Comments on: How Obama and Romney can up their middle-class game Fri, 31 Jul 2015 03:37:49 +0000 hourly 1 By: Overcast451 Wed, 02 May 2012 14:31:34 +0000 You mean in other-words, how they can ‘be something they are not’?

The ‘elites’ and others that typically have the ambition to *devote their lives* to the concept of political office, kickbacks, political favors and such aren’t so much in touch with reality. They are all likely suffering from Narcissistic personality disorders, but don’t hold your breath for that diagnosis.

If we had farmers, businessmen, scientists, journalists, production workers, police officers, fire fighters, doctors, and the like in office – then in fact, they could relate to the US (and other) common people. But needing $53 Million to run for office means you are either very well off or you are writing checks you’ll have to pay back with political ‘favors’.

But they don’t – they consider themselves ‘above’ the regular people. This is evidenced and PROVEN by concepts like crime and punishment.

It will always, in this type of political environment, be considered a ‘worse’ crime to kill a Judge, Politician, or similar than it would be to kill a run down hooker or a jobless hippy? Why is there some arbitrary ‘higher’ value to a specific life? Because of money? LOL, seriously – it’s just paper or a shiny rock. Wow, I’m dazzled!

Of course, the concept of the USA speaks against this, in the first lines of the first document ever drafted by this country. But it’s totally ignored by these folks who are somehow ‘better’ than the rest. So much for the ‘created equal’ part, this country has been usurped by the ‘better than us’ snobs, and that’s exactly why it’s being run into the ground. This is the same reason the US revolution came to be to begin with.

But so much for history, it’s unimportant to most it seems. We won’t repeat it of course, it’s the year 2000 now and that somehow changes everything! Something ‘magical’ now insulates us from the mistakes of our forefathers and the past – maybe it’s the wondrous TV ‘programming’, eh?

It’s hard to see peers and the horizon when one’s nose is stuck in the air, said person would end up walking into anything, but that’s ok, no doubt someone somewhere owes them a ‘political favor’ to bail them out.

By: Mott Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:00:10 +0000 Policies starting with Reagan adminstration and to have continued un-abated till current presidency, successfully polarized the nation with a clear signature of a a developing nation burdened with $118T unfunded liabilities (at over a million dollars per tax payer) and national debt at $15.6T to have crossed over the GDP of $15.1T – a record second time performance since 1940’s. Source:

Both parties have reckless disregard for sustaining the systems for the long term by pandering to the extremes (GOP to rich and DEMS to poor) at the cost of hard-working middle of both sides and have less regard for sustaining the local systems and national competitiveness for the long term, in the face of lobbying as legal-vehicle-of-corruption.

Of these, the policies of GOP will accelerate the deterioration further to a point of eventual self-correction via – core banks nationalized , land and property ceilings, luxury tax, value-added-taxes and the likes – that are the mature learnings of the developing nations that already led this path.

Growth will stagnate for some time till 2040-2050 where, the world-poluation explosion to over 11B, will trigger a wave of worls’d rich migration to US, will fuel growth once more.

Meanwhile, the young will face hardship and revolt at the source of their hardship.

By: Mott Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:33:31 +0000 Where is Ross Perot, when we needed him..

By: whyknot Mon, 16 Apr 2012 12:08:38 +0000 We need a third party – What to be a pirate ?

By: Jaay Sun, 15 Apr 2012 13:48:26 +0000 Bush tax cuts, uncontrolled drug costs under Medicare Part D, and 2 essentially unfunded wars. All brought to Americans by Republicans. They are the apex of the deficit. Republicans should be booted out of office as long as they hold their no tax mandate. America may need to foster its national security, but creating or making up unclear reasons for war should never have been allowed. Congress and the media, in my opinion, are to blame as well as conservative votes, which for some unclear reasons believe that they have been put-upon by whoever or whatever. They suffer from what I call the Constant Aggrieved Conservative Psyche. Republicans in the House have made Americans worst off, but they Aggrieved Conservatives keep voting them. This is called the Great Derangement. Let’s pray that Americans toss them out in this election.

By: alwayslearning Sun, 15 Apr 2012 04:05:55 +0000 A politician is a politician is a politician….all the same.

By: PseudoTurtle Sat, 14 Apr 2012 17:28:28 +0000 One final comment on Social Security, regarding the oft-repeated charge by the young who think Social Security is nothing but a “transfer program” at their expense for the elderly who are in effect destroying their rights to Social Security when they retire.

What the US Supreme Court decision strongly implies in MATHEWS v. ELDRIDGE, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) is that while Congress cannot cut existing Social Security because it would be a direct violation of the Fifth Amendment, it does not specifically prohibit Congress from IMMEDIATELY TERMINATING SOCIAL SECURITY FROM THIS POINT FORWARD.

THAT is well within the power of Congress, since no vested interest in property rights would be violated.

Thus everyone who has already paid taxes in to Social Security would continue to get benefits, but no one else would be eligible going forward.

You might want to think hard about that before you encourage Congress to throw the old people to the wolves, so to speak.

You might just get what you wish for, only not what you expected.

By: justsayin2011 Sat, 14 Apr 2012 16:40:12 +0000 Finally, a reporter who got it right (accidentally of course). It is a game to them. Therein lies the problem. Let’s try electing citizen – statesmen who have real jobs. Vote them out — how hard SHOULD it be with a 10% satisfaction rating?

By: PseudoTurtle Sat, 14 Apr 2012 16:34:12 +0000 Regarding my comment above about Social Security being defined as property by the US Supreme Court.

What I fail to understand is how/why Obama, an expert in constitutional law, can allow discussions of cutting Social Security, when he knows (or should know) that such discussions are not valid under the constitution.

Obama should also know that Social Security is NOT part of the federal budget, but is PROPERTY per MATHEWS v. ELDRIDGE, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), yet not a single person in our government bothers to mention this fact — Social Security is “off limits” to cutting by Congress because it would be seizure of private property without “due process”.

And, no, “due process” does NOT mean “administrative procedures” by Congress, which desperately wants to cut Social Security for reasons of its own.

Per the Supreme Court in that landmark case “Procedural due process imposes constraints on governmental decisions which deprive individuals of “liberty” or “property” interests within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment.”

This has been further clarified to mean “This protection extends to all government proceedings that can result in an individual’s deprivation, whether civil or criminal in nature, from parole violation hearings to administrative hearings regarding government benefits and entitlements to full-blown criminal trials.”

Or, to put it more simply, where an individual is facing a (1) deprivation of (2) life, liberty, or property, (3) procedural due process mandates that he or she is entitled to adequate notice, a hearing, and a neutral judge.”

The Supreme Court, by using the Fifth Amendment to settle the issue of Social Security being property, is using it because the Fifth Amendment is the primary defense of the individual against usurpation of our rights against incursion by the government!

NOWHERE does the US Constitution give Congress the right to deprive people of their property without “due process”. Furthermore, the power of “due process” does NOT reside with Congress, but with the US Court system, and ultimately the US Supreme Court.

I completely fail to understand why NO ONE has EVER mentioned this fact in ANY article I have read about Social Security!

How about starting to tell the truth for a change, before even more damage is done by “errors of omission”?

By: PseudoTurtle Sat, 14 Apr 2012 15:05:32 +0000 When you make open-ended comments like “It is also crucial to rein in the federal deficit and make Social Security and Medicare – two cornerstones of a middle-class retirement – financially sustainable”, you need to be very careful to state exactly what you mean.

Social Security is NOT part of the federal budget, but a stand-alone trust fund for those who have paid in to it by working, and it is wrong to imply that Social Security is simply another piece of government largess that should be cut with the rest of it.

Furthermore, commentators like yourself need to start mentioning that Social Security is NOT a welfare program.

Social Security, per the US Supreme Court in MATHEWS v. ELDRIDGE, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), is private PROPERTY which is protected under the US Constitution.

Before you urge Congress to begin cutting Social Security, you should be aware that you are giving the government the right to wrongfully seize private property without “due process”.

This is a VERY slippery slope, so when cuts in Social Security don’t produce the desired results, it may be YOUR private property that will be sacrificed for the “good of the nation” next!