Redistribution, The Middle Class and Fly Over Country

The problem with ‘redistribution’ is that it flows both ways. We redistribute income to Major car companies, Banks, Green Energy failures and the corporate world in general. We pass legislation specific to a single company, or industry; in some cases a specific individual; both political parties at fault! We skip blithely over the $700 billion in TARP, but that’s only the tip of the iceberg. The sum total of worse case liabilities in TARP is $26.7 trillion. That is some major redistribution, most of it upwards to those self same folks the President was hell bent to get to pay their ‘fair share’. If you’re having trouble connecting the dots of rhetoric with the dots of reality, don’t feel bad; they don’t connect in any common sense way.

We also redistribute income to the least among us which is how we typically think about redistribution. We promote and advertise benefits to folks who may have never even thought of signing up. We then redistribute to the point of dependency.

Whichever way we redistribute it always seems to jump over the Middle Class. Fly over country is not geographical, it’s economic and social. The President took great pains to kiss the collective butts of the Middle Class during the campaign; he knows there are votes there, he also knows that’s where the money is.

The Middle Class should immediately focus on their true value, 2%! 2% of their income went away as the President did not fight to keep the payroll tax holiday in effect, but he did fight for extending unemployment benefits. The Middle Class got a political and economic bitch slap. It’s not the first and short of political uprising it won’t be the last.

One would have thought that, based on the campaign rhetoric, keeping the payroll tax holiday in place would have been a cause célèbre for the President. Nope, he may not care that much for you now that the election is over, but he sure does love your money.

  • Bill Hedges

    Tried & true answer IS NOT TAX HIKES on rich. When has tax hikes WORKED BETTER than tax cut for rich ? Name it !!! I WILL NAME every tax cut for rich as proof they WORK.

    BEST ‘redistribution’ for poor & middle class IS tax cuts for RICH. AS WELL AS DONE IN THE PAST tax cuts for them AS WELL…

    1. Author wrote “That is some major redistribution, most of it upwards to those self same folks the President was hell bent to get to pay their ‘FAIR SHARE’

    Frightening reality for liberals IS, IS, IS, RICH PAY MORE in taxes with reduced tax rate. EVERY SINGLE TIME tax rates were dropped for RICH. Here is some of the proof to prove. ALL NUMBERS FROM CBO:

    “Not surprisingly, the wealthy are also paying more of the tab now than they did 30 years ago. In 1980, the top 5% of income earners paid 37% of all income tax revenue, while the bottom 50% paid 7%. By 2009, the top 5% of earners paid a whopping 59%, while the bottom half of earners paid just 2.25% of the total pie.”

    THESE ARE CBO REAL NUMBERS. NOT CBO estimates which is guesswork which underestimates tax cuts for rich GOOD EFFECTS EVERY TIME. REMEMBER Bush tax cuts were suppose to cost revenue NOT increase. Bush tax cuts INCREASED revenue.

    Yes. Rich got richer with tax cuts. Because they had the nerve to INVEST, CREATE JOB, TAKE RISK. Top 5% went from 37% to 59 % of income tax collected from 1980-2009. UNLIKE NOW with tax hikes flying around like popping corn. Here now or on their way. EPA hamming out with all sorts of $$$ pot hole regulations. Present now or hovering above our heads.A health plan that CBO claims is death warrant for America. Have to be nearly certifiable insane to open most businesses NOW. THEY WANT to cut rich investors head off.

    2. “We also redistribute income to the least among us which is how we typically think about redistribution”

    UNDER buma we do this with sorely needed government revenue. Whereas, through TAX CUTS, RICH do it:

    “Many believe the Reagan and Bush tax cuts overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy. However, data from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that poor and middle income Americans have benefited more than the wealthy.”

    YES. “poor and middle income Americans have benefited more than the wealthy” FROM TAX CUTS FOR RICH. ALSO remember less than rich got tax cuts AS WELL. Also remember rich paid more taxes.

    “In 1979, the poorest 20% of earners paid no income tax. By 2007, that same group had a negative income tax rate of 6.8%. In other words, they took home 6.8% more than they paid in to the federal government.”

    3. Also “Whichever way we redistribute it always seems to jump over the Middle Class”

    Middle income Americans paid an effective income tax rate (the amount paid after deductions) of .5% in 1979. That rate was cut to .3% in 2007, a drop of more than 50%.

    “Even when taking into account all federal taxes, the poor and middle class have benefited more than their wealthy counterparts. In 1979, the total effective federal tax rate (including payroll taxes, excise, capital gains, estate, and corporate taxes) was 8 % for the poorest Americans and 18.6% for middle income earners. Thanks to the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, those rates fell 50% and 23%, respectively. The top one percent of earners had their total effective tax rate fall 21% over the same time period.”

    http://www.policymic.com/articles/3701/who-really-benefited-from-the-bush-tax-cuts

  • Bill Hedges

    Copy & Paste did not carry over properly. Should be:

    “Americans paid an effective income tax rate (the amount paid after deductions) of 7.5% in 1979. That rate was cut to 3.3% in 2007, a drop of more than 50%”

  • Bob

    Has anyone else noticed the almost total silence from the GOP(so called)LEADERSHIP CONCERNING ANY OF THE PROPOSALS THAT HAVE THROWN OUT BY THE LEFT SINCE THE ELECTION.

    Hardly a peep from the OPPOSITION PARTY(?)on the debt,gun control,or even the nominations for cabinet positions.The Republican leadership seem to have their finger to the wind or their plan of action is to remain in the fetal position and defeat the radical right of the party.There are ample opportunities to air their views through the conservative media but by their silence they are lending credence to the cretins stratagems of each of us buying one share of common stock in an egalitarian government.The speaker has somehow managed to keep his post and at the RNC winter meetings (23-25 January in Charlotte N.C.)they will very likely have the head of the RNC keep his job.The only Republicans who were heard from is Gov.Christie and Colin Powell and they were both criticial of the Conservative wing.

    Their silence while immediately satisfactory to the leadership isn’t a balm to heal nor a direction to take going into 2014 mid-term elections.They also need to remember if you make a deal with the devil you are the junior partner.

  • Bill Hedges

    1. What ARE you talking about ? “They also need to remember if you make a deal with the devil you are the junior partner”. What “deal with the devil” ? Last election has barely been counted. 2014 election is close to 2 years off.

    2. Colin Powell is ” criticial ” of conservatives ??? He’s FOR the bum:

    October 25, 2012 7:56 AM

    “Colin Powell endorses Barack Obama for president”

    “(CBS News) Former Secretary of State Colin Powell broke with the Republican party during the 2008 election, to endorse then-candidate Barack Obama for president, calling Obama a “transformational figure.”

    “With 12 days to go before the presidential election, Powell publicly endorsed President Obama for re-election on “CBS This Morning” Thursday”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57539893/colin-powell-endorses-barack-obama-for-president/

    3. Gov.Christie is also ” criticial ” ??? I found NONE of THAT. Found him defending his actions:

    “Conservatives Bash Christie For Cooperating With Obama Post-Sandy”

    http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/10/31/1120421/christie-obama-conservatives/?mobile=nc

    “Christie Says Critics Shouldn’t Blame Him for Romney Loss”

    http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/12/11/08/christie-says-critics-shouldn-t-blame-him-for-romney-loss/

  • Bob
  • Bill Hedges

    Yes Bob, as I said, 3. Gov.Christie is also ” criticial ” ??? I found NONE of THAT. Found him defending his actions:

    3. Gov.Christie is also ” criticial ” ??? I found NONE of THAT. Found him defending his actions:

    Part 2

    Bob wrote “Hardly a peep from the OPPOSITION PARTY(?)on the debt,gun control,or even the nominations for cabinet positions.The Republican leadership seem to have their finger to the wind or their plan of action is to remain in the fetal position and defeat the radical right of the party.There are ample opportunities to air their views through the conservative media but by their silence they are lending credence to the cretins stratagems of each of us buying one share of common stock in an egalitarian government. ”

    “plan of action is to remain in the fetal position” IS CUTE but inaccurate.

    I looked up “fox news on gun control” & found MORE THAN a “peep”:

    1. “Liberal think tank vows national campaign to push for more gun control”

    January 13, 2013

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/13/influential-think-tank-gives-obama-gun-control-proposal-that-includes-executive/#ixzz2HvUJTSsJ

    2. “NRA: WE HAVE VOTES TO BLOCK GUN CONTROL [VIDEO]”

    http://radio.foxnews.com/2013/01/13/nra-we-have-votes-to-block-gun-control-video/

  • Bill Hedges

    In your link:

    “If “the continued suffering of these victims” means New Jerseyans need FEMA-type aid yesterday and aren’t getting it, Gov. Christie’s complaint is with his friend, Barack Obama.”

    NOT EXACTLY DOING AS YOU WROTE:

    “The only Republicans who were heard from is Gov.Christie and Colin Powell and they were both criticial of the Conservative wing.”

  • Bill Hedges

    YOUR comments are leaking water all over the floor of this article, yet you don’t give much of a leak stop from my bullets poking hugh holes in your water pipes. Nothing you’ve said IS standing on dry floor.

    If you can not support the statements you have ALREADY said DON’T START EXPANDING with NEW stuff like “Christie posturing for re-election using the GOP”. FIRST off Christie passed in 2008. Christie NOW is wanting MORE MONEY for his State because of hurricane. “Posturing” indeed ! He COULD HAVE RUN in 2008. I would have voted for him over ALL the others THEN. HE SAID NO. Instead of “Posturing” he is trying to mend fences. As your article supports & my links. It said “If “the continued suffering of these victims” means New Jerseyans need FEMA-type aid yesterday and aren’t getting it, Gov. Christie’s complaint is with his friend, Barack Obama.”

  • Bill Hedges

    Oh yeah Bob, article was not about your hatred of Chairmain of the Party nor Speaker of House. Was about redistribution. Why THIS WAS MY FIRST COMMENET:

    Tried & true answer IS NOT TAX HIKES on rich. When has tax hikes WORKED BETTER than tax cut for rich ? Name it !!! I WILL NAME every tax cut for rich as proof they WORK.

    BEST ‘redistribution’ for poor & middle class IS tax cuts for RICH. AS WELL AS DONE IN THE PAST tax cuts for them AS WELL…

    1. Author wrote “That is some major redistribution, most of it upwards to those self same folks the President was hell bent to get to pay their ‘FAIR SHARE’

    Frightening reality for liberals IS, IS, IS, RICH PAY MORE in taxes with reduced tax rate. EVERY SINGLE TIME tax rates were dropped for RICH. Here is some of the proof to prove. ALL NUMBERS FROM CBO:

    “Not surprisingly, the wealthy are also paying more of the tab now than they did 30 years ago. In 1980, the top 5% of income earners paid 37% of all income tax revenue, while the bottom 50% paid 7%. By 2009, the top 5% of earners paid a whopping 59%, while the bottom half of earners paid just 2.25% of the total pie.”

    THESE ARE CBO REAL NUMBERS. NOT CBO estimates which is guesswork which underestimates tax cuts for rich GOOD EFFECTS EVERY TIME. REMEMBER Bush tax cuts were suppose to cost revenue NOT increase. Bush tax cuts INCREASED revenue.

    Yes. Rich got richer with tax cuts. Because they had the nerve to INVEST, CREATE JOB, TAKE RISK. Top 5% went from 37% to 59 % of income tax collected from 1980-2009. UNLIKE NOW with tax hikes flying around like popping corn. Here now or on their way. EPA hamming out with all sorts of $$$ pot hole regulations. Present now or hovering above our heads.A health plan that CBO claims is death warrant for America. Have to be nearly certifiable insane to open most businesses NOW. THEY WANT to cut rich investors head off.

    2. “We also redistribute income to the least among us which is how we typically think about redistribution”

    UNDER buma we do this with sorely needed government revenue. Whereas, through TAX CUTS, RICH do it:

    “Many believe the Reagan and Bush tax cuts overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy. However, data from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that poor and middle income Americans have benefited more than the wealthy.”

    YES. “poor and middle income Americans have benefited more than the wealthy” FROM TAX CUTS FOR RICH. ALSO remember less than rich got tax cuts AS WELL. Also remember rich paid more taxes.

    “In 1979, the poorest 20% of earners paid no income tax. By 2007, that same group had a negative income tax rate of 6.8%. In other words, they took home 6.8% more than they paid in to the federal government.”

    3. Also “Whichever way we redistribute it always seems to jump over the Middle Class”

    Middle income Americans paid an effective income tax rate (the amount paid after deductions) of .5% in 1979. That rate was cut to .3% in 2007, a drop of more than 50%.

    “Even when taking into account all federal taxes, the poor and middle class have benefited more than their wealthy counterparts. In 1979, the total effective federal tax rate (including payroll taxes, excise, capital gains, estate, and corporate taxes) was 8 % for the poorest Americans and 18.6% for middle income earners. Thanks to the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, those rates fell 50% and 23%, respectively. The top one percent of earners had their total effective tax rate fall 21% over the same time period.”

    http://www.policymic.com/…..h-tax-cuts

  • Bob

    First off think tanks and the NRA ARE NOT THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP !

    Second 2008 is in the past. Gov.Christie is posturing for re-election as Governor this fall.Without winning he and YOU can kiss a 2016 presidential bid by him goodby.He is not trying to mend fences as you suggest his attack is with the slowness of the Republican Congress to allicate money.Even Mr. Hennniger of the WSJ realizes this and states the governors gripe should be with President Obama.

    Third you have proven your ability to cut and paste on numerous occassions.Now is the time for THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP TO TAKE A STAND AGAINST THIS REDISTRIBUTION NOT GO INTO A COCOON.

  • Bob

    Well it seems the REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP IS REFUTING SOMETHING………..THE REPUBLICAN VOTERS! IT SEEMS THEY WANT TO MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR REPUBLICAN INCUMBENTS TO BE DEFEATED.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_scott_rasmussen/republican_establishment_declares_war_on_gop_voters

  • Bill Hedges

    Oh yeah Bob, article was not about your hatred of Chairman of the Party nor Speaker of House. as you wrote:

    “Hardly a peep from the OPPOSITION PARTY(?)on the debt,gun control,or even the nominations for cabinet positions”

    1. “Cuomo, Top Republican Ready For Gun Control Proposals”

    “Albany, N.Y. – New York state leaders made public statements Saturday on gun control.”

    “State Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos, a Republican, submitted a plan to prevent gun violence.”

    “His proposal includes stiffer penalties for criminals who use guns to commit felonies, life in prison without parole for people who kill on-duty emergency responders and stronger punishments for those who use guns in gang violence”

    http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story/skelos-cuomo-guns-control-gun/dtmI4Q7WrkiorvuOprHEjA.cspx

    I’ll agree WITH THAT every day & twice on Sunday. NOT gun control they are trying through treaty or by many demos. Many a demo agree with me on guns. AS NRA said THEY HAVE THE VOTE for NO TOTAL BAN. I can live with limited size clips.

    http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2013/01/gop-opposition-to-cabinet-nominees-makes-the-case-for-filibuster-reform.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BlogForArizona+(Blog+For+Arizona)

    2. “Hardly a peep” on “nominations for cabinet positions”

    “GOP opposition to cabinet nominees makes the case for filibuster reform”. 3 days ago.

    “I could not agree more with Jamelle Bouie: If Republicans want to choose the Cabinet, they should win an election. This unprecedented attempt by a defeated political party to obstruct the cabinet nominations of a victorious president is an abuse of process”

    “This unprecedented assault on cabinet nominees has brought clarity to the issue of filibuster reform. Steve Benen writes, Cabinet pushback and the case for filibuster reform”

    http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2013/01/gop-opposition-to-cabinet-nominees-makes-the-case-for-filibuster-reform.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BlogForArizona+(Blog+For+Arizona)

    “Cabinet pushback and the case for filibuster reform”

    “At a certain level, Senate Republicans huffing and puffing about President Obama’s recent nominations seems irrelevant, since the GOP has a 45-seat minority. Unless Republicans intend to start filibustering qualified nominees — a step without precedent in American history — it’s pretty likely the president will be able to pick the members of his own team.”

    http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/01/10/16447505-cabinet-pushback-and-the-case-for-filibuster-reform?lite

    _____

    What does your last two comments have to do WITH ARTICLE. ANY OF your comments ??

    Author wrote:

    “The problem with ‘redistribution’ is that it flows both ways. We redistribute income to Major car companies, Banks, Green Energy failures and the corporate world in general. We pass legislation specific to a single company, or industry; in some cases a specific individual; both political parties at fault! We skip blithely over the $700 billion in TARP, but that’s only the tip of the iceberg. The sum total of worse case liabilities in TARP is $26.7 trillion. That is some major redistribution, most of it upwards to those self same folks the President was hell bent to get to pay their ‘fair share’. If you’re having trouble connecting the dots of rhetoric with the dots of reality, don’t feel bad; they don’t connect in any common sense way.”

    I wrote FIRST:

    Tried & true answer IS NOT TAX HIKES on rich. When has tax hikes WORKED BETTER than tax cut for rich ? Name it !!! I WILL NAME every tax cut for rich as proof they WORK.

    BEST ‘redistribution’ for poor & middle class IS tax cuts for RICH. AS WELL AS DONE IN THE PAST tax cuts for them AS WELL…

    1. Author wrote “That is some major redistribution, most of it upwards to those self same folks the President was hell bent to get to pay their ‘FAIR SHARE’

    Frightening reality for liberals IS, IS, IS, RICH PAY MORE in taxes with reduced tax rate. EVERY SINGLE TIME tax rates were dropped for RICH. Here is some of the proof to prove. ALL NUMBERS FROM CBO:

    “Not surprisingly, the wealthy are also paying more of the tab now than they did 30 years ago. In 1980, the top 5% of income earners paid 37% of all income tax revenue, while the bottom 50% paid 7%. By 2009, the top 5% of earners paid a whopping 59%, while the bottom half of earners paid just 2.25% of the total pie.”

    THESE ARE CBO REAL NUMBERS. NOT CBO estimates which is guesswork which underestimates tax cuts for rich GOOD EFFECTS EVERY TIME. REMEMBER Bush tax cuts were suppose to cost revenue NOT increase. Bush tax cuts INCREASED revenue.

    Yes. Rich got richer with tax cuts. Because they had the nerve to INVEST, CREATE JOB, TAKE RISK. Top 5% went from 37% to 59 % of income tax collected from 1980-2009. UNLIKE NOW with tax hikes flying around like popping corn. Here now or on their way. EPA hamming out with all sorts of $$$ pot hole regulations. Present now or hovering above our heads.A health plan that CBO claims is death warrant for America. Have to be nearly certifiable insane to open most businesses NOW. THEY WANT to cut rich investors head off.

    2. “We also redistribute income to the least among us which is how we typically think about redistribution”

    UNDER buma we do this with sorely needed government revenue. Whereas, through TAX CUTS, RICH do it:

    “Many believe the Reagan and Bush tax cuts overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy. However, data from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that poor and middle income Americans have benefited more than the wealthy.”

    YES. “poor and middle income Americans have benefited more than the wealthy” FROM TAX CUTS FOR RICH. ALSO remember less than rich got tax cuts AS WELL. Also remember rich paid more taxes.

    “In 1979, the poorest 20% of earners paid no income tax. By 2007, that same group had a negative income tax rate of 6.8%. In other words, they took home 6.8% more than they paid in to the federal government.”

    3. Also “Whichever way we redistribute it always seems to jump over the Middle Class”

    Middle income Americans paid an effective income tax rate (the amount paid after deductions) of .5% in 1979. That rate was cut to .3% in 2007, a drop of more than 50%.

    “Even when taking into account all federal taxes, the poor and middle class have benefited more than their wealthy counterparts. In 1979, the total effective federal tax rate (including payroll taxes, excise, capital gains, estate, and corporate taxes) was 8 % for the poorest Americans and 18.6% for middle income earners. Thanks to the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, those rates fell 50% and 23%, respectively. The top one percent of earners had their total effective tax rate fall 21% over the same time period.”

    http://www.policymic.com/…..h-tax-cuts

    What does your last comment have to do with article ? Your agenda is showing. Focus… A little off topic fine for MY REVIEW…

  • Bill Hedges

    BOB WROTE “Hardly a peep from the OPPOSITION PARTY(?)on the debt…”

    “Obama Warns Republicans on Debt Limit”

    “WASHINGTON—The next phase in the bitter, two-year-long battle between the White House and congressional Republicans began in earnest Monday, with President Barack Obama and GOP leaders digging in over spending and the debt limit”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324235104578241512112508322.html

  • Bill Hedges

    MORE FYI

    When our resident author SO choices to write a article on FIMA, SHOULD it be funded by Feds, then, we can have discussion on ALL the aspects.

    Don’t wish to PIECE MEAL…

  • Bob

    WELL ONCE AGAIN YOU TRY TO IMPRESS EVERYONE WITH YOUR TALENT AT CUT AND PASTING.In fact in your 1:04 AM post you cut and pasted the same rhetoric twice in the same post.No one is objecting to the authors comments or your comments therefore I brought up an observation.It sure beats re-reading your cut and pasting rhetoric over and over.

    A State Senator be him Democrat or Republican does not in my book constitute any major rebutal.I was talking about a member of Congress especially the leadership portion.New York has one of the srictist gun laws in the books today (Nate can back me up on this)so this shuck and jive he is throwing you and his Democrat Governor is just that.

    The NRA saying they have the votes to stop any gun control legislation doesn’t mean squat.We thought Mr.Romney had the votes to win the past election and we were wrong.Also I wouldn’t put to much faith in the spineless politicians we have in office where only a handful voted against the fiscal cliff.Lastly the President has been known for by passing Congress and writing executive orders to pass legislation.Now it may not be a total ban of assult weapons but this slippery slope could involve background checks,limiting and taxing ammunition etc.

    I find it hard to believe you are a Tea party member when you think that “if the Republicans want any say in cabinet positions they should win elections”? Have you ever heard of the “Advise and Consent” clause to the Constitution? Yeah the Republicans have a minority in the Senate but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t express opinions.According to you they only lost a few seats this past election which is no big deal.But now the shoe is on the other foot isn’t it?

    Tsk,Tsk, using a blog from MSNBC’s Maddow as a link? Turn in you Tea Party membership card!

  • Bill Hedges

    You need to retract “Hardly a peep from the OPPOSITION PARTY(?)on the debt,gun control,or even the nominations for cabinet positions”. Overwhelming evidence PROVES YOU… WRONG with NO contracting evidence from you… just silence & contributing statements from others AS BEING mine…

    1. I have to repeat TWICE for you to put your listening ears on. Was not CUT & PASTED. SHOULD I cut you slack for some legitimate reason when you write ?

    2. TRY discussing redistribution subject of article, AT LEAST most of time.

    3. You wrote “Hardly a peep from the OPPOSITION PARTY(?)on the debt,gun control,or even the nominations for cabinet positions”.

    1. “Cuomo, Top Republican Ready For Gun Control Proposals”

    “Albany, N.Y. – New York state leaders made public statements Saturday on gun control.”

    “State Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos, a Republican, submitted a plan to prevent gun violence.”

    “His proposal includes stiffer penalties for criminals who use guns to commit felonies, life in prison without parole for people who kill on-duty emergency responders and stronger punishments for those who use guns in gang violence”

    http://www.13wham.com/new…..rHEjA.cspx

    4. “I wouldn’t put to much faith in the spineless politicians we have in office where only a handful voted against the fiscal cliff.”

    Take your “only a handful voted against the fiscal cliff”to proper article that exist on site. If interested, I’ll respond there. There are many reasons for different votes. Once Bush VETOED a funding bill for war financing. Does not mean he was against funding for war.

    5. “We thought Mr.Romney had the votes to win the past election and we were wrong”. With help from Gov. of NJ. THIS is for another article ALREADY ON THE BOOKS HERE.

    6. “Lastly the President has been known for by passing Congress and writing executive orders to pass legislation.”

    CONSTITUTIONAL, to my understanding, can not go against passed laws. I can speculate on many things. I’ll wait for such a action to discuss.

    7. “I find it hard to believe you are a Tea party member when you think that “if the Republicans want any say in cabinet positions they should win elections”?

    WHAT CONTROLLED SUSTANCE ARE YOU ON ??? TRY READING WITH COMPREHENSION:

    “This unprecedented assault on cabinet nominees has brought clarity to the issue of filibuster reform. Steve Benen writes, Cabinet pushback and the case for filibuster reform”

    YOU wrote “Hardly a peep” on “nominations for cabinet positions”. I WAS PROVING *** what a WRONG STATEMENT YOU MADE***. STEVE BENEN said it NOT ME.

    8. “Yeah the Republicans have a minority in the Senate but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t express opinions”

    AGAIN, I DIDN’T SAY THAT. JUST DISPROVING your “Hardly a peep” incorrect mentality.

    9. “According to you they only lost a few seats this past election which is no big deal.But now the shoe is on the other foot isn’t it?”

    No. It’s not. We won 54 seats and then lost only 8. Your fluff link did not even give the numbers in another article. You said I called all your quotes fluff. THAT WAS A LIE.

    You are contributing quotes WRONGLY to me. I simple PROVED YOU STATEMENT “Hardly a peep from the OPPOSITION PARTY(?)on the debt,gun control,or even the nominations for cabinet positions” WAS something that comes out of a cow’s rear. Good for fertilizer but not useful here. Wrong statements belong in dung heap.

    10. “Tsk,Tsk, using a blog from MSNBC’s Maddow as a link? Turn in you Tea Party membership card!”

    Thought was USED WELL. YOU WROTE “Hardly a peep from the OPPOSITION PARTY(?)on the debt,gun control,or even the nominations for cabinet positions”

    AND MSNBC pointed out WELL how wrong your statement WAS.

    PREHAPS some time TODAY you will discuss topic of this article. MAYBE NOT.

  • Bob

    Not only do you constantly cut and paste the same information but either your links make no sense for backup or we aren’t able to access them.

    As I mentioned you used a link for MSNBC Maddow who is hardly conservative.Another link was to the Wall Street Journal which needs a subscription to open.The third link was for something called “Blog for Arizona.com” and it is so far to the left it refers to Mitch McConnell as the “Ninja Turtle”.

  • Bill Hedges

    Oh Bob

    You need to retract “Hardly a peep from the OPPOSITION PARTY(?)on the debt,gun control,or even the nominations for cabinet positions”. Overwhelming evidence PROVES YOU… WRONG with NO contracting evidence from you… just silence & contributing statements from others AS BEING mine…

    1. I have to repeat TWICE for you to put your listening ears on. Was not CUT & PASTED. SHOULD I cut you slack for some legitimate reason when you write ?

    2. TRY discussing redistribution subject of article, AT LEAST most of time.

    3. You wrote “Hardly a peep from the OPPOSITION PARTY(?)on the debt,gun control,or even the nominations for cabinet positions”.

    1. “Cuomo, Top Republican Ready For Gun Control Proposals”

    “Albany, N.Y. – New York state leaders made public statements Saturday on gun control.”

    “State Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos, a Republican, submitted a plan to prevent gun violence.”

    “His proposal includes stiffer penalties for criminals who use guns to commit felonies, life in prison without parole for people who kill on-duty emergency responders and stronger punishments for those who use guns in gang violence”

    http://www.13wham.com/new…..rHEjA.cspx

    4. “I wouldn’t put to much faith in the spineless politicians we have in office where only a handful voted against the fiscal cliff.”

    Take your “only a handful voted against the fiscal cliff”to proper article that exist on site. If interested, I’ll respond there. There are many reasons for different votes. Once Bush VETOED a funding bill for war financing. Does not mean he was against funding for war.

    5. “We thought Mr.Romney had the votes to win the past election and we were wrong”. With help from Gov. of NJ. THIS is for another article ALREADY ON THE BOOKS HERE.

    6. “Lastly the President has been known for by passing Congress and writing executive orders to pass legislation.”

    CONSTITUTIONAL, to my understanding, can not go against passed laws. I can speculate on many things. I’ll wait for such a action to discuss.

    7. “I find it hard to believe you are a Tea party member when you think that “if the Republicans want any say in cabinet positions they should win elections”?

    WHAT CONTROLLED SUSTANCE ARE YOU ON ??? TRY READING WITH COMPREHENSION:

    “This unprecedented assault on cabinet nominees has brought clarity to the issue of filibuster reform. Steve Benen writes, Cabinet pushback and the case for filibuster reform”

    YOU wrote “Hardly a peep” on “nominations for cabinet positions”. I WAS PROVING *** what a WRONG STATEMENT YOU MADE***. STEVE BENEN said it NOT ME.

    8. “Yeah the Republicans have a minority in the Senate but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t express opinions”

    AGAIN, I DIDN’T SAY THAT. JUST DISPROVING your “Hardly a peep” incorrect mentality.

    9. “According to you they only lost a few seats this past election which is no big deal.But now the shoe is on the other foot isn’t it?”

    No. It’s not. We won 54 seats and then lost only 8. Your fluff link did not even give the numbers in another article. You said I called all your quotes fluff. THAT WAS A LIE.

    You are contributing quotes WRONGLY to me. I simple PROVED YOU STATEMENT “Hardly a peep from the OPPOSITION PARTY(?)on the debt,gun control,or even the nominations for cabinet positions” WAS something that comes out of a cow’s rear. Good for fertilizer but not useful here. Wrong statements belong in dung heap.

    10. “Tsk,Tsk, using a blog from MSNBC’s Maddow as a link? Turn in you Tea Party membership card!”

    Thought was USED WELL. YOU WROTE “Hardly a peep from the OPPOSITION PARTY(?)on the debt,gun control,or even the nominations for cabinet positions”

    AND MSNBC pointed out WELL how wrong your statement WAS.

    PREHAPS some time TODAY you will discuss topic of this article. MAYBE NOT.

  • Bill Hedges

    “Another link was to the Wall Street Journal which needs a subscription to open”

    I have NO SUBSCRIPTION to Wall Street Journal .

    WHEN I copy from previous comments of mine, the link won’t work. Is my ONE ERROR compared to your many, many, many, many. I will correct that error…

  • Bill Hedges

    FYI

    I read and use left links. Don’t you ???

  • Bob

    In your post of 7:09PM this evening you want me to provide proof that “Hardly a peep from the opposition party……”

    NOW THINK HARD ABOUT WHAT YOU WROTE ! You want me to provide proof of something that doesn’t exist?…..REALLY? LMAO!

    IF IT MAKES YOU HAPPY GO BACK TO THE THREAD AND KEEP CUT AND PASTING THE SAME INFORMATION WITH YOUR USELESS LINKS WHICH NO ONE IS DEBATING OR DISPUTING! I FIND NO FAULT WITH THE FACTS STATED IN LANDREAUX’S ARTICLE.

  • Bob

    P.S. DON’T HOLD YOUR BREATH WAITING FOR THAT RETRACTION !

  • Bill Hedges

    You need to retract “Hardly a peep from the OPPOSITION PARTY(?)on the debt,gun control,or even the nominations for cabinet positions”.

    “NOW THINK HARD ABOUT WHAT YOU WROTE ! You want me to provide proof of something that doesn’t exist?…..REALLY? LMAO!”

    Well you said “Hardly a peep from the opposition party……” Maybe I am ALL WRONG & YOU ARE RIGHT. YOU jUST HAVEN’T PROVEN YET. HA-HA.

    You “THINK HARD”…

    I write to all. Those who write comments OR JUST READ COMMENTS. “THINK HARD”.

    YOU CERTAINLY narrow you response. Guess there is much you wish to ignore…

  • Bill Hedges

    FYI

    Of course you do not retract something you wrote that has no bases IN FACT. To the contrary.

    That’s YOU…

  • Bill Hedges

    When wrong I ADMIT:

    WHEN I copy from previous comments of mine, the link won’t work. Is my ONE ERROR compared to your many, many, many, many. I will correct that error…

  • Bob

    “You certainly narrow your response.Guess there is much to ignore”……..Bill Hedges

    “Brevior vita es quam pro futumentibus negotiam agendo”

    (Life is to short to deal with idiots)

  • Bill Hedges

    Then my error is not political is it ? Like yours. MINE is technical one…

  • Bill Hedges

    You certainly narrow your response. Guess there is much to ignore. Change subject works for you too.

    I’ll wait. Maybe you will return to politics instead of insults. Obvious your politics SO FAR is beyond your ability to justify…

  • Bill Hedges

    Repeat FYI

    FYI

    Of course you do not retract something you wrote that has no bases IN FACT. To the contrary.

    That’s YOU…

  • Bill Hedges

    In the future DON’T mix up what I say with what others say. What THEY SAY will have “”. As YOU WROTE “Brevior vita es quam pro futumentibus negotiam agendo”.

    Look within yourself..

  • Bob

    “63% of GOP Voters Think Republicans in Congress Out of Touch”………… Rasmussen poll dated 15th January 2013

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2013/63_of_gop_voters_think_republicans_in_congress_out_of_touch