved by the people, then perhaps one of you scholarly liberals could explain to me why dem senators and congressman are running away from him? If he as done what the Americans want, why aren’t then dems bragging about the bills they have passed, instead of making campaign videos and claiming they voted against Obama, Pelosi, and Reid’s spending bills? No, the truth is, Obama is disconnected from the American people and all of those dufus liberal politicians who bent over backwards to kiss his butt are in real trouble. But, who cares, they are only polls and democratic liberals don’t believe in polls…

C&J,
“Obama seems vaguely ashamed of ordinary Americans.”
Gee, I wonder why. I mean it’s not we haven’t been treating him well?
Rocky
Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 1, 2010 11:35 PM

RM, if what you say were true, then Bush would have been even more ashamed of Americans, because he was treated worse than Obama has ever been treated. The difference is that Bush took the criticism like a man; he never blamed anyone, but on the other hand Obama is the epitome of a liberal. Liberals live by the motto, it’s someone else’s fault. There is never personal responsibility with a liberal. All you have to do is read through the posts of liberals on WB, in the media, and on the TV; it is ALWAYS someone else’s fault. How could it be theirs, why they are God’s gift to humanity?

Remer:

“You are grossly misinformed. Obama has received more death threats and hate mail from day one in office than any other president in modern history.”

And I am sure you actually have a link to this top-secret material, or are you, as usual, just slinging dung out there and hoping it sticks. I have never known the Secret Service to publish how many times the president has been threatened…or perhaps you have special clearance to receive such material?

jlw:

“That is right, many of Reagan’s advisers were from the criminal elements and quite a few of them went to prison. I think the Reagan Administration holds the record of criminal indictments and convictions, but I could be wrong, Nixon and Harding are up at the top as well.”

Are you sure you want to go there jlw? Obama has surrounded himself with a lot of self-proclaimed communists and terrorists.

Congratulations. Your party is getting what it wants, all that it’s worked for.

It’s always the polls, where they’re going, where they’re coming from. Rasmussen, especially with that utterly meaningless approval index, is often sited, especially because it always seems to add more points in the direction Republicans want the polls to go.

And why not? It’s not like Republicans have actual policy results to work from that they can actually brag about. Obama can say he got the Combat Troops out without incident. Republicans have to crow about polls.

At least the ones that don’t tell them that their party is even more unpopular than the Democrats.

I mean, explain that. Where is Republican Popularity if folks are really on their wavelength, if Republicans really have that Reagan warmth factor any longer?

It’s an absurdity. There’s a reason Republicans have to resort to basking in the glow of almost exclusively Democrat-supported programs to make themselves look good.

They could have voted for these things the first time. They could have compromised and added their input. Unfortunately, if the policy lead by the Minority leader is to simply obstruct to make sure Democrats get as little in substance to make themselves look good as possible, then you have to resort to this kind of hypocrisy to make yourself popular.

If you’re congratulating yourselves on the poll numbers, then I invite you to congratulate yourselves on the depths of hypocrisy and dishonesty you had to sink to in order to get those poll numbers.

And if you win based on those poll numbers? Let’s see you actually keep what you didn’t earn through good policy and bipartisan politics. Let’s see you folks enjoy being the stationary targets yourselves, only unprepared to do anything, unlike the Democrats.

Besides, through the floor? The last five polls go no lower than 45 on job approval.

You want to look at through the floor, look how popular dear old charming Reagan, fatherly Reagan, Warm, Caring, uncontroversial reagan was at the same point.

Truth of the matter is, Obama’s doing better with a worse economy than Reagan was doing with a better one. He rode the relief of interest rates in the early eighties back to popularity. Obama may not have such an easy way back, but he has an advantage over the Republicans in one important respect: he is results oriented. He cares more about getting things done than laying about basking in popularity. Yes, that will cost him some popularity, but you know what?

Look at the last President. The last President constantly played the popularity game, trying to avoid policies or the releas of information that might make him look bad. He wouldn’t admit anything was going wrong. He wouldn’t do much to make things better, since that was as much of an admission. And of course, he wouldn’t disappoint his base, ever, which meant more and more everything became about feeding into the wish-fulfillment of a minority of Americans, rather than raising the fortunes of Americans in general.

Obama’s playing the game differently. He’s acting like a serious leader who’s got more to do than just win a popularity contest. If he only gets one term, then by God it will be a useful one, not merely one where he tries to bask in his own glory.

SD observes; “He cares more about getting things done than laying about basking in popularity.”

No doubt that’s why he needs a vacation every five minutes. Talk about “basking in popularity”, this guy takes the cake award. Bush and Reagan went to their ranches and did physical work out of the sight of the public.

Barry parades around soaking up the adulation of the addled.

I know that some of you liberals have no use for Rasmussen, so I’m including another very interesting link. Larry Sabato has had 98% accuracy in his predictions. This poll is very interesting and he even explains why the Republican Party, which is disliked more than the Democratic Party, is winning.

Stephen, you act like Obama and his team never pays any attention to polls. They certainly do, in fact, they have their own pollsters who run constant polling, so don’t act like it doesn’t mean anything. There is a good possibility that the democrats are going to get the greatest butt whooping of their history. My hope is that this destroys progressivism, liberalism, socialism, and communism and that we get back to the Constitution. I think America is sick and tired of un-elected officials and appointed judges interfering in our lives.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/02/the_crystal_balls_labor_day_predictions_106988.html

I feel sorry for you guys. You have been spouting for 2 year now about all the things you were going to do and your attiude about the voters, well I don’t cuss, but let me quote, “Damn the torpedoes, ful speed ahead”. I know these days leading up to November are difficult for you and the left will probably have a tendency to loose it every once in a while. I just want to say and if I may, on behalf of we few conservatives on WB, “we feel your pain”.

Beretta,

“why they are God’s gift to humanity?”

And here I thought that was the Evangelical Right.

Bush enjoyed unprecedented poll numbers from just after Sept 11th through the initial invasion of Iraq. He had the support of virtually the entire world until we invaded Iraq.

Do you see a pattern here?

Rocky

Royal Flush-
You’re trying to brighten up my day, aren’t you?

Reagan took twice as many vacation days-42 vs. 26- his first year than Obama did. Bush took 69 days.

Yes, both went down to their ranches to do physical work out of sight of the public. If you count out of sight as being caught on tape doing all that brush-clearing and horse-riding.

This is from C-Span:

White House Television (WHTV) Footage of President Reagan at Rancho Del Cielo (32 min. 19 sec.)September 1982: President and Mrs. Reagan visit their California mountain retreat they named “Rancho Del Cielo.” This film captured a visit the Reagans made in September of 1982 where they performed ranch work, received guests and enjoyed horseback riding.

You seem to have a list of negatives you want to fulfill about Obama- lazy, elitist, too public with his vacations, flaunting them in the face of the folks falling on hard times, etc.

I wouldn’t recommend beginning an argument from that standpoint. Before you arm that particular nuke, you better hope you’re the minimum safe distance away from it.

Beretta9-
Maybe you win this time. But until election day, it stays a maybe. I’ve heard this trash talk before, I’ve heard people saying that 2008 was going to be a squeaker for Obama, That Republicans were going to pick up seats that year.

I also heard that Dewey defeated Truman, and that a poll said that FDR was going to lose that election a while back.

I’m not feeling bad. I know two things: one, the Republicans in Washington are useless. You have your folks cheering for a government shutdown, forgetting what exactly happened to the GOP’s image the last time you tried that. You’re going to try for the whole scandal-mongering thing.

Republicans have no problem with doing things that make Washington look bad. Their problem is that sometimes they do it when they’re the ones in control, and it makes them look bad.

The other thing I know is that Democrats in the Netroots are just beginning to realize what the Republicans want to do, and regardless of their differences, they are primed and motivated, once it becomes apparent what might happen, to actually do something.

It’s two full months until November. You have your chickens counted. Let’s see how many hatch, and then lets see how many you accidentally step on as you take your anti-government philosophy to ridiculous extremes, and demonstrate the difference between your claimed abuses of power, and real ones.

(By the way, when you shut down a government, that means its not mailing out social security checks or medicare checks. Good luck on convincing seniors that’s a good thing.)

B9, thanks for the link, interesting reading. As for the pain thing, I am not at all certain that the libs are capable of feeling pain considering their mental disorder. The AMA is still studying that.

My experience with my liberal friends, and those writing on WatchBlog, has been that they love misery. They are mostly pleased with the economic conditions in our country as they see it as opportunity. Isn’t misery the factor that helped elect Barry and the Bums? Isn’t the misery of most Americans the excuse they used to lead us towards socialism. They love misery, they wallow in misery, they embrace misery, as long as they can inflict it upon others with impunity for themselves. Tax the rich, they love it. Regulate and tax our corporate and small business owners out of business, they love it. Trash Christians and others who love God, they love it. Destroy our educational system with cirriculum that teaches dependence and fails to instill love of country and the principles and values that made us great, they love it. Shred our consitution and replace individual rights with group rights, they love it.

A sound thrashing at the polls come November is their cup of tea. No longer will they have to defend all the idiotic legislation that has come from this congress. They will be the underdogs scratching at door wanting back in and they will just love it.

I know, I know, it is difficult for you and me to understand this quirky symptom of their disorder. But think about it. Aren’t the dem/libs writing here happiest when they are bashing someone or something from the past rather than touting their perceived and temporary victories of today?

The dem/libs hold both the congress and presidency and are they a happy sounding bunch? Not! When is the last time you saw Barry and the Boobs smile? They are a sour lot even in victory.

So, they will be reduced to minority status in government and can begin their sniping with a new liveliness in their step, a little crinkle of a smile on their faces, and a little more venom in their pens (if that is even possible).

Hell, I even expect Mr’s Remer and Daugherty to crack a joke now and then after November. They will be back home in familiar surroundings preaching about what they will do when they regain power.

C&J,
Ah, Ronald Reagan. Now there was a fine human being.
What do you think of his role with the Hollywood Blacklists? Do you think a good person would participate in that? Would you?

During Reagan’s funeral, one television commentator had the temerity to mention the fact that Reagan enriched himself more than any other president in the history of the country. Conservatives were furious. Do you think that is was all right, for Reagan to let his ‘friends’ make him fabulously rich through ‘real estate’ while he occupied the
presidency?

As measured by convictions, the Reagan administration was one of the most corrupt in history, with only the Grant, Harding, and Nixon administrations proving worse. Corrupt people surrounded the Gipper. Meanwhile, the Gipper became fabulously rich. Not that there is any connection, of course.

He was famous for making up ‘facts’ and falling asleep during meetings, including one with the Pope. The really funny thing is that you don’t have to look at quotes from enemies of enemies of Ronald Reagan to damn him. His friends provide more than enough insight into the actor who wore too much rouge on his cheeks.

Let us remember Reagan as Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher remembered him:
“Poor dear, there’s nothing between his ears.”

phx8, should you be at all interested, read Ms. Thatcher’s eulogy on Ronald Reagan. You might begin to understand how much she admired him.

Stephen, remember what I said about liberals slinging dung and hoping it sticks. Well, you and others have mentioned the “government shutdown” several times. Would you be so good as to tell us what you are talking about? Do you have proof that someone wants to shut down the government, or are you just saying that to scare old people into thinking their SS checks are not coming? The libs have a history of trying to scare old people just before an election.

“Beretta9-
Maybe you win this time. But until election day, it stays a maybe.”

Be still my pounding heart, I got an “almost I agree with you” from Stephen. Will miracles never cease…?

I actually thought Larry Sabato’s article was very interesting. I guess he uses a lot of different information to come to his conclusions.

Now Stephen, I will agree with you:
“I’m not feeling bad. I know two things: one, the Republicans in Washington are useless.”

This is the reason the Tea Party came into existence, because conservatives are sick and tired of RINOs. By the time we are finished, there will only be useful republicans in Washington. The ones who don’t get replaced (remember VOID), will be too scared to vote RINO. Example: McCain was for obamnesty, before he was against obamnesty. See, even RINOs can change their minds…

Royal Flush; you are right on again. Real Americans see the glass as half full, and liberals see the glass as half empty. Just as it is with Sharpton and Jackson, without racism they would have no purpose; without liberals having misery, they would have no purpose.

Phx8:

“During Reagan’s funeral, one television commentator had the temerity to mention the fact that Reagan enriched himself more than any other president in the history of the country.”

What is it with the left and being rich? Someone has to be rich and someone has to be poor. No matter how much money one person makes, someone else will make more. I personally hope all Americans make a lot of money. The more money made, the more chance of others making money. My son owns his own company and I hope he makes lots of money. Guess what, the more money he makes, the more people he hires. And right now he has several union workers are happy he is making money. You guys on the left are just hung up on people making money.

Speaking of pres. vacations are you aware when bush was on the ranch he was afraid of horses but then again he was a cheerleader now that’s a manly man!

Silly…

More blanks…

Silly X 2

Beretta9, Lets see John Kerry $122,000,000.00 net worth, the richest in congress. Ted Kennedy was very rich, there are a few other Liberals that are very rich. But I guess they mean it’s a bad thingh for a conservative to be rich but alright for a liberal.

So many comments. I cannot get to them all, sorry. Let me hit a couple.

Stephen

You and (usually okay) Factcheck are funny. Reagan probably spent more time away from work than Obama, but you might recall that he was shot and almost killed. Yeah, he spent a lot of time laying around enjoying that hole in his chest.

Phx8

“What do you think of his role with the Hollywood Blacklists? Do you think a good person would participate in that? Would you?”

Yes - I would have done what Reagan did. Think back to the times. Totalitarians of both the Nazi and communist varieties had subverted governments all over the world. We learned from Soviet records that people like the Rosenbergs, Alger Hiss and others were actually on the payroll. American communists gave the Soviets the bomb. When we look back, it seems impossible that communists could have subverted the U.S. But then consider the world of those days, with recent experience with Hitler, Stalin, Mao and lots of other bloodthirsty despots, who actively subverted democracy.

I respect how Reagan stood up to communists trying to take over the actors union.

Gergle & Rich

I never mentioned race. I think he looks down on most people. I don’t think there is any racial motivation.

Beretta9,
I have no problem with people becoming rich. For example, you know I dislike Sarah Palin, but I have no problem with her cashing in on her popularity and making as much money as possible while she is a private citizen. In fact, I think that is smart. I have a huge problem with a person such as Reagan enriching themselves while in office. It smacks of corruption- gross corruption.

C&J,
You may or may not know that I served in the USAF during the Cold War in SAC as a B-52 Radar Navigator on nuclear alert. I am no friend of totalitarianism.

Many innocent people were smeared and blacklisted during the communist scares of the 1950’s, and Reagan willingly participated in those smears and blacklists.

Today, we see the country in a fever of anti-Muslim intolerance. Just as Russian communism was confused with all concerns for social justice in the 1950’s, we now see all of Islam confused with the terrorism of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida. So, if the government wants names of any Muslims and any Muslim sympathizers in the name of conservative orthodoxy… Well, I think you might want to reconsider your support of those people in the 1950’s. They were cowards. In their fear of communism they forgot what it means to be a citizen of the United States in the first place.

Usually I do not care for the writings of Maureen Dowd, but I thought she said it well: Obama was given a majority, but sought unanimity. I admire his effort to be a president representing all Americans, even when that representation occasionally shortchanges my own beliefs. Unfortunately, Obama has spent too little time fulfilling what people like me wanted to see, and too much time reaching out to people who will hate him regardless of what he does. I would rate Obama as a good president, an above-average president, based on being in office less than two years. Sadly, there is just no point in being a moderate, especially a black moderate, given the poisonous state of partisanship and the virulent racism of perhaps 20% of the population.

This is a good article from Time. I don’t really have any use for Time, because it’s just one of the liberal medias responsible for pushing the lie of hope and change with Obama. But, I guess even the liberal media has to eventually ask questions.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2015629,00.html

Here’s just one quote from the article:

“Across the gym floor, Joe Donnelly, Elkhart’s pro-life, pro-gun Democratic Congressman, worked the crowd. He was part of the moderate wave that won Congress for Nancy Pelosi in ‘06, and he was re-elected with 67% of the vote while campaigning for Obama in ‘08. The President has since returned to the region three times, but Donnelly is nonetheless fighting for his political life. In a recent television ad, an unflattering photo of Obama and Pelosi flashes while Donnelly condemns “the Washington crowd.” This is basically a Democratic campaign slogan now: Don’t blame me for Obama and Pelosi. “I’m not one of them,” Donnelly told me when I caught up with him. “I’m one of us.”

A congressman who won by 67% of the vote is now fighting for his political life. This says a lot about what is going on in the country.

I heard a panel discussing why the political shift today: is it a mid-term election that all presidents face, an anti-incumbent attitude, an anti-obama attitude, or an anti-democratic attitude?

It’s probably a combination of all, but I would have to lay most of the blame at the feet of obama. He is the one who pushed the agenda, and certainly no democrat would vote against him, especially when anyone against him was called a racist. The left has been playing the race card for years and this lie has just about run its course. When 52-53% of the country voted for a black man, and 17% of the country is black; it means there were a whole lot of white people voting for a black president. The American people are tired of hearing this racist rant from the left, especially when it’s not true. The liberals on WB are still trying to push race. Well, the American people have done their civic duty and voted for a black man. I will make a prediction that it will be a long time before America ever votes in another black president. Obama had a chance to prove something. He is the one who wanted to break down the walls of racism, but he and the liberals have failed miserably. They ran on a ticket of change and unity, and they governed on a platform of division. All the lies of the left have been exposed and the voters are getting smart. There is a growing frustration from the democrats concerning what obama promised, and what he has done. The lies about cheating old people out of their SS checks are coming to an end. Old people don’t believe it anymore and when they hear how great obamacare will be for them and then they see him cut 500 bil from the Medicare Advantage program, it casts doubt as to whom he is actually working for.

This fervor against government is not going to stop with an election. If Republicans do manage to take control, it won’t be the same old republicans making the policies. It will be angry voters demanding change. The party of no won’t work anymore, but if Obama vetoes what the voters’ want, then there will be another price to pay in 2012…

phx8

Muslims have it very good in the U.S. We keep on kicking ourselves about this, but we are the most tolerant large society in the history of the world. There is no significant discrimination against Muslims in the U.S. judged by any world or historical standard.

You are familiar with actual oppression. In most times or places, it meant something more dangerous than giving people dirty looks.

Consider the mosque controversy. Few people have said that they cannot build a mosque. Some people question the wisdom of doing it, if their goal is to “heal” as they say.

It is a similar thing with the “blacklists”. Few people, even actual communists, suffered permanent harm. And there was a serious threat of communism in those days.

There are always excesses on all sides of any conflict. We cannot produce perfect outcomes. It is always a very potent tool of enemies of freedom to demand perfection from us. It is the same logic of a man who has embezzled a million dollars telling you that you are also a thief, maybe worse than he is, for taking a pencil home from the office.

Reagan suffered death threats from communists trying to take over the Screen Actors union. He had the right and the duty to fight against them.

Re your own background - I never had any questions about your patriotism or integrity. We simply disagree about political issues.

Phx8:

You have no problem with private citizens making money’ but if you just read down the blue column, you will see vitriol and hatred toward any conservative making money. So, you must be a rose among the thorns, because your liberal friends don’t feel the same as you.

Do you feel the same way about democrat politicians “smacking of corruption”, or is it just republicans?

“Today, we see the country in a fever of anti-Muslim intolerance.”

My friend, it is the left and the media who is keeping this anti-Muslim intolerance alive. Can you name one main stream conservative, politician or commentator, who has made anti-Muslim remarks? Personally, the left can keep up this “anti-Muslim intolerance” speech, I don’t care, but as the Time article explained, this type of stuff keeps the voter’s minds on everything else and not what obama wants them to listen to. But is was obama, either through ignorance or through stupidity that threw himself into the fray. He didn’t have to say anything, but he volunteered and blabbed his views in front of a bunch of Muslims. This is not a smart president; this is stupid.

“Sadly, there is just no point in being a moderate, especially a black moderate, given the poisonous state of partisanship and the virulent racism of perhaps 20% of the population.”

Here you go again, accusing the voters of racism. Will the left ever learn? It is not 20% of the country; it is closer to 70% of the voters who are angry, not at the color of his skin. They are angry at his policies, which go against the electorate. Read the Time article, as a liberal media, they do a good job explaining what obama has done wrong.

The 20% you speak of is the 20% of the population who claimed to be liberal.

B9,
Why my mom (democratoc) and dad (republican) may have believed the glass was half-emoty or half-full, hasving grown up knowning the glass is always full I do think both political parties need to step into the 21st century.

And why you can say the liberals have a problem with the rich, I do believe most Labor and Management need to be reminded that the Elders of the 70’s decided to increase the wages of college grads while leaving the factory worker to worry about the global market.

So why I don’t think anyone would complain about an American making an honest buck, do you agree there are some folks in management who do not deserve the paycheck they are pulling?

In fact, IMHO the CEO’s of the last 10 years should have to pay their corporation insteas of recieving the millions for a job of failure.

Case in point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiOj1mPUDk4&feature=player_embedded

Royal Flush-

My experience with my liberal friends, and those writing on WatchBlog, has been that they love misery.

Man, speak for your bloody self. I vote towards an end to misery. No more Katrina Responses to break my heart. No more preventable losses of soldiers lives because some politician has to use them to shield bad policy and worse judgment. No more ridiculously unconservative tax cuts peddled as a panacea when they’re bound to double an already insanely stupid debt load that its previous ten years helped inflict on us.

I want things that work. Your picture of folks like me is just recycled rhetoric, a position repeated so much that without substance it’s taken on the appearance of fact to you and yours. Well, appearances aren’t everything. Democrats like me want people, and that includes small business owners, to be able to navigate through the economy without it becoming a sick parody of the old video game Frogger. People should not have to dodge the alligators and the sharks in order to feel safe investing. We need a system where it’s humanly possible most of the time to succeed at modest predictions about the course of the marketplace.

As far as what comes after the election? I don’t remember being overjoyed at the thought of losing when it happened in 2004. 2004 motivated 2006 and 2008. Hell, the Republicans behavior after they got elected helped Clinton win the election later.

Republicans, being so insular in their sense of what is justifiable behavior, seem poised to repeat the mistakes they did after their election, pulling the stunts like blasting the White House with one frivolous investigation after nother, or trying government shutdowns. What was unpopular in a time of plenty will not be so popular in a time of need, I guarantee that.

I don’t think the Republicans appreciate the negative symbolic potential of what such antics could do for Democrats, if Democrats do have to win back the house.

Or, put another way, when Truman blasted the Do-Nothing Republicans in 1948, the Democrats had the House for the next few decades. When folks need help, they don’t need moralizing lectures, even from well-meaning folks. You can discuss moral hazards with them later, once they’re past the point of having to fight for the survival of their way of life.

I’ve seen enough backwards sliding of the middle class as it is. I’ve seen it all my life. I write here, and act elswhere to turn that miserable decay around. I want to renew this country, not destroy it.

On the subject of my “maybe you win”?

I’m being the sort of realistic you’re not. It’s not that I almost agree with you. It’s that I don’t start battles like this planning to give up the fight. I commit myself, and that commitment leads me not to accept “political realities” especially in the form of pre-election trash-talk.

As for the Republicans being useless? Well, I think the Tea Party’s twice as useless. If this was a splinter of the party taking things in a new direction I could entertain the thought, but the Tea Party Republicans are basically for the same policies that undermined their folks in Washington.

I think you have to learn your lesson to truly earn good enthusiasm. If you don’t, if you just hype your way back, you still get confronted with the problems, and you still lose.

B9,
On your case in point, are you aware the House and Senate will not allow them to talk about those issues? No, agreeing to disagree due to the fact the Youth of the 60’s and Silver Spoons can’t agree on what is in the inherent best interest of their grandchildren keeps the two in power. However, faced with handing their children the same Guaranteed Civil and Constitutional Rights of Generational Change they enjoyed 30 years ago I have to wonder if the conservatives and liberals are worried they can’t hand the Children of the 21st Century a Better World or they fear the same treatment given to the parents and grandparents of the 70’s.

RF,
If the liberals enjoy misery than doesn’t misery love company? Thus, why Stephen and you can complain and yell at each other; given the common ground of your grandchildren can you both come up with at least one Politically Viable Solution to one of the Issues of the 20th Century?

Stephen;

“Republicans, being so insular in their sense of what is justifiable behavior, seem poised to repeat the mistakes they did after their election, pulling the stunts like blasting the White House with one frivolous investigation after nother, or trying government shutdowns. What was unpopular in a time of plenty will not be so popular in a time of need, I guarantee that”

First, I’m still waiting to hear who wants a government shutdown? Second, why would republicans want frivolous lawsuits, did someone do something illegal? Lastly, I believe the Republican Party understands the mess Obama and his financial team have put us in. So I believe they know we are in trouble.

“Or, put another way, when Truman blasted the Do-Nothing Republicans in 1948, the Democrats had the House for the next few decades.”

How did the message of a do-nothing Republican congress get to the people in 1948? Was it the democrat controlled radio and newspapers, why yes it was? We don’t live in the same world today. The left does not control the news media today. So it’s apples and oranges.

I think the middle class understands what is happening in America. The left’s goal is patterned after Europe; an upper class and a peasant class. It is liberal politics that is destroying the middle class.

“As for the Republicans being useless? Well, I think the Tea Party’s twice as useless. If this was a splinter of the party taking things in a new direction I could entertain the thought, but the Tea Party Republicans are basically for the same policies that undermined their folks in Washington.”

This is a bold statement, you have just declared 25% of Americans as useless, but time will tell…

Henry:

I don’t want to be rude, but I have a real hard time understanding what you are trying to say. You always talk about silver spoons and the 60’s and I am never able to make the connection. It’s not that I don’t want to talk to you, I just don’t know how to answer.

Bottom line:
When Obama came into office he said he was going to do what he thought was right not what is popular. Let me ask those on the right: Do you think a leader should make discisions based on poll numbers?

POOR underinformed Baretta9 said in response to death threats to Obama: “And I am sure you actually have a link to this top-secret material…”

It was publicly released information.

037;

There is a difference between doing what is right and governing against the will of the people. Of course, what is right is a relative term. Bush did things he thought was right, but there were many on both sides who disagreed.

There are some policies that require the president to make a decision based on what he believes and not on polls: i.e. Bush took our country to war. He and both parties in the congress believed it was right at the time and we all know it was not popular with the left. Did you support Bush’s decision to go to war, against Afghan or Iraq? I’m sure you didn’t, but now you ask conservatives to do the very thing the left was not willing to do.

When it comes to passing laws that affect all of America, I believe he should have listened to Americans. He passed obamacare with one party (democrats) and there can be no doubt, the American people did not want it. He passed stimulus that Americans did not want. He took over banks and auto companies that Americans did not want. Bush passed TARP that Americans did not want.

In answer to your question; yes, I believe he should have the support of the American when he passes laws that directly affect us. No, I do not believe he needs the polls to determine foreign policy. Let me say this, I do not trust Obama with foreign policy, but these things are out of our hands.

You, no doubt, will have a whole lot to say about my answer, but my thinking represents at least 70% of America. And it is because of obama’s shrugging off the American people, that there is going to be a cry from liberals in November, which will be heard around the world.

Thanks for the link David;

The article seems to indicate there are a rise of threats against all politicians as well as a rise in counterfeiting. Let me ask you to step out of your liberal cocoon for just a second and answer this question: do you believe there is a correlation between a collapsing economy and crimes or threats? Do you believe it is possible for the increase in death threats to ALL politicians to be the result of the economy? And do you know if there is also a rise in threats to all politicians or is it just Obama?

Baretta9, do you believe in America today, there would NOT be an increase in threats against the first black president in America’s history?

Your obfuscations of the issue won’t work. There are realities at play, that folks such as yourself can deny, but, realities, they remain.

Baretta9 said: “The article seems to indicate there are a rise of threats against all politicians as well as a rise in counterfeiting”

Which confirms my original statement which you challenged asking for a link.

One can take fools to pool of knowledge, but, one cannot make them drink it in.

phx8 wrote; “Today, we see the country in a fever of anti-Muslim intolerance.”

I guess it’s a matter of perception phx8. I don’t believe the resistence is directed towards Muslim’s, but rather to their poor choice in choosing a location for the mosque.

By the way, from one who served in the 60’s, and as an American, thank you very much for your valuable service in defending America.

Beretta9
“There is a difference between doing what is right and governing against the will of the people”

Yes I know, but the “will of the people” is determined by who gets voted into office and if they can be persuaded to govern a certain way. Not by polls. Our founding fathers had the foresight of a representative republic not a direct democracy.

I certainly remember Obama saying he would pull out of Iraq and re-focus on Afgahnistan.

He said he would push for an overhaul of health care regulation.

He said he would lower my taxes.

He won and he has done those things.

You said “Did you support Bush’s decision to go to war, against Afghan or Iraq? I’m sure you didn’t,…”

Nice try…what you’re sure of does not then match reality.

” my thinking represents at least 70% of America.”

Nice try…what you’re sure of does not then match reality.

The Democrats could be heading toward a defeat of historic proportions in November, but it is possible to imagine a scenario in which things might have turned out differently.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/opinion/03brooks.html?th&emc=th

Lots of food for thought in this fanciful imagining.

Taxes, always a contentious issue on WatchBlog, can come from many sources. Today, I examined my telephone bill line by line and was simply astonished by the myriad of taxes (sometimes called fees) that go into the final amount due. Here’s the breakdown…

1) Federal Subscriber Line Charge, $10.60
2) 911 Fee, $1.44
3) Federal Universal Service Fee, $1.62
4) Texas Universal Service, $1.70
5) Federal Tax, $1.88
6) State and Local Tax, $4.32
7) Regulatory Cost Recovery Charge, $0.66
8) Texas Franchise Tax Recovery, $0.42
9) Texas State Telecom Tax, $3.82
10) County Telecom Tax, $0.30

Total: $26.76

Some say we are not taxed enough. Really? Nearly everything we do with money is taxed in some obvious and some not-so-obvious ways. Years ago I recall reading that there were some 20+ taxes on a loaf of bread. Today, that could easily be 30+ taxes on that same loaf.

Take a look at your telephone bill and let me know what you think about all those taxes and fees.

“In recent American history three presidents, Republicans Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush—and Democrat icon John Fitzgerald Kennedy—all lowered taxes in response to economic recessions. In all three cases, more money flowed into federal coffers than expected, and all three recessions ended.

Tax revenues and GDP are highly correlated: as the economy grows, federal tax revenues also grow. This has been the case since the end of World War II. Simply put, the best way to increase federal revenues is not to increase taxes, but to expand the economy. Therefore pro-growth policies, such as lower marginal tax rates, restrained federal spending, minimal regulation, and free trade should be adopted.

Bottom line: taxation is an extension of ideology. Unlike JFK, today’s “progressive” Democrats favor higher rates of taxation because they believe government is the best entity for allocating resources. Underlying this assertion is the Democrats’ assumption that most Americans are incapable of running their own lives and should defer to the “superior” wisdom of the political ruling class.

Democrats want higher taxes to pursue their goals. Republicans want lower taxes so Americans can pursue their own goals.”

http://townhall.com/columnists/RichardBernstein/2010/09/02/less_taxes,_more_revenue/page/2

Remer:

“Which confirms my original statement which you challenged asking for a link.”

I did thank you for the link!

“One can take fools to pool of knowledge, but, one cannot make them drink it in.”

So are you calling me a fool?

Good link RF.

“Democrats want higher taxes to pursue their goals. Republicans want lower taxes so Americans can pursue their own goals.”

The democrats have fought to let the Bush tax cuts expire, and today Obama gave another speech and plans to let the tax cuts stand for middle class Americans. I guess by that, he is talking about those making less than $250 k. If the Bush tax cuts were no good, and this is what liberal dems have been saying, then why are they letting some stand? If tax cuts do nothing to help the economy, and this is what they believe, then why are they now letting some stand? If some of the tax cuts help some, then why wouldn’t all of the tax cuts help all? In fact, there are some democrats who do not want to see the Bush tax cuts expire at all. Further more the tax cuts for those making less that $250 k does nothing for small business, who really needs the cuts the most. Any small business with as many as 2 or 3 employees would not qualify for the tax cuts.

Beretta9-

Try Erick Erickson and Dick Morris on government shutdown.

Or maybe The Tea Party Candidate who won the Republican primary in Alaska

You know, the thought that occurs to me is that the Republicans are trying to hermetically seal themselves away from all outside, impure influences. And maybe they’ll succeed. But if they succeed, they lose.

Accountability requires vulnerability. If people see that Republicans do not change their ways when confronted by disasters, that they do not learn lesson, they can lose.

I think you should consider all the effort that’s been required to take this president down so far in the ratings. Have Republicans gained from it? not in terms of general popularity.

But Republicans can’t seem to fathom, due to their culture, the notion that people might actually be displeased wiht their policy. But I think the evidence is there that people can be, and it’s not media bias driving it.

Republicans love to push bias because its subjectively unprovable. The problem for you is this question: is it your bias or their bias that leads to your distrust of sources? Are they the ones who aren’t considering things as openly as they should, or are you?

Personally, I think it’s a headache to run around chasing after bias and other things like it. I stick to facts because even if you change subjective views of the item in question, there’s a symmetry to it that speculation and other stuff lacks, something to follow, to nail down.

You can go on building yourself to a fever-pitch hatred of Democrats for all the evil and wrong they’re planning to do in your mind. Me, I can state in factual terms what the Republican party is doing to tick me off.

Ahh, the economic argument, again. Let’s revue shall we?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/opinion/03krugman.html?_r=1&hp

SD
Why do you characterize all opposition to your theories as hatred? You do this on a regular and consistent basis. I don’t hate anybody!!! I do not like what some democrats and republicans are doing. That is action that I despise not the person. I always have hope for the person to change their ways.

We just recently had a shoot out between 2 biker gangs about 100 yds from my front door. Do I hate the shooters? No! I hate what they were doing and that they all should be prosecuted fully, but only 7 are going to face charges. That is cowardice on the part of the County Attorneys office. Do I hate the Prosecutors; no! I hate the cowardly acts of the office.

Your statements about republicans is usually rhetorical. Ho Hum.

B9,
The terms Youth of the 60’s; Silver Spoons of the 70’s; and the Children of the 70’s was political phases used 30 plus years ago during the last gernerational change. And why they are and were open to a large interpretation, one could say they resprented the Youth (18-29) of the Working American. the Youth of the Wealthy, and Children (17 and under) of the Late 60’s and Early 70’s. For why I’m not sure if you know this, but everyone over the age of 30 regardless of Race, Color, or Creed was found to be standing on the wrong side of Ignoramce.

So why the Left vs. Right; Conservative vs. Liberal; Rich vs. Poor; and even Learned vs. Unlearned are limited to a Public Debate of a Better World and bound to MLK “I have a Dream” as Ladies and Gentlemen. I hope the Children of the 70’s will listen to the Youth of Today and the Silver Spoons of Tommorrow.

HS:

?… Well I am a youth of the 40’s thru 60’s and I have no idea what you are talking about.

B9,
If you were 18 in the 40’s, wouldn’t that make you over 30 in the 60’s?

No, you can be born in the 40’s, grew up in the 80’s, and been part of the hippie or square crowd of the 60’s. But unless you were raised in the top 1-5% of the ridhest families than you might not have been part of the group that were born with a Silver Spoon in their mouth.

Besides, how active were you in politics during those days? Are you one of the many who agreed Corporations should rule the Land or the part of Society who decided to drop out? And futhermore, are you willing to set aside your wealth so that your grandchildren can have the same opportunities you have enjoyed?

Yes, given Americas’ Technology the idea a person has to work forty hours a week for the Man no longer applies. And since those over the age of 65 have spent their parents savings on Bling Bling instead of fixing the flaws of Americas’ Institutions. What type of Better World do you want to pass on to your grandchildren? One that allows every Human the opportunity to become economically viable and financially independent or a world which allows many to suffer so that a few may survive the life of a king?

phx8

liberals are quick to use “smear” and other words to defend some people. Now give me some names that were “smeared” in the Hollywood blacklisting exercise. People were active in writting and producing that put the socialist propaganda and in particular Soviet influence in movies, plays and other drama. If you are going to accuse someone of “smearing” another then name the names otherwise start investigating on your own to see who is telling the truth.

Henry, you should know by now, that it is impossible to get anything into a mind that is closed.

Right on Jane. It would take a one inch, diamond tipped, drill bit to get thru some of the lib skulls writing here.

HS:

I was born in the 40’s and was a teen during the hippie years. No silver spoon in my mouth, my dad was a union worker for GM.

“Besides, how active were you in politics during those days? Are you one of the many who agreed Corporations should rule the Land or the part of Society who decided to drop out? And futhermore, are you willing to set aside your wealth so that your grandchildren can have the same opportunities you have enjoyed?”

3 questions deserve 3 straight answers:

1. I didn’t care about politics.
2. When I got out of HS, I can say, I was very happy that there were Corporations to provide work. I can also say, my dad was very happy to work for a Corporation that got him off a farm in Kentucky. I was also very happy for Corporations when I got out of the Navy and needed a job. You see Henry; Corporations are not the enemy, because they provide the jobs.
3. Lastly, thanks to the out of control spending of big government, my grandchildren will never have the opportunities I have enjoyed.

tom humes,

“Now give me some names that were “smeared” in the Hollywood blacklisting exercise.”

At least half of the “Hollywood 10” who refused to testify before HUAC were not members of the communist party.
Add to this list John Berry who was blacklisted for making the documentary “The Hollywood 10”. He also wasn’t a communist party member, and had to go to France to make a living.

Some of the 10 recanted and blamed the others for forcing them to include propaganda in the movies they wrote for.

But not all.

Rocky

Rocky Marks

Which half are you claiming?

tom humes,

“Which half are you claiming?”

What a ridiculous question.
Why do you bother?

Rocky

B9,
Why I can understand why folks were not and are not interested in politics, I do believe every American Layman needs to learn why they have Guaranteed Civil and Constitutional Rights as Ladies and Gentlemen.

And why you will have to ask David Remer who to talk to about the Forest of Enlightenment. Did you know the Corporations of the 70’s shifted the burden of their taxes to the Individuals?

Yes, they provide jobs, yet how many of those jobs lead to the individual becoming economically viable and financially independent in exchange for 40 years of labor? Granteed before the Wall Street run of the 80’s many corporations had retirement plans for their employees which may have worked in the long run; however, today other than the CEO who else is given a Golden Retirement Plan.

So why it can be said they provide economic slave labor and management to the massses I do believe the Children of the 21st Century deserve to have the Economic Freedom from the Corporation just like the Youth of the 60’s and Silver Spoons of the 70’s asked for Societal Freedom from Americas’ Institutions. Since why the Right might claim the Left wants the Government to provide everything, what is the difference between the Left claiming the Right wants the Corporation to provide them with everything? Hence, the need for a Self-Sustainable Government, Society, and Citizerny in Mankinds’ Known Universe.

Jane Doe,
Having grown up learning to outright argue with the Elders and Powers-that-Be of the 70’s I don’t think it is a matter of a closed mind, but the fact most people are unaware of their own Self-Knowledge.

For example; Is it weong to deny a Man a drink of water when he is unwilling to work to dig the well?

Be aware that both answers do not hold the Truth.

Henry:

“Did you know the Corporations of the 70’s shifted the burden of their taxes to the Individuals?”

I hate to be the one to tell you this Henry, but all Corporations shift the taxes to the individuals. Companies are in business to make a profit and they WILL make a profit or go out of business. When government taxes companies, they simply pass the taxes on to the consumer. Taxes on business or corporations is just a straw man used by the left to drive a wedge between the employees and the empoyers. It’s called class warfare. Taxes on corporations is just another tax on the working class…

Rocky Marks

I’ll leave it at that. You can’t name them. End of topic discussion.

tom humes,

I’m done doing research for you. The last time I did you hosed me.
I gave you one name and the name of the group.
Google “Hollywood Ten”. I’m quite sure you will find the info you seek.

Rocky

Rocky

I have tons of files on subversive activity from the 30’s to the present. A ton of investigation type documents. A ton of results of those investigations. And printed publications dealing with all kinds of subversion in our society and particularly in the government.

Google can’t tell me anything I already know on the subject.

B9,
Why it would be nice to pass on all the expenses of doing business to the customer, the sad fact is that most of the expenses are dealt with by tax write offs. For example; an employer can write off the healthcare plan for their employees as a business expense; however, the employee cannot write off the same expense on their taxes.

In fact, the political thinking durong the early and mid 20th century was that it is easier to track corporayions instead of the individuals. And why today most corporations enjoy a long list of things which fall under normal nusiness expenses, the fact they must compete in the national and flobal markets limits their ability to pass on any expense to the consumer.

Case in point: Fuel for the deliver of goods and services have more than doubled in the past ten years; yet, as we have seen over the same time frame prices drop as some corporations get smarter on cutting cost. Your story does not hold water. However, it does make for a good sound bit now doesn’t it.

Tom Humes,
May I siggest you look up the newspappers of the time. For why it is easy to take sides from one report or the other. Trace down the players and sources who made the Hollywood Ten a name. For why I am sure many books about Waco tell a story, research the articles and talk to the journalists who has first hand knowledge on the subject.

Henry:

“Why it would be nice to pass on all the expenses of doing business to the customer, the sad fact is that most of the expenses are dealt with by tax write offs. For example; an employer can write off the healthcare plan for their employees as a business expense; however, the employee cannot write off the same expense on their taxes.”

Are you saying that you don’t have a problem with passing on corporate taxes to the consumers? If this is what you are saying, then you must know that any taxes placed on corporations are actually more taxes placed on the American taxpayer.

You say the employee cannot deduct the cost of medical expenses; I believe you are wrong about that. Perhaps someone else could comment whether taxpayers can deduct the cost of medical expenses.

You say, “the fact they must compete in the national and flobal markets limits their ability to pass on any expense to the consumer.”

This is not true; corporations pass all operating expenses on to the consumer. The company that picks up our trash, adds a fuel surcharge on to the monthly costs when the price of fuel goes up and when it comes down, they take the surcharge off.

The reason Americans can buy American made Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai at a better price than American made GM, Chrysler, and Ford is because the cost of building GM, Ford, and Chrysler is higher. The big three American carmakers have to include cost of retirement packages and healthcare costs into the base price of their autos. The point is, these extra costs are passed on to the consumer, just as all other costs are passed on to the consumer. Companies are in business to make a profit. It is only the government, who is in business to give people free stuff. George Sorros is one of the richest liberals in the world. Does he invest HIS money in corporations, which do not make a profit, or does he invest in companies, which make money?