These guys on the right really crack me up with their "I remember" crap. Let's see some figures, some actual data. And as far as a filobuster proof majority goes, well, that is just hogwash too. There are 58 Democratic Senators, not 60. And if 40 republicans vote to hold up a vote by not ending a debate, that is a filobuster, regardless of who votes with them.

As far as the tax cuts going to the rich, that is a fact. Just because someone got a small tax cut does not mean it was fair or equal. The Bush II tax cut was the largest shift of wealth from the middle class to the rich in history. It's a fact. If there is a dollar tax cut and you get a penny, it doesn't make it fair and honest just because you got something. And the reason the rich pay 50% of the taxes is because they control 80% of the wealth. Now if the top 5% control 80% of the wealth and are only paying 50% of the taxes, well? you can see the problem.

The problem is it's become about being right more than what is right. As the national health care debate went on it became really obvious to everyone how our congress is bought and paid for by the wealthy elite. It's not about what is right, it's about what makes them the most money.

No one complains about government run road repair. Or government run police. No one complains about Social Security Checks or Medicare paying their bills, even if they are rich and can pay them for themselves. It seems government run health insurance is just fine for everyone who has it already. No one seems to have a problem with government run military or street cleaning. But somehow if the government provides insurance to compete with the insurance industry, which incidentally has no competition, it's somehow a bad thing, although no one can say why.

What do we need insurance companies for? What we need is health care for everyone. Funny, we have a right to police protection. We have a right to fire protection. We have a right to go to school. We have sewers and water companies all run by government for "ALL" the people, not just those who can afford it. Why not health care? Why is the richest country in the world the only one without health care? For the last 20 years we have watched health insurance skyrocket way past the cost of health care and even health care itself is incredibly expensive, for no apparent reason.

We can't have government decide what treatment we get, but who here has not been affected by an insurance company who won't pay a bill because they didn't think we needed the treatment, or worse yet, not getting the treatment because they would not pay.

The truth is, it's not a real argument. Those on the right repeat talking points as if they were the truth because they only want to "win", not do the right thing.

These huge debts are because of both Republicans and Democrats, but it's clear that the Republicans run huge deficits to fund tax cuts for the rich. If we are going to mortgage our kids future, let's at least give them the money.

Elizabeth

__________________
The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched - they must be felt with the heart - Helen Keller

Its the way our system works, the 2 party system will always have this crap. Its not new when the Republicans do it now as they have done it in the past same as Democrats. Your outrage is legit but a bit one sided. In other words its just partisan anger because you support the side that has to deal with the minority.

Its not a shift of wealth from the middle class to the rich if everyone sees their taxes decrease. More people are being allowed to keep what they earn. You forget that people work for their money and it is theirs by right. The government is stealing from everyone, a tax cut isn't a bunch of money being handed to them, its just less being taken from them. So, yes the rich keep more because they earned more. This class warfare stuff when it comes to taxes is just B.S. Its good to see the politicians can keep you angry at the rich and not angry at them for giving favors to the rich all the time. For example: Requiring everyone to buy health insurance from private businesses and extending the protection for name brand drugs from 7 to 12 years so we get to pay more longer, both are parts of the current health-care bill. (I hope you don't support the current health-care bill, because it is a nice big favor to the rich)

Then you support a smaller government like the one defined in our constitution, one that has little to no power to provide favors for these wealthy elite? Are you a libertarian, constitutionalist or just a true small government conservative? Please don't tell me you consider yourself a progressive or liberal democrat, heck or even a Republican. I mean those two parties seem hell bent on growing government and being able to provide favors to the wealthy. Supporting them would be hypocritical.

Ok I have lots of problems with government run road repair and some of the other things you mentioned. But I won't go into them here and now. Lets focus on health-care. You want government to provide healthcare for everyone it seems.
Well lets look at Massachusetts who has good ole masscare to provide healthcare for everyone who can't afford insurance. I mean its a right and Mass. recognizes that so they put this program in place to provide it to everyone regardless of income level. But hey! Why does Masscare have higher claim denial then private insurance? Nearly 24% denial rate, SOUNDS AWESOME SIGN ME UP!! That doesn't sound good to you? Thats just backwards Massachusetts you say? The Feds would never do that, they are looking out for us. How about we look at Medicare denial rates then? Oops looks likemedicare has the highest denial rates, and over double the rate of some private companies. Curse those private companies for being so greedy they don't deny as many claims as Medicare!

I find it funny when you say that health-care costs have gone up for no reason. If you truly believe this than I suggest you do some research because you are tragically misinformed. Here is a great article that everyone should check out. That is if you truly are interested in bringing down costs and providing coverage for almost everyone. Here is a little quote from the article just as a teaser...But then again, like you said, everything I wrote here is probably just evil "right" talking points with no basis in fact. I don't want people to have health-care. I live on the suffering of others. As the Tool song Vicarious goes
**Warning post contains a fair amount of sarcasm, I am quite squirrely today **

Oh yeah, to stay on topic... It doesn't matter by how much or what party did it, any time the debt increases we should be able to send our politicians to bed without supper. Or at least make them sit in the corner for 20 mins to think about what they have done. Bad Politicians! Bad! Maybe we should hit them with a newspaper and rub their noses in it

This ignore political reality which happens all of the time. The Congress often adds budget items to important budgets that the president requires. This is common when it comes to national defense spending where numerous unrelated items are added onto the military spending authorization. If the president vetoes the bill then the military runs out of money when the president requires.

Of course sometimes the Congress rolls over for the President as we saw in 2008 when the Democrats in Congress passed a funding measure for Iraq and Afghanistan with a time table included. They revised the legislation to eliminate the time table but didn't have to. The could have passed the identical legislation again and sent it to the president challenging him to veto it a second time which would have forced him to immediately start the withdrawal of US forces from both Iraq and Afghanistan due to a lack of funding.

The game can be played both ways but the fact is that under the Constitution the Congress controls the budget and not the president. Even without a 2/3rds majority the Congress can eventually force the president to sign or completely shut down the government and no president can afford to shut down the government completely. They would be impeached for such an act.

__________________
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
Forum Rules and Guidelines: http://www.politicalforum.com/curren...uncements.html

Legislation is written to appease both the President AND the Congress. Anyone who claims otherwise is full of it. Members of Congress get all their goodies and earmarks too, and Presidents know this. They always come to a compromise that suits both parties. And if they don't, well then you have a government shut down, which happened under Clinton. And neither side wants this. Why? Because it makes them look stupid. So playing hardball isn't seen very often.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Schopenhauer

“How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.” - Adolf Hitler

"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hilter did in Germany was 'legal'" - Martin Luther King Jr., from a Birmingham jail, April 16, 1963.

The vast majority of the time, the bill is written or revised to appease the administration. Congress shares the burden, but the president assumes responsibility once he applies his signature. There is only one vote by one president.

Agreed! Congress shares the burden, but the president assumes responsibility once he applies his signature. There is only one vote by one president.

No, they both share the responsibility, since they both are part of the process and couldn't do it without each other. You clearly want to shift the blame to the President, but that is simply not the truth about the budgeting process.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Schopenhauer

“How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.” - Adolf Hitler

"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hilter did in Germany was 'legal'" - Martin Luther King Jr., from a Birmingham jail, April 16, 1963.

Congress is several hundred people making a democratic decision. A president is one man. It is a difficult decision, but one he must take responsibility for. If the government shuts down, then it shuts down. It's still his decision.

Again............. no........... it's not his decision to shut the government down. The government shuts down if he and the members of Congress can't come to an agreement, and neither side is willing to compromise. As I've said before, that rarely happens because both sides are typically willing to compromise and give the other more of what it wants - which is usually more spending on specific projects.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Schopenhauer

“How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.” - Adolf Hitler

"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hilter did in Germany was 'legal'" - Martin Luther King Jr., from a Birmingham jail, April 16, 1963.

I didn't say it was his decision to shut the government down That would be rediculous. Obviously, I was saying it is his decision to sign the bill or not.

This is a matter of opinion. You see it one way. I see it the other. Neither is wrong and neither is right. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

It doesn't matter which parties fault this is (both if you want my personal option), or who's fault ( every scum bag politician if you want my personal opinion) the national debt is.

The bottom line is, it is unsustainable. The US will go broke from years of reckless spending.

But you can protect yourself by buying hard assets such as silver, platinum or gold.

Each check I get, I put $100 into savings. When I can buy an ounce of gold, I do.

In the meantime, there is a coin shop here in OC that has a bid board. I pick up all the Franklin Half dollars (0.36169 ounces of silver) that the owner puts up on this board for under $9. I also save all money nickels, grab a roll when I go to the bank, and save all my pre-1982 pennies. Why? Because the nickel and copper in a nickel is ACTUALLY worth a nickle and the copper in a pre-1982 penny is actually worth 2.25 cents. CoinInfaltion

So when he dollar becomes worthless (which is inevitable they way Washington DC works), I can still barter with metals until the next worthless fiat currency is established. Not to mention, the metals will be worth something in the new currency. Can paper assets say the same?

__________________
rstones199 - The Voice Of Reason!

Don't worry, my homosexual marriage will NOT interfere with your heterosexual divorce

Straight Edge - the only way to live ones life. That means no mind altering garbage like drugs (that includes alcohol, cigarettes and caffeine) and religion.