Ed, not sure where you live, but Sean Duffy will be running in the northern part of Kind's old district. Kind will have an easier time getting re-elected in 2012, with the redistricting. Kind got the Democrat chunk of Duffy's district and Duffy got the Republican chunk of Kind's district.

If our country is moving towards bankruptcy and financial collapse, I wonder how much of it is due to the Bush tax cuts, two unfunded wars and an unfunded Medicare Part D program? Gus, perhaps you know the answer to my question?

Sounds like the same response I get when I call Senator Ron Johnson's and Congressman Duffy's offices.

Adam, if the "cost effectivenss and innovation of the market" are the "free market" drives to health care nivana, why haven't they sprouted forth in the market place?

Othe major, developed countries with government run healthcare systems seem to be able to provide excellent health care and less the cost. Life expectancy in Canda is 80.2 years v. 78.2 in the US v. 80.7 in France?

When was the last time we had a free market in health care PB&J? During WWII employers started offering health insurance as part of their compensation package to beat wartime price controls on raising wages. After the war that form of compensation was determined to be non-taxable and third party payer was off to the races. By 1960 third parties paid half of all health care bills, today it's almost 90 percent. The disconnect between consumers and health care costs is complete. I'm a big believer in the free market perhaps we should try it some time.

Don't try to lie with statistics; the lower life expectancy for Americans is due to homicides, accidents, obesity and a more diverse population not the health care system. African Americans, for example, have life expectancies well below those of other ethnic groups. There's a reason people with a choice seek medical treatment in the US rather than any other country.

So Adam, are you advocating more government regulation to increase the life expectancy of the American people? Requiring citizens to eat a lower fat diet with more broccoli would help cut down obesity. Banding guns would cut down on the number of homicides. Lowering the speed limit would reduce the number of car accidents AND the amount of oil consumed.

I see you are singling out African Americans for some reason. Perhaps the reason they have a lower life expectancy. The fact is poverty has much to do with that. Since larger percentages of Blacks livde in poverty, one would expect lower life expectancies. I suspect you are suggesting that, if we ship all the Blacks back to Africa and driven all the Mexicans back across the US-Mexican border, life expectancy will increase in the US.

No, regulation of the health care industry is already too complex:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2730786/

Besides, when a conservative is a vegetarian he just doesn't buy meat, when a liberal is a vegetarian he wants to force everyone to buy broccoli. What are you going to do when President Romney and a republican legislature under the guise of regulating commerce uses the same legal power authorized by the Supremes to compel everyone to purchase a handgun for personal protection? We know taking guns away from law abiding citizens does exactly zero to reduce the homicide rate among teenage gang bangers so why not give it a try? I've never met a liberal who didn't favor the expansion of state power at the expense of individual liberty (unless we're talking about what goes on in the bedroom; then they suddenly turn into Randian libertarians.)

The democrats Great Society programs have destroyed the black family and created a one way ticket to pregnancy, poverty and dependency. After 45 years and trillions of dollars spent in the war on poverty can we finally admit that our welfare programs are wrong-headed and counter-productive for a majority they serve?

Also, please keep your racist projections to yourself; the Patch is supposed to be a family accessible forum.

Adam, since I already own a couple of handguns, I'll be in compliance with Romney's potential law. I'm not qualified to speak for liberals, since I'm a mixed breed of political leanings.

I'm sure the Black family unit was in much better shape back in the slavery days. Back when the Blacks were just property to be sold down the river.

I wonder if the ingrained racism of this nation is more to blame with the Black family situation than the Great Society. Remember when they slapped big jail sentences on crack users and left the light sentences on cocaine? It wasn't the White folks filling the jails and prisons with the episode of the war on drugs. Of course, the Randian libertarians don't think there should be any laws against drug use. Personal freedom.

It appears you are afraid to discuss the racist tendancies of some of those who participate in these comments. Some prefer to keep their family forum comments about racism hided under a white sheet with a pointy top wore in the dark of night.

PB&J/JPN with more information and some historical perspective we can augment your public (non) education and enhance your conservative leanings. Celebrating the second amendment is an excellent place to start.

Since you're fascinated by men in pointy white sheets and see the specter of Bull Connor with a fire hose around every corner let's review what they didn't tell you about the Ku Klux Klan in school. After the Civil War the KKK was founded as the terrorist arm of the democratic party. The democratic party declared itself to be the party of white men and democratic legislatures enacted Jim Crow laws and Black Codes by day while the KKK committed lynchings, mutilations and intimidation by dark of night. Not every democrat was in the KKK but every Klansman was a democrat.

With respect to the institution of slavery it would be fair to say democrats gave their lives to defend it while republicans gave their lives to eliminate it. The republican party was founded in 1854 as the anti-slavery party and 6 of its 9 planks addressed civil rights. In 1865 the 13th amendment to end slavery is passed, all republicans vote for it but only 23 percent of democrats (including northern democrats) vote to approve it. In 1868 the 14th Amendment is passed establishing citizenship and equal protection for all in Federal law. 100 percent of republicans vote yes, every democrat votes no.

In 1869, the 15th Amendment established the right to vote regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude with 98 percent of republicans voting yes and 97 percent democrats voting no.

This pattern continued through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with 80 percent of the vote opposing it coming from democrats (despite JFK and Lyndon Johnson) and support from 80 percent of the republicans in congress (and no, conservative dixiecrats did not join the republican party en masse after the 1960's—they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than a republican.)

In a remarkable turn of historical revisionism the far left was able to hijack the civil rights movement and paint republicans as the fonts of racism and sexism. For 40 years they controlled the media, the universities and ran a narrative of permanent victimized classes entitled to special treatment. The result is too many Americans living on an economic plantation that produces dependency and entitlement instead of personal responsibility and upward mobility.

Democrats have been running our urban areas for 45 years, trillions have been spent in Lyndon Johnson's War On Poverty yet our inner city poor still suffer high rates of poverty, drug abuse, crime and family dysfunction. You see "ingrained racism" everywhere, I see racial games and a grievance culture of handouts run by white liberals that keeps blacks poor, angry and voting democratic.

P.S. Bull Connor was a democrat and a member of the Klan.

Adam, you said "In 1869, the 15th Amendment established the right to vote regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude with 98 percent of republicans voting yes and 97 percent democrats voting no."

This vote was 143 years ago. Do think we have the same Democratic and Republican parties today as then? They use the same names, but they are different beasts. A little more digging and you will see that the states with the Democrat votes in 1869 are today Republican states and visa versa.

The Repulbican Party of today should quit insulting the memory of Lincoln and stop calling itself "the Party of Lincoln." It ain't and hasn't been for a long time.

The Great Society of LBJ was signed into law with LBJ saying something about the Democrats losing the South for a generation -- or two or three.

I think your argument works well for those who don't look at the granularity of the historical context. Just because a senator had a D designation in 1869 doesn't mean the same thing as a D today. I know conservatives are all about returning to the good old days that weren't so good and using the Democrats of 1869 as your example is an excellent example of how misguided conservatives can be in their search to return to a place that never was.

"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today." - Thomas Sowell

So the democrats are now the republicans and if you only know one thing it's that liberals are good and conservatives are evil? That's pretty lame even by the standards of hopelessly indoctrinated ignorance.

The good news is despite the Democratic Party's racist and illiberal history (and the fact Lincoln was a republican) we live in the least bigoted nation in human history. Resist the siren song of modern liberalism that sides with evil over good and the behaviors that lead to failure rather than success. If you want to move past racism we have to move past reflexive, politicized accusations of racism.

Adam, I would certainly not say liberals or Democrats are good and conservative and Republicans are evil. I think the the scream, shout and insult finges of those groups are the problem. Everything in moderation and politcs is all about moderating the public business.

History is to be learned and the lessons learned from history need to be used to work for a better futre. Unfortunately, we have to rely on elected politicians to do our bidding. Many of them are there, not because of their problem solving skills and abilities, but rather beause of their ability to do the puppet dance.

Ed, companies have been dropping health care coverage for years...especially for the low-wage, unskilled labor type jobs. They likely won't be dropping health care for competitive, skilled jobs. Some companies are shifting from providing health care insurance to providing a benefit that allows employees to pick their own coverage.

Health care is an employee benefit and to say a company is dropping it stikes me as an odd statement. Without an alternative solution, the company would basically be making a significant cut in an employee's benefit package with is part of the overall compensation package.

You are the only one who used the word "fairness" on this page. Since you mentioned it, what part of "fairness" makes "a conservative positively ill"? Are conservatives anti-fair? Do conservatives prefer a rigged game?

Ed, companies have been doing this shift benefits shift over the past decade or more. They have been doing this since before Obama was elected to the Senate. Therefore, the shift is not necessarily due to ObamaCare.

You wrote: "All this fairness talk makes a conservative positively ill."

I was wondering if conservatives are anti-fairness.

I consider myself a conservative on many issues. For instance, the death penalty. I am for the death penalty if it is fairly applied. If the poor get the death penalty because they can't pay for high power attorneys to save their necks, I'm opposed to the death penalty. In other words, I'm in favor of the death penalty -- if fairly applied.

I think it would be "fair", if Warren Buffet pays the same percentage in taxes as his secretary.

Ed, thanks for the compliment! Never forget that the progressive movement grew out of the party of Lincoln. Only a progressive would free the slaves. The Founding Fathers only saw fit to make them 3/5 of a person. Obviously, it was the 1 percenters of 1776 writing the Constitution.

Ed, it appears you are afraid of the facts. Many of the Founding Fathers were slave owners. George Washington was one of the richest men in the country. Blacks were considered 3/5 of a person. Not sure why I need a history lesson. Perhaps you can explain why.

It's also a fact that large percentage of people living in the US at the time of the Revolution would have been just as happy under English rule. Likewise, the Revolution almost didn't happen.

The Constitution is a document of compromise and it should be subjected to thoughtful, debated change and compromise over the passage of time. I also greatly admire Justice Roberts for having the spine to stand up for change in our nation. I also don't see Obamacare taking away any of my freedoms.

Ed, if you can't summarize those two subjects into a couple of coherent sentences, I'm not wasting my time Googling them. Why not tell us how you really feel and not rely on the cut-n-paste world of Google?

Ed, what makes me a liberal in your eyes? Is it because we are not agreeing on everything here? I suspect, if I agreed with you and spewed your talking points, I would be a conservative. Therefore, if I don't agree with you, I must be a liberal. Maybe I'm a moderate? Maybe if your view moderates are liberals? What I like about political wonks like yourself is that you only need a white and black colors in your box of Crayons.

Ed, when you say "Moderates are people who can't make up their mind," it emphasizes my point that anything to the left of your thinking is lumped into the same category. It's black-n-white to you. It's right or wrong. You are right and I therefore must be wrong if I don't agree with your perspective.

It think that type of thinking is very interesting in a nation of 312 million people. I would think out of that many people with such a diverse mixture of ethnic, religious, financial, etc. backgrounds, that we'd need more than two crayons to paint a picture of the solutions needed to address the realities we face.

Afterall, politics isn't about one view point dominating another view point. It's about people with different views and experiences, etc. working together to find ways to live together. To think conservatives have all the right answers is just as wrong as thinking the liberals have all the right answers.

Perhaps the role of the moderate is to learn from the many options and find something that will work politically. Believe, I can make up my mind when I need to, but I don't believe in letting my opinions and viewpoints to be the bottle-fed Kool Aid of the politic pundits and demagogues of the liberal and conservative media outlets.

Ed, depending on what the issue is, you will find me to be a liberal, progressive, moderate, conservative, libertarian, etc.

Examples:

Death Penalty: I'm in favor of it, as long as it's equally apprlied.

Abortion: I'm against it personally, but I am opposed to the government telling people how to me make their personal decisions.

Guns: I got a couple and I ain't turning them over to the government without a fight. I lean away from allowing people to own automatic weapons and Sherman tanks.

Taxes: I would prefer that billionaires pay a higher percentage in taxes than me, but I don't think they should pay a lower percentage than me. I would settle for them paying the same percentage as me.

I you think about it a little deeper, you will see you hold a views on a variety of issues that fall into different categories of the political spectrum.

If you are shocked that I can hold a variety of opinions in my head without my brain exploding, consider that I am 57 and have had a variety of personal, education, financial, family, genetic, etc. experiences and encounters in my life that make me think and feel the way I do.

If you think I'm wrong for being who I am and think I should be more like you, so be it. It would certainly be a scary world if everybody thought and felt the same way as I do.

You know what I mean?

One reason I lean towards a progressive tax system is because I believe the more you make the likely you are to be able to leverage the system through tax breaks and credits. Think mortgage and daycare deductions, etc.

I believe I'd prefer billionaires to pay a higher percentage in taxes. I'll settle for the same percentage. For instance, remove the $106,800 cap on social security tax and have it apply to all income. That way, everyone would pay 6.2% -- a flat tax.

How about charge the same tax rate on capital gains as income. This has been done before. Reagan's tax program had this in.

Actually, I hardly complaining at all about taxes. They don't seem to up very much and actually seem to go up and down. Paying a little more or a little less in taxes won't impact my happiness much.

The idea of a progressive tax system... In the United States, the first progressive income tax was established by the Revenue Act of 1862, which was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln. So I guess you could say the Republicans started the progressive tax in the US.

Nope. It's part of being a member of the community called the US of A. Perhaps we would completely eliminate payouts to billionaires like Warren Buffet and George Soros.

With a flat tax of 17 percent, this issue is determining the income. What deductions, tax credits, etc. are you going to allow? What do you consider to be income? Are capital gains treated different than income? Do hedge fund managers get to classify their billion-dollar income as income or capital gains?

Where did you get the 17 percent number from? Would you be in favor out having a flat tax on social security with no cap?

I'm not swayed by the Reagan-Clinton points you made. Depending on the ecnomic cycle, the historical time frame and a big list of varibles, the economy is going to do what it's going to do.

Take the interest rate. Economic theory tells us the lower it is the more the economy will be stimulated and expand. Over the last few years, you could have had a negative interest rate, i.e., paid people to take money and they wouldn't have. Perhaps they learned their lesson when the housing bubble burst.

Judging from the widening income gap and the fact that the average tax paid be the top 400 US billionaires, there is not a lot of evidence to support the bigger tax check statement you made. Over the years, I've paid bigger tax checks because my income grew. When we saw the stock market hitting the 13,000+ mark a few years back, there were a lot of people making a lot of money -- on paper -- and they should have been paying bigger tax checks.

What did you think about Lincoln and the progressive tax?

Ed, how could the cliff lie just ahead? Ten years ago, when Bush pushed his tax cuts through, he did it on the premise we'd have surpluses starting in 2010 and stretching out till 2035. They even were saying we might have the national debt paid out!

Let's just say the $50K line prvodes a level that covers the basic nescessities.

Perhaps a good place to start cutting spending would be the military. If that is not a government welfare program, I don't know what is.

Ed, time will tell where the edge of the cliff is. It's interesting to note that all was worry and concern about growing debt and deficit didn't start until the day after Obama was inaugurated. Where was the conservative concern when Bush was doubling the debt and driving up the deficits.

From my observation, elected officials at the national level appear to be able to step on the spending gas pedal but don't seem to be able to hit the brakes. The time to hit the brakes when financial times are good -- like when the country was experiencing surpluses at the end of the Clinton administration.

But no, Bush cut taxes and started two credit-card wars, pushed through the unfunded Medicare Part D program and did some stimulus at the end of his term with the wheels came off of the economy.

So in comes Obama and has to drive the economic bus as it lurches towards the cliff of global collapse. Anyone today calling themselves a conservative who wasn't shouting about financial carelessness through most of the Bush years gets tagged by me as a TEA Party junk yard dog -- they bark and they bite but they don't know why.

If you were paying attention early in the Bush years and speaking up, I respect your opinion. If you weren't, I question the level of your understanding to the economic situation.

Ed, what category do you fall into?

Ed, the Bush tax cuts happened in 2001. The early 2000s recession was a decline in economic activity which occurred mainly in developed countries. The recession affected the European Union mostly during 2000 and 2001 and the United States mostly in 2002 and 2003. The tax cuts weren't related to the recession. They were related to the surpluses Clinton and the Gingerich Congress engineered.

Extending the Bush tax cuts by Obama might give him a few more votes. Myself, I think the promise of tax cuts is a little overrated. It sounds good, but can you really tell? Does an additional $20 a paycheck every two weeks really get you fired up politically?

Obama has to keep his foot on the spending gas pedal, if he want to get related in November. If he loses, then Ronmey will be the listening to the TEA Party rallies on tax day in 2013. Remember, the TEA Party rallies started around April 15 in 2009. Obama was getting the blame only three months after taking to oath of office.

I attended at least five TEA Party rallies since April 2009. Interesting point is that you rarely hear Bush's name mentioned and you hear Reagan's name mention in the same breath as God's. Reagan too talked the "fiscal conservative" line and spent like a drunken sailor. Like Bush, Reagan left record debt and deficits.

Obama inherited an awful mess. Certainly you must agree with that?

There are areas of improvement that I see have come under Obama's leadership.

In February 2009, Obama's first full month in office, the unemployment rate was 8.3%. Currently, the unemployment rate in July 2012 is was down to 8.2%. Although a small improvement, it is an improvement.

How does Obama compare to Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush?

In Reagan's first full month in office, Feb. 2009, the unemployment rate was 7.4%. In July 2004, the unemployment rate was 7.5%.

In Senior Bush's first full month in office, Feb. 1989, the unemployment rate was 5.2%. In July 1992, the unemployment rate was up to 7.7%.

In Clinton's first full month in office, Feb. 1993, the unemployment rate was 7.1%. In July 1996, the unemployment rate was down to 5.5%.

In Junior Bush's first full month in office, Feb. 2001, the unemployment rate was 4.2%. In July of 2008, the unemployment rate was up to 5.5%.

Obviously, Obama has not made the unemployment rate worse...like the three most recent conservative Republican Presidents before him did in their first 41 full months in office,

Do you have any specifics to backup your "only made it worse" statement?

Ed, you are a little insulting for someone who wants to engage in an adult conversation about politics. Please tell me how the facts and figures concerning unemployment are talking points and "Democratic underground bilge?"

Here's a link to the US Dept. of Labor statistics site that will allow you to do your own research. Is not what a stated in my comments about the unemployment rate factual? I didn't say it was something to brag about, but it is an improve.

Can you answer this simple question was a yes or a no:

Has the unemployment rate improvement under Obama since his first full month in office?

Ed, where exactly do you get your facts from? You said Obama was sworn into office in Dec. 2008. He won the election in November 2008 and was sworn into office on January 20th, 2009. Until Obama took the oath of office, W. Bush was in charge.

In the unemployment metric I presented is based on facts covering the same time periods for the president mentioned above. There is not manipulation of facts. It's simple comparisons of percentages.

Now that you understand when Obama took control of the office of president and basing the data from the first full month in office to the July 2012 rate provided by the Bureau of Labor, can you answer this simple question was a yes or a no:

Has the unemployment rate improvement under Obama since his first full month in office?

I was able to answer the flat tax question with a yes or a no...

Ed, why would you include Dec. 2008 or January 2009 in Obama's term?

To your question, "Did the unemployment rate go up after Obama's first full month in office?," I emphatically have to answer yes. It peaked at 10% in Oct. 2010. In fact, since Reagan took office in January, 1981, there have been 11 months when the unemplyment rate was 10% or more: one month under Obama and 10 months under Reagan.

I never said the unemployment rate hasn't skyurocketed during Obama's time in office. I merely stated conparison facts among the performance of recent Presidents and asked you to answer this simple question: "Has the unemployment rate improvemened under Obama since his first full month in office?"

I always thought you conservatives perfered the simple questions with a yes or a no answer. Can you please answer my question in a comment with the word "yes" or "no."

Ed, I certainly would call a decline in the unemployment rate from 8.3% in Jan. 2009 to 8.2% in July 2012 a "rosy picture." My question, which you seem reluctant to answer with a yes or no is "Has the unemployment rate improvemened under Obama since his first full month in office?"

Myself, I would have to answer my question, based on the facts, with a yes. Granted, in not an impressive improvement, but it is an improvement.

You said earlier that Obama "has only made it worse." I merely brought up the unemployment rate to show you that at least one thing has improved.

You can refute the facts I used in my example. Your inability to answer my question with a simple yes or no points to a major issue in today's political debate. The facts don't matter.

I was interesting the other day when you said this about my answer to your flattax question: "Verbosity is your way of not answering direct questions."

Well Ed, I would say verbosity is your way of not answering direct questions. How about a yes or no to my question:

"Has the unemployment rate improvemened under Obama since his first full month in office?"

I'm sorry Diane but, as the founding fathers recognized, a right is what you are born with when they used the word "inalienable".
Our constitution assigns certain rights to the federal government in a very limited way.

All others belong to the people and the states. This fundamental organizing principle has become polluted and distorted to the point that some think it is the government that hands out rights.

I take issue with those that want to single out smoking, obesity, or any other cause de jour as something to be controlled by a nanny state government for our own good.

As long as the exercise of my right does not harm you, you have no dog in the fight.

Diane, how do you expect to have an intelligent discusion on something as complex as national health care, when you can get some like Ed to tell you if going from an unemployment rate of 8.3% to 8.2% is an improvement?

As I stated earlier, I like the ObamaCare legislation for two major reasons:

1. It is very similar to the healthcare legislation Mitt Romney got passed into law in Mass.

2. It is very similar to the healthcare legislation proposed by the conservative think tank called the Hertigage Foundation.

Not sure such a pro-Constitution organization like the Heritgage Foundation would be pushing unconstitutional legislation?

Ed, since you don't think the government has a right to single out smoking or obesity, I'm assuming you don't think they have a right to tell you what you can smoke and how much you can drink or what you can do with your body and how you can do it with?

PB&J. It was you who made the claim that a .1% change was a rosy picture. Maybe you are confused. go back and read your own posts. You are discrediting yourself with almost every post you make.

As stated earlier, we have learned that Masscare is a failure in that it did not do what it claimed it would.

Ed you are tap dancing around the facts. I pointed out to Diane you can't "expect to have an intelligent discusion on something as complex as national health care, when you can get some like Ed to tell you if going from an unemployment rate of 8.3% to 8.2% is an improvement?" It's not a trick question. By a simple yea or nay, we might be able to achieve a great breakthrough in the political stalemate stalling our great nation. Come on Ed...you can do it! Yea? Or nay?

Ed, substitiute "wouldn't" for "would" in the statement you quoted by me above. You certainly won't hear Obama bragging about how he has reduced the unemployment rate from 8.3 to 8.2 percent.

With a simple "yes" or a simple "no," can you answer my question "Has the unemployment rate improvemened under Obama since his first full month in office?"

Not sure what you are afraid of. No matter how much koolaid I've consumed, I would be hard pressed to not answer my question with a "yes." It's like your whole conservative persona will evaporate if you say yes.

Yes Ed, the truth can be a hard thing to swallow. Luckily there is tea and Koolaid to wash it down with.

I never considered bush a fiscal conservative. I'm sorry if you were confused. Obama certainly isn't.

So your saying that it took Bush 8 years to increase the debt by 5.1 Trillion and it has only taken Obama 3 to increase it by 4.4 Trillion. If he gets reelected I can only image what the 8 year total will be.

Could you name me a recent Republican President who qualifies as a fiscal conservative? What about Reagan? I've been to at least five TEA Party rallies since 2009 and his name is often invoked by the speakers...much more than W. Bush. Surely Reagan must qualify in your holy book of cherished fiscal conservatives?

So Ed, if bad things happen when a Republican is president, it's because of the Democrats.

When Reagan took office, the national debt was $0.9 Trillion. After his third year, the national debt was $1.4T and had grown 152 precent. That's a greater percentage increase than Obama's first three years where the national debt grew by 141 percent.

Can you explain how Reagan understood fiscal conservatism better than Obama? You comment strikes me as a myth of the TEA Party faithful who want to carve Reagan's face on Mt. Rushmore. By the time Reagan left office, the national debt had nearly tripled.

In fact, in 2002, VP Dick Cheney said that Reagan proved that "deficits don't matter." Where were you fiscal conservatives back then? Did you just figure out that the national debt was a problem when Obama took office in January 2009 (of Dec. 2008 in your worldview)?

I know you said that Obama messed up everything, but there are a couple other things that have gotten taken care under his watch:

1. Bin Laden is dead
2. Even though Bush declared "mission accomplished" in 2003 concerning the war in Iraq, eight years later Obama is actually getting us out of a war we should have never started.
3. There is an end in sight for the Afghanistan war.

To me those seem to be some serious accomplishments.

Ed, in my opinion we have one major political party in the US -- the Money Party. The Money Party has two branches -- Democrats and Republicans.

The Democrats are the party of special interest asking for bigger handouts, as you state. I would add to that the Republicans are the party of special interests forever asking for bigger tax cuts, credits and loopholes.

I'm not sure when 9/11 happened in the history books you read, but in my history book it happened on Sept. 11, 2001 when W. Bush was President. Too bad he wasn't more vilgilent in stopping it 9/11. Of course, you want to blame Clinton for 9/11. Likewise, you don't want to give Obama credit for getting Bin Laden. Funny how that works...

You skipped over the wars. Remember the Iraq War that Bush started and that Obama is ending? Now there definately was a war that didn't need to happen. During the last three years of the Bush administration, 2041 Americans were killed in Iraq. During Obama's watch, only 264 American have been killed in Iraq.

Looks like Obama is better at saving American lives than controlling spending and creating cash flow in the worst economic downturn in the last 80 years.

Clinton may have been offered Bin Laden's head, but there was now legitimate reason to go to war in Iraq. That decision has cost 4486 American lives to date.

It was Bush who said this about Cindy Sheehan, "her damn dead son ruined my whole summer vacation."

Compassionate conservatism...

The wide spread support was based on hyped-up, bogus intelligence that was discredited before the war started. I was opposed to the Iraq War long before I started and I supported the Afghanistan War. Once the Iraq War started, Bush treated the Afghan War as a sideshow.

I go to TEA Party rallies to hear what is being talked about. Some stuff I hear I like and some I don't. The same thing happens at Democrat rallies I go to.

I usually know a couple of the speakers from e-mails and other encounters of the political kind. Besides, TEA Party rallies are open to the public and I'm a member of the public.

I also enjoy chatting with TEA Partiers and learning about Obama being born in Kenya and stuff like Reagan paid off the national debt. The union bashing is interesting, since a good number of the TEA Party goers are union members. They tell me the speakers are bashing the union leaders...although it doesn't sound like that to me.

Have you been to any TEA Party rallies?

I have no doubt Saddam was a problem. Bush Sr. went to war with him in 1991. If we are going to take out evil dictator in the world, we've got a big job in front of us. It seems the evil dictators that bother us the most are the ones that happen to dictate over lands with lots of oil reserves below them.

I signed no recall petitions and had plenty of opportunities. Interesting points about the recall:

1. 30+% of the union voters in the 2010 election voted for Walker

2. 200K recall Walker petition signers didn't vote in the 2010.

The union feel asleep in the 2010 elections and their ox got gored. Elections have consequences. Hopefully the union folks learned that.

Ed, in the 2008 elections, there were a ton of people working on the Democrat campaigns...even on the campoaigns for state assembly and senator. In the November 2010 off-year, election, there was a small handful of people working for the Democrats running for senate and assembly. Of course, the Republicans pretty much run the electoral table in western Wisconsin, but at the least you can do is show up for the game.

Throughout the recall elections, I kept reminding my inflamed Democrat friends that Republicans might be a bunch on neandrathals, but at least they know enough to drga their knuckles to the polls and vote.

Ed, you sound like the Democrats did in 2004 and the Republicans did in 2006.

I remember the Democrats in 2004 saying they were going to move to Canada if Bush got re-elected. Today I hear Republicans saying they are going to move to the Cayman Islands or Switzerland if Obama wins re-election.

Back in 2004, Bush was the NAZI and now Obama's the NAZI. Back in 2004, Bush was using the Constitution for toilet paper and in 2012 Obama is using it for TP.

My guess is I will lose zero mintues of sleep over the results of the November election. My other guess, is that Ronmey is going to play the part John Kerry played in the 2004 election.

Got no idea how those TEA Partiers could vote for Romney. He's a moderate. How can they trust him? I tell all my TEA Party firends not to believe Ronmey, because I think he'd flip them off in a heartbeat, if he gets elected. Mormons tend to actually have a heart, while the conservative fingers tend to have a blood pump.

Ed, politics without a sense of humor is a pretty sad state of affairs. Would you like me to do some Democrat sterotyping?

I don't have a problem with Obama being re-elected. If he isn't re-elected, I won't lose any sleep.

Ed, evidently, your hair catches on fire much easier than mine. Other than more shouting, spit showers and stupity on the Internet and cable TV, I don't see much more than slow change in our political landscape. People living at the edge of the cliff on the left and right tend to see the end of the world coming and the end of modern civilization as we know it.

I would say, as a whole, most liberals are America-destroying sissies, who, if their brains were taxed, would get a rebate. On the other hand, most conservatives are baby-seal-clubbing lemmings who are nothing but a pimple on the ass of progress. In the long run, the liberals and conservatives tend to cancel eachother out. In the short run, I'm stopping at the liquor to pick up some beer on the way home from work.

Concerning debt doubling -- which seems to happen whether the President has an R of D after their name -- If an actual fiscal conservative gets elected to the office of President and proves it in the first term, I will vote to re-elected him...even if its a Republican. Since I've never voted for a Republican for Prez, that would be a big change for me.

Ed, so you say it's already too late. Re-relecting Obama will speed up our demise and electing Romney will will delay our inevitable demise. Apparently, the major problem in your worldview is the refrom of entitlements.

What entitlements should be reformed? Food stamps? Mortgage deductions? Childcare tax credits? Tax credits for employee helath care premiums? Farm subsidies?

It's a complicated mixture. First you have to define entitlements. Would you call social security an entitlement? Since I've been paying into SS since I was 13 years old, I would say I'm entitled to get sometime back.

Since the cuts would come in the budget, here are the major budget catefories and % of the budget:

1. Defense = 20% of budget
2. Social Security = 20 % of the budget
3. Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP = 21%
4. Safety net programs = 13%
5. Interest on the national debt = 6%
6. Other programs (federal govt retirees, veterans, education, science and research, non-security, others) = 19%

Where would you start cutting?

Ed, I know there is no guarantee that I will recieve anything back in SS. It would be kind of stupid to keep a lock box on SS. Luckily the money I have paid in to SS as a payroll tax has been loan to my government -- the government of the greatest nation on Earth. Since I have confidence in my government and know that it doesn't run on the same Ponzi scheme of private industry and individuals, I sure I'll get a good share of what I paid in back...depending on how long I live. Perhaps the ObamaCare death panels will determine unfit to live and kill me off early to reduce demand on SS payouts.

With your worldview, I hope you are buying lots of gold, stocking up on guns and ammo, building a bomb shelter and preparing for the end times.

I think we need to make serious cuts in the military budget and I think we need to have some strategic tax increases. I wouldn't make cuts in the social safety net until we see an significant economic upturn. I would look at putting caps on SS payouts.

I would also recommend you spend more time watching Dr. Phil and less time on the Internet.

My delusion results from the fact that I am an optimistic realist. I optimistic that things will work out for the best, but I'm realistic to know that that might not happen.

Reducing the military budget would help cut the budget. Ending the Bush tax cuts for every one would bring in a few trillion. Those would help slow down the growth of the national debt.

Personally, I think they should just let the Bush tax cuts expire period. I think it's a parlor game topic and the reality is it won't make much difference to the individual. However, keeping the cuts for those below $250K will ke more money in the pockets that are likely to spend it and help make up for the consumption issue dragging down the economy.

Afterall, the original intention of the Bush tax cuts was for them to expire.

I don't believe there are more than a small handful of economists who will tell you that the US can reduce its national debt and related issues strictly through budget cuts and entitlement cuts. 99 percent of working economists will tell you serious attempts to solve these problems will require a combination of spending cuts and tax hikes.

Do think Bill Gates "earned" every dollar he made? Do you think hedge fund managers deserve to have their earned income classified as capital gains so they can pay the lower capitals gains rate on their income? Do you think the Koch borthers earned every dollar they have -- since they inherited the business from their father who got started by helping Joe Stalin get Russia's oil industry moderized?

The tax adjustments wouldn't be strictly on income. There is inheritance and estate taxes that could use some adjusting.

There are plenty of politicians who spend a lot of time on their knees like the boots of Grover Norquist and pandering to the TEA Party, as they promise "no new taxes." I think we have plenty of types of taxes, we just need to tweak them in a fair and common sense manner.

We need to educate our children for the future and we need to educate today's workers to upgrade their skills for today's needs.

My guess is that you think we just need to get rid of food stamps and cut unemployment to three months and the problem will be solved.

Ed, how have I outed myself? I believe in a progressive tax code. I don't believe in a welfare state and I believe people should get off their collective butts and get a job.

I don't actually think this country was built on "freedom," considering the practice of slavery and the exploitation of the poor and immigrants. But hey, you got to work your way up from the bottom and I think the country has provided the opportunity to do so.

I'm all in favor of reasonable taxation and that includes income, inheritiance, estates, etc.

Interesting story on putting the clamps on welfare:

"Taking aim at what they call an abuse of the taxpayers' money, a growing number of states are blocking welfare recipients from spending their benefits on booze, cigarettes, lottery tickets, casino gambling, tattoos and strippers..."

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/new-welfare-restrictions-target-1480317.html

Not sure how you pull it off, but I think there's a lot leaks in the welfare ship that need plugging.

Do you think the federal government should implement a balanced budget requirement?

PB&J, what possible business is it of yours to determine how much is too much?

People have the right to their own property and should not live in fear of the government taking it away while those with less cheer.

As far as public schools go. Parents would still make sure their children are educated if their wasn't a single government school. This scares the crap out the statists among us but it is true. People put more trust in government than it deserves. They seldom if ever get it right.

BTW-You and Marx are in agreement with the progressive income tax.

There's a lot of businesses that don't believe in property rights, i.e., eminent domain. The 16th Amendment allows the federal government to levy income taxes. If earned income is private property then the federal government appears to be able to confiscate your property.

I'm not necessarily in favor of expanding the spending pie. I am in favor of adjusting the revenue pie. I think it can be adjsted in a more just and equitable manner. Do you think I am wrong for working towards this?

So Ed,you'd prefer to have the rich decide what is equitable? Obviously, we have a different perspective on that.

So you say the eminent domain has never been used in obtaining private property that will be used for uses that will not enrich private enterprises? Is all about the public good?

You say "confiscate is what the Federal Government does. The issue is how much is too much and how it is being spent." Of course that is what the public debate is and what politics is all about. Taxes rates should be set somewhere between 0 - 100%. The question is where. That's what all the shouting is all ablut.

If I said the income tax rate should be 99% and you said it should be 1%, who is correct or right? Why?

I'm sure you will be happy next year when Ron Kind is no longer your congressman. No doubt Duffy will vote your interests. Of course, shuffling Congressional districts around only makes it easier for Kind and Duffy to win their districts, i.e., the races will become less competitive.

How many of those "small business men" are actually paying taxes? My state assembly rep, John Murtha, has a number of consecutive years of not paying any state income taxes. He says it's because he's in the rolloff dumpster business and construction is down. Believe me, construction was down in 2004-2006. Even after he was be paid his rep salary he didn't pay taxes. Owns a plane, nice cabine up north, etc. and says because I'm not a business owner I wouldn't understand.

I think I understand. There's political wool being pulled over our eyes in the name of the mythical "small business man." Diane Hendricks, the richest woman in Wisconsin, had a state income tax bill of zero for 2010. Her worth was estimated by Forbes Magazine to be $2.8 billion. She also gave Walker $500K for his recall campaign. I don't know about Denmark, but something is rotten in Wisconsin.

You're pretty simplistic about the tax discussion. I think there should be a fair and equitable tax code and you think I therefore hate the rich.

Because I don't understand why the richest woman in Wisconsin doesn't pay income state income taxes doesn't mean I hate the rich. It's mean, from my perspective, there's a problem with the tax code.

Why are there so many not paying taxes, when in 1984, the middle of the Reagan era, 85% of Americans paid federal income tax. What happen? Why did the number drop during the Reagan years?

Pretty simple ain't Ed. If I don't agree with Ed on taxes, I hate the rich. If my opinion doesn't doetail with Ed's about ways to deal with politcal challenges, I must me a liberal or a progressive or socialism or whatever your putdown phrase of the week is. I know how bullies work.

You don't have to agree with me Ed. Obviously, you have a hard time holding an adult conversative on complex subjects and default to the cheapshot talking points that dominate politcal urination fights today.

You would with me over by insulting me. You'll actually make it less likiely I would serach for common ground in the compromises needed to solve these issues.