Republicans need to be better at gutter campaigning. Clearly thats what the people want and vote for.

Thats great Sandra, right out of the block the liberals are advocating for the murder of their unborn children. Leave it to them and eventually they will puch legistlation for doing away with their elderly parents, the infirmend, disabled and anyone and anything that is a burden to their selfish lifestyle. Of course they want the government to pay for it all! Great values Sandra.

Marshall, what I am advocating for is the right to my own opinions. You believe what you want, and give me the right to think as I please. The far right Republicans want us all to march in lockstep, and I refuse to do that. My values are mine, and yours are yours, and everything you say won't change my mind. That is the true meaning of liberty.

To Marshall smith:
By wanting to repeal the affordable healthcare act Retropubs were de facto advocating killing about 45,000 real people per year. Also by making it much more difficult to acquire BC the Retropubs were de facto creating a situation that unnecessarily would lead to an untold number of abortions, not a good thing in anybody's book.

The numbers do not support that comment. And when Bush won the talk was he needed to realize there was a significant number of voters who felt like they were ignored etc.. Now that the shoe is on the other foot we get comments like yours. I'm not sure where there is common ground but we need to find it. And we also need to better educate our citizens on the issues, I have complete confidence that far too many voted without truly understanding the issues and what was at stake.

David, I thought we electing a President here, not a Rector, a Bishop, a Priest, Rabbi, Minister, Imam, Guru, etc. This country (contrary how others misconstrue history) s-e-p-a-r-a-t-e-s church from state. No one is usurping your religious beliefs so please, leave it out of politics as any "true" patriot should. No one is coming after you or your religion. Not everyone is Christian, either, dear sir, so let's make a deal: you leave your G*d out of the conversation and I won't state that mine preordained OBAMA'S victory as His will. Thanks.

Religion and American government, like oil and water, don't mix. We have freedom of religion and freedom from religion. You need to keep this in mind, David: We are not a theocracy. We are not a Christian nation. We are a pluralistic society. Embrace reality!

The people have spoken! This country is not run according to the Gospels. Religion has no place in govt. Don't foist your beliefs upon the laws of this land. This isn't the Middle East

The country was founded on Christian principles and is slowly eroding away. I am very nervous for our children's future.

Not everyone in this country is a Christian. It is arrogance to expect them to live as one, because you are. People can be law abiding, decent human beings, without having to bring the bible into every conversation. There is a separation of church and state for a reason. Republicans continue to put them together and you can see the results. This is not the Middle East

Wow! Amazing how all the liberal haters read into your post, David, that you were trying to force your beliefs on them! I see nothing of the kind... only the musings of a Christian who realizes that we have to be stronger than ever against the evil that will continue to run our formerly glorious nation into the ground. You're right, David. God has a plan; just because He hasn't shared it with us, doesn't make it any less valid. We, as Christians, just need to remember who we are and what God expects of us. And, for all you "separation of church and state" people... if you would read a real historical account occasionally, you would find that the separation was designed to keep our GOVERNMENT from controlling religion. GET A GRIP! No one is telling you what to believe (or not believe). Nor will we allow you to stop us from believing, just because you don't. Last time I checked, we are still under the tattered remains of the Constitution, which still affords us the right to freedom of religion.

David I say unto you.God stated the government shall be upon His Shoulders and will also have to answer to Him. He already knew in the beginning that every body would not adhere to His Word but early one morning I was in my kitchen and I heard a voice say you never know when death might come but do good while you are here. God is saying His Word will go out but will never come back void. I say to you keep on believing in God and spread His Word where ever you go. He said study His Word to show thy self approved a workman needed not be ashamed rightly deviding the Word. God bless you.

Thank you David. Sorry that you were attacked on here for your faith. Last time I read the constitution I must have missed the "seperation of church and state" clause. That must be in Amendment 1.5 or something. Maybe its right next to the "endowed by their Creator" line in the Preamble? I wonder where we should put all those crosses at Arlington National Cemetary?

So sad that people believe that citizens having freedom OF religion somhow translates to freedom FROM religion. Last I checked, those words have different meanings. I digress.

"One of the main reasons this country was founded was freedom of religion. We did not get our freedom to march step in step with the church. A person's religion is communication between oneself and God. When you expect everyone to be the same as you then our freedom erodes. Has your church been taken over by the government? You need to practice your religious views like love thy brother and don't practice hate just because some one in power says so"

I am glad Kovach stated the obvious.
I was so tired the past year of repubs' talking point of "this nation was founded on our founding fathers' faith in god," and the like.
It was founded, in part, on the belief in the separation of church and state, and I thank the founders for doing so.
We are coming out of the second dark ages at last.

Another delusional " christian" has spoken.
Please take your piety elsewhere.

Well said, Gail!

Give some examples of "Hate" that you say the extremist have been preaching? Possibly you are referring to the hate and divisivenss of the exttreme left. For example the kill list that Obama has put together, kill Americans w/o due process, vote for revenge Obama states, pay back time that Valerie Jarret advocates, punish our enemies that Obama promoted on Univision... I can go on and on.

Nicely said Gail.

Gail, I'm sure you're quite the expert on everything Jesus preached. None of us was there, so no one living today can say with any certainty that he "never said one word about gays or abortion". I do know, however, that Paul, in the book of Romans, was quite clear about homosexuality:

Romans 1:25They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

jalafema - Who cares what Paul supposedly said in Romans? Who cares what God supposedly said? Like you said, none of us were there to hear. The bible has been translated & edited & re-edited so many times, nobody even knows what was in there to begin with. At the end of the day, this country is not supposed to be run according to what's written in a storybook. It's ridiculous. It would be like living in the Middle East

jalefema - you seem confused. We live in a pluralistic society, not a theocracy. It doesn't matter what the bible or quaran or any other religious book says. It's not law. It's not a legal foundation for law.

If you want to live in a theocracy, move somewhere else. Otherwise, abide by an agnostic legal and government system.

Your religious beliefs are not to be forced upon others. If you don't believe in gay marriage or homosexuality - well, then don't get married to the same sex. Period.

Loco: I have no desire to force my religious beliefs on others, as long as they don't try to force their unbelief on me. The institution of marriage was created by God for a man and a woman. I have no heartburn with gay unions, if that is their desire, just so long as they don't insist on calling it marriage. No hate... people in America are entitled to spend their lives with whom they wish. I also have no problem with those in gay unions being given the same rights as traditional families. I do, however, have a HUGE problem with their insistence that their lifestyle must be taught to my children at school and promoted as a desirable choice. Unite with whom you choose, but don't call it marriage if it is outside what God defined marriage to be, and don't shove your choice down my throat and ask me to embrace it. As I said before, this country was founded from the desire for religious freedom; this is different from religion... the simple freedom to believe or not and to practice that belief, if we so desire. I'm not "confused" by anything but the insanity of people who insist that, not only am I not allowed to believe what I like, but if my beliefs don't line up with theirs, it is a form of hate.

jalefema -

Your own words undermine your so-called christian faith. First, your complete disrespect for the President by referring to him by anything BUT the president (ie: King Barry). Second, homesexuality cannot be taught! No one is teaching 'gay lifestyle" in schools. If you and others have a problem with inclusive, pluralistic, agnostic teaching of public schools, then by all means, home school or church school and indoctrinate your children - but do NOT by any means tell the PUBLIC school how to teach! #3 Christianity is all about INCLUSIVENESS. Christ did not indoctrinate nor ever force others to believe. #4 How dare you say those that do not believe in your exclusionary view of Christianity as 'unbelief' - we simply choose not to BELIEVE in discrimination and condemnation of those who do not practice as you do. #5 if you're going to believe that God defined marriage, I suppose then you also believe that you can stone your wife, have her marry your brother and procreate should you pass, sell your daughter into slavery, have concubines and multiple wives? Are you wearing mixed fibers as clothing? You're doomed to damnation, then too.

Pick and choose as you wish. But don't dare to compare yourself to christians or any other non-christian, good man or woman. You are neither.

Now, go away and take your hateful, exclusionary beliefs with you. The rest of us want freedom from your beliefs. It goes both ways.

Wow, Loco! Talk about hate! Thanks for sharing yours so fully. But that's exactly what I expected.
#1. When Mr. Obama does something GOOD for this country, I'll show him some respect; but not until he earns it.
#2. You are wrong about gay lifestyle being taught in schools.
#3. Nor am I advocating anyone force anyone else to believe anything they don't want to.
#4. By definition, the opposite of belief is unbelief. My use of that word was in reference to those who do not believe in God. Get over yourself.
#5. All your babbling about Old Testament laws tells me you have read the book (or parts of it), but only so you can use it against Christians.
I am a Christian. YOU are not qualified to judge me; only God is. I certainly don't expect you to understand what I believe; but that's OK... you don't have to. Nor do I have to understand why you spew hate at me, just because my opinion is different from yours.

I will "go away"... but not because of your bully tactics... because your hatred and narrow-mindedness are not worth me wasting one more moment.

Yes He did. Read Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: It is abomanation. Old Testament/ New Testament. Romans 1:25-28 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile effections: for even their women did change their Natural Use unto that which is against nature, 27 And likewise also the men,having the natural use of a woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working that which is unseemly and receiving in themselves that recompence of thier error which was meet.28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their Knowledge , God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.

Lizzie, Jesus didn't write the Epistle to the Romans: Paul did. Leviticus is from the Old Testament; Jesus wasn't born yet.

As long as the parties refuse to work together and radicals preach divisiveness rather than cooperation in Congress (not to mention the radicals demanding a revolution and saying that democracy is a joke in this country), then you are right - we are doomed and nothing will get better in the next four years. Time to work together, people! Instead of pointing fingers and ranting about extreme ends of issues (like I'm sure not a single person is advocating for murder of anyone) but come to an understanding that everyone has their beliefs and respecting those as we move forward together as one nation for the greater good of ALL Americans.

Marshall you can go on and on and no matter how long you talk what you say is not EVER going to make any sense. What you state is not even factual and therefore there is no possibility whatsoever for ever having any reasoned discourse with you. Good Lord, man!

Why don't you turn off your computer for a while, quit the pathetic whining, and do something to help. After all that's the American way.

Nobody's forcing you to be gay, and nobody's teaching homosexualtiy as a "desirable" choice. Stop fearmongering.

Civil marraige and religious marraige are two distinct entities in this country, and have been for hundreds of years. That's why I don't have concubines in the annex to my house, you can't sell your daughters for livestock, and you can't force your slave to marry against their will. Neither can you "legitimize" rape by forcing the victim to marry you. And yes, all of these ideas are contained in the "Biblical code" for marraige, right near the parts about homosexuality being an abomination! Those who claim to be adhering to God's law are already being mighty selective about which parts they want to keep.

Nobody will force the church to recognize gay marraige - just as some churches still don't recognize divorce. Likewise, the church shouldn't force the state not to recognize it. Let the civil and sacred aspects be separate.

Bravo, Michael!

Oh, Richard,
You have a short memory. President George W. Bush was maligned at every turn.
If you are going to make a statement, be sure to fact check it.
Now, President Obama has inherited his own mess. What will he cry about now?

He might cry that the DOW is down 300 pts after his re-election. He'll blame that on Bush though!

Marshall, that's Gov. Romney and all his friends pulling there money out and sending it to there overseas accounts. Joking!!!

Obviously Ron Kovach has his head in the sand. If you paid attention my man you word have had heard the quotes directly from BO, VJ and of course the bias press that reported on it. The Dems must be full misinformed fools, Geez!

@Scarlett Lucas
Re: "You have a short memory. President George W. Bush was maligned at every turn."

I'd recommend that you spend a little time with a fact checker as well. Pres. Bush peaked at a 90% approval rating in the weeks after 9/11 and bottomed out at 19% (the lowest rating recorded in modern times) in 2008. Your comment "...maligned at every turn" is what the experts call "just making stuff up".

That is completely true! It also explains why the Republican party will continue to lose as long as they ignore the centrist vote. Many of us don't care about the party line - we would just like to see some sanity and reason in the decision-making of our leaders. We would like to see some compromise going on, so that our country can go forward and move on. The actuality is that President Obama inherited much of this mess, and because the Republicans have refused to compromise (in the hopes of preventing him from succeeding to a 2nd term), our country has teetered on the brink of economic ruin. This time, Congress, please get the message that we would like things fixed, and we would like you all to please work together to do it!!!

No need to watch the endless hours of "what went wrong for the Republicans" analysis churning on the tube, as Richard's comments sum it all up beautifully.

LIke it or not, Independent votes decide elections. As a female Independent voter, I want as many good candidates on my election ballot as possible. For Independent voters, choosing between candidates should not be an easy decision, but unfortunately in the past few election cycles it has been, as the Republicans have alienated us moderates so much that our only option was to "go left." Many of my friends who were lifelong Republicans are now voting Democratic. I sincerely hope this election is a turning point for the Republican party in that they finally accept the realization that catering to the base (assuming that base is the tea party) is never a good strategy both on the primary and national levels.

Richard I assume you can count? By how much was the election won? And do you really think the Democrats have a plan? Go ahead tax those making more then $250K even if you couple that with no new programs(not likely to happen) we are still going to have a major problem, hopefully the House will save us.

It's still Bush isn't it. 4 more years of the same BO policies and you will be crying Bush did it to the end. Educate yourself, BO has implemented his poor policies over the last 4 years. Socialism - spending someone else money, tax and spend, divisiveness, punishing his enemies, voting for revenge, does not work! It never will - look at the sorry shape of Europe. We will be there in 4 years if not sooner.

Looking at the numbers, Romney closed the gap with women and won independents handily. They key was the ground game in McCain/Bush counties.

The main key was GOP didn't do as well as expected in Henrico, Loudoun and Prince William and weren't as strong as they should have been in other GOP strongholds. Dems also outperformed themselves in some Dem strongholds from 2008 like areas around Richmond.

Kudos to the Democrats on a stronger than expected ground game.

"Hispanics that shouldn't even be here"... Really!? So you have a problem with voters of Hispanic descent participating in the election? Where did your ancestors come from? Are you trying to insinuate that all Hispanic voters are illegal immigrants that should not be allowed to vote?

The only thing I can agree with is "We need to get the GOP out of the clutches of the religious right and back to protecting America and our individual rights & liberties."

Mike - PR just had a majority vote last night on their ballot for statehood. LMAO - look! the far right heads are blowing up again!

The far right are officially obsolete and irrelevant. Last night's election win for Obama has illuminated nothing within their dark minds and hearts. Thankfully, more rational GOP officials do survive and will attempt to resuscitate the dying party. That'll seal the deal on the far right who will have no recourse but to crawl back underground or develop their own far right party which will never succeed.

On a lighter note, anyone enjoy the looks of disbelief and subdued expressions on Foxcon folk last night? As Rove (and Trump) tried desparately to believe in the waning hours that there was still hope?

Locally Involved - I just loved watching them foam at the mouth on FOX News. And Trump! Calling for revolution! Maybe the Republicans will get their minds off 'vaginas' and start doing a little work to help in the running of this country, instead of hindering the process, this time.

Kathleen - and the hits kept coming! The billionaire Koch brothers were huge contributors to his campaign, both directly and indirectly. It seems they aren’t happy with the result and are holding Romney responsible. Immediately after Romney conceded, the Koch boys emailed an invoice to Romney demanding 500 million dollars for what they termed “services not rendered.”

More importantly, Slate is reporting the Boehner is 'open' to new tax revenues (oooops, there go the heads blowing up again!)

The night before the election, Mitt was very confident and told Ann "this time tomorrow night, you'll be sleeping with the President of the United States."

After Mitt's concession speech, they headed to bed. Ann was getting undressed when she asked, "so how does this work? Is Barack coming over here or I am supposed to go over there?"

Jody, this is a nation of immigrants. Two major reason the Republicans lost this election was their intention to repeal Obamacare and strip women of their rights. Please don't continue this absurdity of the radical agenda of the President and assault on religious liberty. From where I sit, Democrats believe all religions deserve our respect, not just those you happen to espouse. In 2000, Bush took the White House by virtue of 271 electoral votes. Gore won the popular vote. Democrats swallowed hard and accepted the law of the land, i don't recall a Democratic Member of Congress standing up after that tough election and saying they woukd not give Bush any cooperation because their main goal was to make him a one-termer. Yet, that is exactly what the right-wing Republicans did to the President. It is absolutely astounding that he was able to win this election. He deserves credit for caring for all Americans and this country, under conditions that were difficult and would crush people of less character. Bravo to him and to the Democratic Party for being a party of all the people.

Jody, I want to say this to you as a woman and a mother and possibly your neighbor. I am a liberal Democrat. I live in Vienna. I have a husband, four children, six grandchildren, and one great grand-baby. I am retired after 40 years of working for a major medical association. My income is from my 401K and Social Security, both of which I paid into. I have never been on welfare or taken food stamps, but I am glad to know it is there should the time come when I would need help. My youngest son went to public schools in Vienna; he was not indoctrinated. His accomplishments are not denigrated because of is a white male (nor are those of the other white men in my family). My husband is an African American man who fought in Korea and Viet Nam, fighting twice to protect our - your - rights. He worked for the Veterans Administration after leaving the military - one of those much maligned government workers. He is not oppressed. I tell you about my family to assure you that we are just ordinary people who happen to believe that Barack Obama will work to help the middle class and the poor. If that is socialism, than that's fine with me. Jesus did the same thing.
I assure you that this is not the end of our country. We went through a bloody Civil War and survived; surely we can survive this. I too hope we don't fall off the fiscal cliff, but that is up to the republicans as well as Obama. Please, relax, find middle ground, and enjoy this wonderful country that we share.

Carol, I'm glad you had a positive school experience where you live but in my area there is strong indoctrination going on. I was really ranting about modern textbooks that dwell on everything America has done wrong to "oppressed" groups. There seems to be an assault on our founding fathers and Americans that used to be revered because anything accomplished by white males must be downplayed because we had slavery. Multiculturalism and diversity are to be celebrated constantly-- but not including white folks. This has been the actual atmosphere in every school my kids have attended from K-12! I can't imagine a child in Fairfax County who would be comfortable enough to state in school that they believe homogenous societies have an easier time getting along and educating their children etc. and that diversity creates problems we have to deal with and makes it harder to be unified as a country. They would probably be expelled for not swallowing the party line. I think this hyper-focus on diversity is detrimental. We should be celebrating our great country and its accomplishments. and we should be stressing unity and love of country. People used to melt into the great melting pot and become Americans. Now people are encouraged to just stay part of a group.
I do believe Romney would have done more for all of us economically and, yes, I believe Obama is a radical but we've hashed that to death. I just hope we can all survive this four years and will be able to get back on track.

Jody, I think you miss the point of what textbooks say about the founding fathers. They were great men but they were also slave owners, and that is information that wasn't taught when I was in school. It isn't meant to degrade them, it is meant to give a full picture of who they were. The fact is that white people have enslaved and degraded people of color for centuries. That doesn't mean they haven't also accomplished great things. White people took the country from the Native Americans, killing them and moving them to reservations. White people enslaved African Americans and even after slavery ended, continued to debase them through Jim Crow laws. White people put the Chinese to work on the railroads for very little pay.
I am not sure that it is easier for homogenous groups to get along better - Congress is predominately white and look at how badly they get along. I also don't think that what is being taught about diversity is "the party line". What party?
This country is no longer majority white and we must deal with that. People of color and of different backgrounds are here to stay and their numbers will increase. We can all learn to live together, I am sure of it, if we show a little kindness to each other and stop making sweeping pronouncements about other races and cultures. We are, as Cheryl said, a nation of immigrants. The only people who have a right to the claim that they want to take their country back are the Native Americans. Be well.

What Jody said is accurate--illegal aliens and non-citizens vote in our elections en masse. The motor-voter law was passed in 1993, and Richard Cloward & Frances Fox Piven were themselves present when Clinton signed it--they spearheaded the effort to get it passed into law, and it was specifically designed as part of Cloward & Piven's overt anti-white agenda. Many states give driver's licenses to illegal aliens, and they are automatically registered to vote when they obtain their licenses. There is no stringent checking to screen them out, because of course that would be "racist." Several of the 9/11 hijackers, here illegally, were registered to vote.

The democrats stole the election. Many counties in Ohio and Florida had bogus 90% turnout (and even up to 141% turnout in one FL county), with 99% of votes allegedly cast for Obama. Rampant fraud everywhere, with democrat black panther thugs physically intimidating and throwing GOP poll watchers out of precincts all over Philadelphia.

Obama has never been a legitimate president, and this turn of events makes it all the more plain. Enjoy your socialist stagnation democrats, you wanted it and you deserve it. The cascading layoffs have just gotten started...

Don Joy:
Now you have really gone off the deep end. I demand you present one shred of evidence for this ridiculous charges of 140% turn out in FL, and please bring it from a government source NOT a Drudge Report website or like.

Your hate is getting truly offensive. Soon it will grow to taint your Grass Roots Tea Party as a hate group that it seems to be already.

As many have said in the past, "America, love it or leave it!"

Tinfoil - Aisle 9 for Don Joy!

Y'know, for someone who professes such deep patriotism, you show absolutely no faith in your country, it's intelligence agencies, or anything else. Have you considered buying your own little private island?

Hey Locally Involved, Don can't afford his own private island anymore - he donated all of his money to Karl Rove's Super Pacs that were totally unable to buy this election (a tribute to the intelligence of the American people).

Say it ain't so, Sandra! Sounds like he may be forced to accept gov't handouts like SS and medicare. Without the $ for his own little kingdom, he'll have to live in a radical, socialist, fascist, liberal country, full of (gasp!) non-white male people. What a conundrum for him! Maybe he has an underground bunker to hole up in. We can only hope for him (and, us).

To Jody.

Two points. First many Hispanics have been residents in this country for many generations more than your white bread forefathers. Second when 'looking at the map of red/blue counties' you are looking at sparsely populated rural districts with large geographical areas. Also on congressional maps you are seeing even more red after Retropubs gerrymandered so severely in states such as PA where some urban districts are now 90/10 Demo registration and most Republican districts are 60/40. Result is a predominately red map in area now vs a more balanced map in 2008. Bottom line is get used to it. Whites will lose about 2 percent and minorities will gain 2 percent in the next 4 years making the numbers game even harder for Retropubs in 2016 given their quite obvious display of hatred of minorities.

It appears we have two groups with a "My way or the highway" philosophy: the fringe and Tea Party elements of the Republican Party and the left of the Democratic Party, which includes Obama and the very strange Kaine and Moran. It will likely take the work of others to broker any compromise between these elements.

If individual voters or families are annoyed (or retaliated against) by either of these groups for failing to actively support and work for them, they need to be "brought to justice."

Thank you, FairfaxMango! May your voice be heard.

Well said. Said something similar and didn't see this until after. Maybe there are 2 sane people in VA. Anyone else want to join us?

It will only work if King Barry gets off his high horse, stops locking the Republicans out of closed-door sessions, and actually TRIES to find some compromise, instead of pointing fingers because the GOP won't cave in to him and his socialist buddies. Maybe passing a budget (as mandated by federal law, but ignored by this administration) would be a good start.

Jalefema

When conservative Christians elect a right wing nut, they admonish everyone else that ‘the Bible tells us to respect and obey our leaders.’ When their candidate doesn’t win they say, ‘He’s not my President.’ Such hypocrites.

yes, your foaming st the mouth like a typical liberal and you have no idea what your talking about. What you are aware of these last 4 years is the 16 trillion dollar + debt that BO has jacked up in behalf of hard working Americans. You must be on the govt feedbag. Do your homework and look at socialism, economic socialist and study a bit of Milton Friedman and FA Hayek and you might just understand where it comes from. I doubt you will understand what it truly is. Ignorance understands little my friend!

Agreed! We are lucky to live in a country where we can have these types of discussions (although some people aer really just hurling insults) and where adminstrations on all levels can change and new people take office without bloodshed, where people are not risking their lives to vote. America is still a great country - regardless of who is in office.

Because the election was stolen. There was nothing at all wrong with Romney as a candidate. And instead of attacking white people, why don't you go after the democrats for being a party that caters to non-whites and moochers and looters?

Methinks you are perfectly okay with America becoming a third-world socialist hell akin to Venezuela.

Here! Here! Well said Proud Vet/Virginian.

I agree! The majority of voters have spoken - let's work with what we have, and go forward from here without rhetoric and antagonism. I believe the mandate that we have is for Congress to WORK TOGETHER and fix our broken economy. The reality is that neither party can fix things on its own - both will have to compromise on an agreement that maybe won't satisfy everyone, but will at least set things on the right track. We need a combination of cuttings costs and raising revenue in order to dig ourselves out of this hole. Please be civil with each other and remember that the American people are depending on you to work out a deal. We don't need 4 more years of bickering and finger pointing - we need responsible action.

Sandra, I agree the voters have spoken, but I don't want to get into surpressing the other side. We share responsibility equally. No matter who won or lost.

Second that of Proud Vet/Virginian!

Well said. Thank you for your service and for reminding us we are Americans first. It is time to stop the divisiveness and do what is right.

Proud Vet/Virginian - when I said the majority of voters have spoken, I meant only that we have elected various people to office - no matter what party they are - and we must work with them. There is no use arguing or blaming, or acting like life as we know it must end because whoever we supported didn't win. I have no intention of advocating that the "losing side" be suppressed. If you read my statement, what I am asking is that all members of congress, no matter the party, do their best to work together and put aside their differences so that our nation's problems may be solved. I am sick of partisan bickering. I was especially upset after the first election, when after Obama won the GOP publicly declared they would do whatever they could to make sure he didn't return to office, thereby making their agenda one of total non-cooperation. I don't want to see that again after this election. I would like the GOP to realize that whether they like it or not, Obama won, and they need to deal with that and not hold the American economy hostage in an effort to regain their superiority. I am not against the Republicans - they have a right to their own opinions - but they do not have the right to force a total collapse of our economy just to try to bring down a president they don't like.

Proud Vet/Virginian,

Thanks for your statements. I’m behind you all the way!

Sandra, I may have misunderstood you. Sorry. I understand now and agree we must not fight, block, and blame. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

Yes, just like the dems referring to us as as the masses. Sounds a bit marxist to me.

I have never in my life heard Dems refer to (us, presumably being Republicans) as "the masses." I think that you would be hard pressed to find anybody who knows what you are talking about.

But let's move beyond that and give you the benefit of the doubt that at some time in your life you have heard a Democrat refer to Republicans as "the masses" and it sounded "marxist" toward you (is anybody besides me seeing the obvious irony of a Republican perceiving a Dem as referring to them as marxist). Are you now saying that equates to racism and religious intolerance; each of which our society has deemed to be illegal in many circumstances, such as job interviews?

Now there are two ways for me to go with this right now. The first and more obvious route is to just point out that your post is one of the most ridiculous claims that I have ever heard. And I don't think that there would be anybody from either political side who would contest that. The second route is to point out that by simply trying to argue the points that I made in my post, you are trying to defend an application of racism and religious intolerance as part of Republican tactics. Hmmm..OK, I am going with the second option. So I can't lower myself to someone who is going to try and defend things like racism and religious intolerance. It is America, you are free to believe what you want and voice those opinions, but it is also my right that I don't have to give you another moment of my life to listen to it.

Although I agree with the sentiment, enough with the name calling. I know we endured 4 years of ugly statements thrown at the president, but let us now be the bigger people and move on. Let's not spike the football.

Just get this compromised budget deal done with a balanced approach of both cuts and revenue, then move on.

Yeah.... as soon as HE starts working for it, instead of playing Robin Hood - stealing from everyone who has a job to "redistribute the wealth" to those who won't work.

We did. We voted against it, and won

Mr. Best, Romney defined himself in that famous 47% tape. "Sleazy campaign?" Hardly. Romney/Ryan started their lying at the convention and never let up. A sleazy campaign is the birther nonsense, trying to paint the President as unAmerican and stealing religious liberty. No, the sleaze is going after anyone in this country who dares practice a different religion than yours, who vilifies immigrants and people of color, and the gay and lesbian community. This country was built on diversity and will continue to thrive because of it.

Cheryl -
How is forcing religious institutions or a business to abide by a law that goes against their faith 'religious liberty'?

Then, why, Joe B, do you keep trying? GOTP lost. Deal with it. Adapt or become irrelevant. See you've chosen the later. Scary that you're handle building security, etc. Wonder how your employer would feel about your positions.

Cheryl, I agree completely! It's insulting that a bunch of old, white males think they have any idea what women want or need, especially concerning healthcare or reproduction. Republicans, please take note that your recent hard-line legislative efforts in Virginia (specifically regarding requiring unneccesary sonograms and regulations targeting health clinics offering abortions) did NOT go unnoticed by women voters, which is one of the reasons why many of your candidates lost. I suggest you keep that in mind when selecting future issues for legislation! How about putting your efforts to better use - like fixing the economy and finding a way to fund transportation improvements.

I think that would happen once we quit asking the govt to pay for contraceptives and abortions. When you ask the govt for one thing you know it will come with strings attached. I want govt to stay out of my business I don't ak for them to provide anything that will ultimately require them tointerfere with my privacy.

Marshall - are willing to also add to that list having the gov't stop paying for viagra, vasectomies, and fertility treatments? Just stop paying for anything related to sexual reproduction? I want the gov't to stay out of my business, too - so stop the regulating of healthcare for women's healthcare. Not to mention illegal wiretappings and the heinous strip searches at the airports.

Locally Involved, I agree - I don't need the govt to pay for any reproductive services for me or anyone. Just leave me alone period. The govt has no business with involving itself. I disagree with revenue increase (through tax?) it's a spending issue. BO has no intention of making appropriate cuts. He will tax and spend. Taxing the wealthy will not begin to take care of the debt.

Sandra, if you keep asking the govt to pay for your reproductive servcies - abortion contraceptives they can dictate what strings they want to attach. They do it for everything and everyone and its in their realsm. If you pursue reproductive services keep it pvt so I and the tax payer doesn't have to pay for it and you won't be bothered. make sure you tell your fried in teh WH as he wants to pay for the reproductive servcies that you say you might be willing to pay for yourself. I don't hear alot of women saying that. Their expectation seems to be that the govt give freeely at tax payer expense with no strings attached. Go down that road then I will complain to you!

Marshall, it's interesting that you say you want the government to just leave you alone and make your own decisions - and yet you're okay with the GOP dictating policies regarding women? As I recall, the law requiring sonograms refers to all women, not just those going to government funded clinics, and it requires those women to pay for the sonogram, even when it is a medically unnecessary procedure. Seems to me like that's the government (as run by Republicans) sticking it's nose in where it isn't wanted or needed! Why is it that you GOP people are all for keeping government out of private individuals' businesses, up until it's something you guys want done, then suddenly it's "for your own good"???

"Republican congressmen need to stop holding hearings on women's issues without including one woman in their ranks. "

And when exactly did that happen?? That's a flat-out lie.

@Sandra - The sonogram law in Virginia does no such thing. 99% of clinics in Virginia already provide ultrasounds prior to abortions. Shouldn't the 1% where it's not being done be mandated as well? Why do these clinics provide the ultrasound? To determine the type of procedure to perform.

Don't women deserve to be treated by these Doctors in good condition rather than squalid conditions like this Doctor in Philly did?

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/philadelphia-abortion-doctor-accused-killing-babies-scissors-charged/story?id=12649868#.UJ1rnYasd1w

Lee, you continue to make no sense. You state that mandating ultrasounds before abortions makes sense because many clinics already do that, and doesn't it make sense for the government to require it for everyone. What happened to the Republican quest to allow individuals to make decisions on their own without government intervention? Seems to me that if you follow that line of thinking, individuals should decide with their doctors what is and isn't necessary, rather than forcing people to accept a procedure just because "everyone else is doing it"? Maybe those peoples' doctors have worked with their patients and they have decided it is necessary for them. That doesn't mean it should be required if a person's doctor feels it isn't necessary. Plus it isn't funded, meaning that even if it isn't medically necessary, people have to do it and pay for it themselves just because the Republicans are trying to prove a social point, not because it's necessary. I think this law was purely a hypocritical move on the GOP's part.

The house holds the appropriations key. Maybe they will turn it when the senate produces a budget!

Marshall - they'll turn the key once the House finally agrees that we need tax revenue in addition to cuts. Highway goes both ways, it isn't a one-way street.

Va_in_Va - I think there would be a lot less gloating if there was a lot less hateful whining. Tomorrow...

This is a win but no where near a mandate!

It's a mandate when you compare it to Bush's 2000 numbers -- 271 electoral vites and Gore win popular vote. If you think that was hard to accept, you're right. It became even harder when we realized what a mess Bush left behind.

Cheryl - you must've forgotten - GOTP does not believe in math! Just remember the look of disbelief of the faces at Foxcon that their candidate lost while Rove furiously debated the experts.

My favorite moment was when Megyn whatever her name is read about some state "Romney is ahead of Obama by 2 points" with the infographic clearly stating 50-49.

50 minus 49, er, equals 2? NOT. But then, it's the new GOTP math I guess.

@Cheryl -

The vote was a 50-48 split. That does not constitute a mandate just like Bush's win didn't constitute one either.

@Locally - Like Democrats are any better at math?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmoUPtJpEjs

The majority of gun shot wounds are self-inflicted - over 90%. So expect a rash of incidents and hospital visits, at taxpayers expense. Perhaps lets slap an extra premium on gun owners as its pertains to health insurance, and another piece of legislation that digitally captures the unique identification of each gun and its purpose. Thanks for bringing it up,

I knew when President Kennedy was killed in the streets of Dallas with a mail-order rifle and strict gun control laws weren't passed they never would be. Unfortunately, in Virginia I run into women and men wearing guns at their sides. If you think, this gives me a wam, fuzzy feeling, think again. We had friends visiting from Australia recently who were appalled at the prevalence of guns and gun violence in this country.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state.

Chuck, I agree the Dems. did do that. Nancy Pelosi lead that effort. Stupid then, and stupid now. What was the result of that? A huge RECESSION. And the recovery has been slower because of the same thing from Republicans this time. I just don't think the that continued back and forth is the answer. And should we wait another 4 years to find out? I don't know if I want to take that chance with 2 kids graduating high school and starting college before that. Lives are truly going to be affected if mindsets don't change and become more accepting of differences and finding common ground. This Liberals standing in the Left corner and Conservatives standing in the Right corner crap is getting annoying. I personally am making a goal to hold those in both parties accountable to proceed towards a common solution. Fiscal responsibility, deficit reduction, revenue increases...etc. Talk it out and then work it out.

Proud Vet:
But... but... that means COMPROMISE! Oh, no!
That makes too much sense. What are you crazy?
======
Kidding aside, I wrote an email to Rep Wolfe a few years ago urging him to be one of those to break ranks with his GOP Bachman-like wingnuts and forge this compromise group, similar to the gang of moderates in the center.

All I got back was a thank you for your letter response and no additional info. We need to contact Wolfe and make him be this voice for moderation and reasonable compromise.

VA_in_VA: If I had a Like button, i would push it. But we as Virginians should contact ALL of our Congressional delegation and express we need to move on and expect them to do so. Blogs are great for expressing onesself to others. But in the end, my opinion to others does what? But my potential vote to someone in office means a lot more.

VA_in_VA -

Like you, I have tried writing and calling Wolf and found him totally unresponsive. One of the voting precincts here in McLean voted Obama over Romney, yet Wolf continues to vote almost 90%+ republican agenda. Hardly representative of the diversity and views of his constituents. His time should be over. Time for real governing leadership v someone who just sits in a seat collecting our taxes as his income - and not doing anything for his district.

Loco Involved: once again, you pretend to spout stats without and backing it up.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/05/robert-farago/fbi-stats-more-guns-less-crime
http://books.google.com/books/about/More_guns_less_crime.html?id=B1TqrNK3OkAC
http://www.gunblast.com/Gun_Facts.htm
And as for your gratuitous assertion towards me – that fact that you hide behind a screen name shows you for what you are…

But he sited actual CDC government stats and you bring forth gun advocate propaganda.... Oh, wait. I get it. I know what's coming next.

Everything government = BAD.

There, I said it for you. You can go back to your bunker now and eat your canned beans. Besides, Matlock is on you don't want to miss that :)

Another anonymous screen name, chucking spitballs. Anyone can say something’s a static, but w/o a verifiable link, it’s still just an assertion ….

Joe B - since you are such a "student' of America.

Using a pseudonym to make a point or to tell a story is not without precedent in our culture and country. In fact, pseudonyms and nom de plumes have a famous history in our United States. Whether it is Samuel Clemens writing as Mark Twain or three young politicians pushing for ratification of the constitution (the three would be John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton), our country’s politics and literature have a history of nom de plumes, pen names, and pseudonyms.

In the case of the founders, a nom de plume was often used to protect the writer, especially since the First Amendment didn’t protect writers. Silence Dogood, a pen name used by a young Benjamin Franklin.

With guys like you with guns, why in the devil would I put my life in danger. Again, I ask - does your employer know how gun happy you are?

And, - try referencing REAL facts (not the make believe ones from your echo chamber) from unbiased sites other than 'gunblast.com'.

Marshall, the election is barely over and it's back to hammering the Democrats. I guess we are back to business as usual. I expect Ryan to start getting his group of Tea Partiers together so they can begin obstruction tactics. It's back to the TPers "our way or the highway." The President has gotten no respect from them yet, so I don't expect that to change. It's up to mainstream Republicans to come to the table and let the TPers stay on the fringe or form their party and run Ryan at the top of their ticket.

Cheryl, do you deny the fact that Reid hasn't carried out his constitutional responsibility and put forth a budget these last 4 years? Do you deny that he has not let through the numerous jobs bills submitted by the house to the senate? This hasn't anything to do with TPers your liberal excuse for not getting anything done in the congress. If the President would be accoutable, stop covering up, was not corrupt would stop his divisivness, blameing other for his lack of competence and capability and ledership from the rear he might gain some respect. Putting forth the same idiotic policies and expecting different results these next 4 years is the definition of insanity. This is quite an insane administration. With folks like you supporting incompetence, malaise and corrupt govt, we will all continue to be in dire straits

maybe if Clinton did not lie about his extra curricular activities the congress would not have to do their job to impeach him. I suppose you support his behavior and the lie that he advocated?There were plenty of slurs to go around including the murder acuxation on Romney to say the least. The libs said they would kill Romney and the presented all kinds of lies and untrue accusations bringing the election to an alltime low. I think youall can be proud of your selves for bringing this election to the depths that it fell. Great dic in Cit united. I attribut that to the same as the union impact and the monies they extort from their members for political purpose. Trouble is you libs get aggrivated that now pvt business as out of reach. Tough going heh...Live with it.

Marshall - really? Impeachment for lying about an affair? Give me something to hang on too, not this again.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the GOP should NOT have wasted all that time and money on something as an affair. There simply was NOT anything else to slime Clinton with, so they wasted everyone's energy on the only thing they could - as if no one knew....shhhhh. (gee, president has affair, let's impeach Geo. Washington while we're at it! FDR! and the multitude of others).

As for dems killing Romney - the dems are hardly a party that advocates killing, guns, war or anything of the like. Paranoid a bit? How about the 125+ death threats a DAY against the President? Are you upset about that? Lies and untrue accusations - NOTHING compares to the birther, wacko, etc attacks against the President.

The election didn't have to go that low if the GOP had the cojones, the spine, to stand up to the fringe element, ala McCain, and say Enough. The President is NOT a Kenyan, socialist, fascist, illegal, son of a whoever you choose at this time, soviet spy? But no. The GOP has no spine, has no facts. So they go for the dirt (from Clinton affair to the President birther-ism garbage). Because all you have is dirt when you have no facts.

So don't bring your righteousness here. There was dirt being thrown in the republican primaries that was low ball. What goes around comes around. This President has a spine of steel. The GOP simply underestimated the dems. Deal with it.

Locally involved - those are the facts although you don't except that. Check them out but I doubt you want to as you can't rewrite history although you may want to try.

Your laughable. Take your show to comedy cental and you might make a buck Cheryl. Nothng at all Bush did was a war crime. You just can't except the hard truth about what is necessary to protect American Citizens. If he committed a crime then where are the charges???? Republican vilify - I just fell out of my seat in hysterical laughter. I think you have BO mixed up with Romney. Don you remember the charges thrown at Romney about murder, felony and I can go on and on. What did Romney throw at BO - kid gloves. Wake up and get real!

President Obama bombed Libya in direct violation of the War powers act. Bush went to Congress and got authorization for war after 9/11.

Brambleton76, I agree with you! And you forgot the Republican leader who believes that women have a way to prevent pregnancies in cases of rape. They just mentally tell their bodies not to get pregnant...

Agreed. We also need a more consistent message and we need to reach out to Latinos who are more Conservative than Moderate.

You still don't get it. No matter how much money Karl Rove's superpac spent, it was never going to be enough. You can rationalize the election any way you like. Romney was far-right, then modert, then far-right. If Republicans don't understand the demographics have changed and they need to be more inclusive, they are not going to win many elections. If you let the Tea Party put up candidates like West, Akin, and Mourdock, you deserve to lose. I thank the far-right for the travesty at Ole Miss. The battle for racial equality is on again.

Republicans are at a disadvantage, then, since most of your constituency is aging and the Dems are carrying a larger number of younger voters. If you don't reach out to expand your base, then eventually all of the older dinosaurs will die out...

Problem is, Obama isn't a Moderate.

Actually as for numbers, the split in 2012 was almost exactly the same as 2008 as far as registered voters. 38D/32R/29I. Romney won independents handily and closed a 14 point gap with women down to 4. The big issue was the ground game. Romney won early voting by almost 3 million votes cast whereas the President had a better GOTV effort.

The thing that disturbs me the most is that military ballots just reached our men and women serving overseas. This is terrible voter suppression by the Government on the very people fighting for our freedom.

No, Obama isn't a moderate if you're far right. I have questions regarding where you get such a high registration rates for dems - I haven't been able to find those numbers and that is highly unusual for dems to be that high in a center right country (which is we voted for Obama - he was more center right than the repubs).

And, as you delve into the numbers one striking voting preference was that evangelicals and protestants - primary domains of white men - voted Romney. That also testifies to Romney's far right stance.

It worries me (though not surprised when you understand the difference in how the two parties think) that the Republican party is just waking up to the changing demographics of the country. That's not been a secret to anyone in business. And, it's worrisome that their competition research was so weak. They didn't understand the marketplace. This assures me that the country voted for the right party that does get it.

Get real Locally Involved - Bo is a leftest, a socialist. Take a look at his policies. If you don't understand what a scoialist is then read Milton Friedman and Hayek. I think that will be a beginning of your education on the topic.

@Locally -
" I haven't been able to find those numbers and that is highly unusual for dems to be that high in a center right country (which is we voted for Obama - he was more center right than the repubs)."

LOL! President Obama is a Totalitarian who has nationalized the student loan industry, nationalized GM, and is in the process of nationalizing health care which is the Democrats plan and has been since Truman.

". I have questions regarding where you get such a high registration rates for dems"

Comes right from the exit polls. No one thought, especially after what a poor job this President has done economically (a la FDR), that he could turn the base out and they did.

Personally, I like both men. President Obama's (and the modern-day Democratic policies) are wrong for the country. Our kids now owe $220K toward the National Debt. In 5 years that number is going to be north of $300K. Our kids deserve better.

Numbers I saw from non-Faux News organizations for the spread on women voting for POTUS was 9 to 10 not 4.

According to Gallup, 12% more women voted for Obama than Romney; 8% more men voted for Romney.

Yes, BO cares so much about the military that he disenfranchsied them from voting. Don't take my word for it as the corrupt media even reported on it!

11,

Agree. The President will need to coalesce a grouping of fiscally sound advisors who need to work with Republicans to get things done. I am pretty confident Republicans aren't going to budge on their stances so they will need to be hard compromises..

And I suppose that the GOP foot dragging and refusal to compromise at all had nothing to do with our current predicament? There was an attempt at a compromise budget plan that came close, but never got ratified by the GOP majority because they refused to back down on any of their stances. That's not the way to get things done. While both parties share some blame on not reaching a concensus, I feel the GOP has done more to stalemate things than the Dems, because the GOP assumed they would win this past election. That hasn't happened, so the GOP needs to get off their high horse and come to grips with the fact that they might actually have to *shudder* compromise.

America voted for a republican controlled House (lost 2 seats) and a democrat controlled Senate (gained 2 seats). 58% of Americans voted on tax increases. This is indicative that the American people want to see a compromise consisting of strategically raised tax revenues and spending cuts.

The House and Senate have their marching orders. For the House to continue on their austerity, spending cuts only, path it will lead only to losing their future.

Hi Locally Involved,

"America voted for a republican controlled House (lost 2 seats)"

Actually, Democratic House candidates got more votes than Republican House candidates but will remain the minority due to redistricting/gerrymandering.

Patrick - You're correct, the republicans still maintain control of the House and primarily due to redistricting. However, dems did make gains.

Which brings up the issue (and I am prone to believe) that gerrymandering districts is a primary driver of the bitter partisanship in DC. Our reps cherry pick their constituents making compromise almost impossible.

Perhaps we should have a real national discussion on redistricting to help balance powers. Seems they made their jobs real easy by never having to work across the aisle if they only have to represent one view - puts the reps in a bubble which was part of the problem this election.

Companies are actually planning MASSIVE layoffs post-election due to ObamaCare. Things are gonna get worse before they get better.

http://rightalexandria.blogspot.com/2012/11/companies-planning-massive-layoffs-due.html

Patrick Smith - I am cutting and pasting here, but here's the latest on the House and mentioning the effect of redistricting:

Democratic House candidates appear to have won more of the popular vote than their Republican counterparts on Tuesday, despite what looks as though it will be a 35-seat GOP majority.

According to numbers ... Democrats have won roughly 48.8 percent of the House vote, compared to 48.47 percent for Republicans.

Despite losing the popular vote, Republicans are set to have their second-biggest House majority in 60 years and their third-biggest since the Great Depression.
The numbers seem to back up what we’ve been talking about on this blog for a while: Redistricting drew such a GOP-friendly map that, in a neutral environment, Republicans have an inherent advantage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/09/democratic-house-candidates-winning-the-popular-vote-despite-big-gop-majority/

BO will have to fire himself also. He is stuck into his econ ideology so you won't see any fiscal change in that realm.

Compromise Sandra why. The only compromise the libs plan is when to make a choice between two leftest ideological principles. Compromise always cost the tax payer money and thats what s on the line here fiscal responsibility that this admin has no intention of keeping!
You act as if the republican house is controling the whiole scene. If the executive and the senate are that week then maybe they should be where they are. The Dems have been in control since 2006. Obama had both the house and senate 2008 - 2010 and theydid nothing about jobs and the economy and you still blame the republican congress for the last 2 years and Bush for the last 4. When are you all going to except the respnsibility of the office and quit blaming others? The Executive and the Senate are full of incompetent boobs. Develop some leadership skills and maybe you all will have potential for success!

Lee, you posted that companies are planning massive layoffs due to Obamacare and that it would get worse before it got better. You then provided the link. That was it.
Before I saw the link, I inferred I would see a list of companies and their " massive" layoffs. Nothing of the kind was there, despite your misleading intro. Your posting in question is a few postings down from here.

According to exit polls conducted on Nov 6:

More than half of voters favor increasing taxes, according to early exit polls released Tuesday night.

Six in 10 voters nationwide (the exact figure was 58%) say they think taxes should be increased, a welcome statistic for President Barack Obama and a sign that the president’s attacks on Mitt Romney’s proposed tax cuts for the wealthy may have been effective.

Almost half of voters said taxes should be boosted on Americans making more than $250,000 per year, and one in seven voters said taxes should be increased on all Americans.

Only about a third of voters said taxes should not be increased at all, the exit polls showed.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83429.html

The exit polls are aligned with an earlier CBS poll in Jan 2012 with "Most Americans agree with "Buffett rule" concept, poll shows -
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57364811-503544/most-americans-agree-with-buffett-rule-concept-poll-shows/

On the economy, ImpreMedia and Latino Decisions found that Latinos prefer Obama's plan for dealing with the economy to Romney's policy proposals. More than a third support higher taxes on the wealthy and 42 percent said they believe the deficit should be solved by cutting spending along with tax increases, according to the poll. Only 12 percent said they believe the deficit should be solved with only spending cuts...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/election-2012-blog

So,, we are supposed to use exit polls for our votes? Did the Democrats use public opinion during the votes on Obamacare? NO! Not even when the people of Massachusetts selected Scott Brown--they pushed it through against overwhelming protest from the American people.

We have three branches of government. I agree there should be compromise--but that does not mean to give Obama everything he wants. He must give, too. And, this time when he makes a deal he should not move the goal posts like he did last time.

Kathy - yes, you should consider exit polls. Polls are one method of 'taking the pulse' of views. That's why companies ask about your customer experience. I know that public polls are the antithesis of the far right (and, have I mentioned how much it scares me you're involved in shaping our children's minds with your inability to understand basics) BUT yes, we should consider the views of the public in shaping public policy.

Are you, and please do state it clearly, without hyperbole, against any tax revenue? Do you support ONLY spending cuts. And, if so, what are the pros and cons of spending cuts only. Please take into consideration austerity programs only used in other countries.

I'll help you with the last one - Austerity only resulted in violent public displays in England and sent England into another recession. Given that fact, are you prepared to send America into another recession? How will another recession affect your school's revenues and business?

Considering that raising taxes on the wealthy, as defined by President Obama, only brings in $40B a year. Not much help at all when the deficit is $1 Trillion +. Confiscating 100% of the wealthy folks income brings in about $400B a year. Again, not much help at all when the deficit is $1 Trillion +.

Liberals in D.C. are good at one thing - destroying wealth. This is why tax reform should be addressed before raising anyone's taxes.

LI - Thanks for the clearly articulated explantation. I too believe that popular opinion should be strongly considered when weighing policy decisions. Of course, not all popular decisions are correct decisions and the legacy of many Presidents reflects their more difficult and unpopular (at the time) decisions. As for tax increases, I oppose them at this time. Personally, I think it's unwise to increase taxes in the face of a global recession. Do you think tax increases encourage economic growth and prosperity? Thanks, 11

Lee - of course it isn't a magic bullet Lee. That's just simple thinking. That's why spending cuts and tax revenues need to be done in concert with each other. Austerity (cuts only) isn't the answer either. you can eliminate all safety nets and you won't reduce the deficit either because of the ramifications of another great recession, reducing the GDP (productivity), less money being spent by the people, companies going bankrupt with reduced earnings not to mention reduced taxes because of lower profits....Good Lord, boy, think. And, Learn from the examples of the European recessions caused by austerity programs.

That's why the House and Senate must work together as the American people have voted (you may not have, but 50.5% of the population has with 332 electoral votes).

That's what elections are for. Deal with it and move on. Better yet, Move Forward.

Locally, I think we need reform. I liked Romney's plan to work on the loopholes. You know as well as I do that raising the tax on millionaires and billionaires is not going to solve the problem. The revenue brought in would be minimal. However, there are a lot of loopholes used by the very wealthy that are ridiculous--things like write-offs for llama farms-or whatever the loophole du jour is. But, we need to be realistic--the real problem is the entitlements--especially the ones that are not paid for. Social Security Disability has gotten way out of whack--and I do realize that some people need it. Some of the Social Security judges are way too free with the approvals. I do understand that some people really do deserve and need it--but there is a ton of fraud in that program. And, the younger you are, the less you have paid in.
I also think that the payroll tax cut was okay for a while--but in reality, that is the one withdrawal from your paycheck that goes to help your own future retirement. I think that is the last tax they should cut.
You talked about Education. We all want better schools-and having taught in the projects many, many years ago, I find it very sad that after forty years--and tons and tons of money, the scores are unimproved. The money poured into DOEd does not get where it needs to get. They need to gut the Dept of Education and get rid of Race to the Top -it's no better than No Child Left Behind. It means well but doesn't help.

11 - Yes, strategic tax cuts will help in reducing the deficit. There have been numerous economic studies (please refer to past issues of The Economist for discussions. I'd recommend the NBER Journal - the National Bureau of Economic Research - but that'll put most to sleep...I hear the snoring now).

Tax increases - moderate, like the increases put forth by Reagan and Clinton, worked to balance the budget and have been show repeatedly NOT to hurt economic growth and prosperity. Part of the damage to our national credit rating is the deficit. Therefore, by reducing the deficit with a mix of cuts and revenue programs, improves America's investments and encourages economic growth.

Which taxes should be increased? First blush, keep the payroll cuts of 2% as they are right now. The Bush temporary tax cuts were meant to help spur economic growth after the 2001 recession - it did not help, therefore the Bush policies to spur housing (therefore manufacturing and finance) which only ended up in a boom and bust cycle, absolutely no true economic growth. As we all know, unless you sold your home at the peak in 2006, you lost money.

Ending the Bush tax cuts (as had been originally intended by the Bush team) and returning them to Clinton era rates at, for argument's sake, $250k and above would raise taxes at the lowest level by around 1/4 of 1%.

11 - continuing,

As for the counterpoint that it hurts small business we need to first define small business in the terms of government tax rates. Small business in defined in THEIR terms as any business with 100 and few shareholders. Such firms are: Bechtel, Bain Capital, and The Principal Group.

98% of small businesses (like my brother-in-laws general contracting business) do not generate $250k in PROFITS and therefore, 98% of all small businesses will not realize a tax increase. Important to remember, taxes are paid on profit not revenue.

And, I think all can agree firms with 100 or few shareholders should not be 'hurt'. If it 'hurts' their business, I have to ask myself as a business person, how competitive was their business if they were living that close to the margin?

Re-iterating, 98% of all small businesses are not affected and will continue to benefit from stimulus programs and an improving economy.

As a side note, eliminating capital gains tax on people making less than $250k - honestly, I don't know of anyone at that income level that realizes any significant benefit. They just don't have that much disposable income in investments to benefit any if at all. The average American HH has something like $50k in a retirement plan. So proponents of those arguments are null.

Locally -

Problem is, Government doesn't have a revenue problem. Why do you think revenue has been down? It's not because President Obama has been spending as a percentage of GDP is at the highest level since the 1940s. Tax revenues are low by historical standards because when you tax the wealthy more, they tend to hide more of their money.

The real solution to this is lower the rates and closing the loopholes, as Simpson-Bowles pointed out, in concert with MUCH needed austerity measures much like what Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton did during their terms.

Congress controls the purse strings and they will keep a tight fist on this - at least they should. We have a spending problem not a revenue [problem. It is well know that taxing the rich will not begin to address the debt problem. If you do and then the next thing that will happen is BO is going to up the anty given the lack of tax revenue and tax everyone else which he probably plans to do anyway. Spending cuts - he refuses to tell where he plans to cut other then the military. BO has no intention of cutting spending!

11 - quick follow up on the impact of tax increase on small business...Republicans have opposed this, in part because they say it would harm small businesses that organize themselves so earnings or losses are passed though to the shareholders — who then are taxed at the individual tax rate.

Key word: Shareholders. Referring to the S corporations which are 100 or less shareholders.

The study referenced is from last year by two economists at Ernst & Young for the Independent Community Bankers of America, the National Federation of Independent Business, the S Corporation Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — all opponents of the president’s agenda. That might be the first clue that this is potentially not a neutral document. One of the authors is also a former official in George W. Bush’s Treasury Dpt.

Most importantly as the article points out, the 700k 'job losses' is over a 10 yr period given current economic conditions. 700k equates into 1/2 of 1% (0.005%) of total employment over 10 years.

This is all according the the republican study and posited effect of ending the tax cuts.

So, again, ending the Bush tax cuts above $250k will not hurt economic and growth and is one factor in reducing the deficit - which will increase growth and prosperity.

Link to article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/would-a-tax-hike-on-the-wealthy-kill-700000-jobs/2012/11/08/ae69d1ea-29f0-11e2-96b6-8e6a7524553f_blog.html?wpisrc=nl_pmpolitics

Most job formation comes from mid sized pass through corporations. C-Corps don't make net jobs on a sustaining basis,only start ups that become C-Corps really create jobs. Real job growth and wealth creation happens in a sub set of pass through corporations. 80% of manufacturing jobs are in Sub-S corps. These enterprises suffer a disadvantage in capital formation as they are designed to 'pass through' thier income. Enterprises that create the most jobs are growing and need to reinvest profits to support that growth. When individual rates are high that rate must be paid by the owners of these corps on all retained earnings which are not distributed to the owners. The 'income' of the owner is really only on paper as they pay tax on earnings they do not receive, earnings that must be invested to support growth of the business. So, the highest corporate taxes in America are levied precisely on those coporations who produce the most jobs. Tax rates effect businessess investment. S-Corps in contrast to C-Corps do not have access to public capital markets. Their access to credit is through banks at higher rates and requiring collateral assets to secure the debt. Thier own earnings fund their growth and they operate with less debt leverage. As a consequence they pay high taxes on the earnings they need to reinvest for growth. The higher the income tax, the higher the hurdle rate for profitable business growth. Higher taxes decreases incentives for business growth and employment.

Hi 11 -

Thanks for your understanding of S Corporations! Do you know what % of the all businesses are S corporations and what % of jobs they comprise? And, what is the industry breakdown of S corporations? This is data I've been trying to obtain for a better understanding of the actual business impact. I was only able to identify The Principal Group, Bechtel and Bain Capital as S corporations. Perhaps they are the exception to access to limited capital and taxes impeding their growth since all 3 seem to have business models that allow them to thrive as S corporations.

Given that - it would seem that S corporations were created as a financial entity as companies grow and that as companies grow larger and needed access to capital that they would naturally progress to a C corporation to be even more competitive. S corporation status alone does not seem to allow for economies of scale.

As for impact of taxes upon job growth. The figures that I have show 98% of all small business are not S corporations and do not on average have more than $250k in profits. For those S corporations (presumably 2%) that qualify for increased taxes, that is on a graduated basis after $250k. Seems like we get into trickle down economics at this point.

If lower taxes means additional money to invest in more jobs - I don't see it. Studies I've seen say that those with the money don't invest in growth and jobs. We've not seen that growth since 2001.

Lastly, (sorry, too verbose in the last post)

As we know from frameworks such as Porter's, we deal with changing regulatory environments constantly in business. To be competitive, as businessmen we must find ways to be bigger better faster. Regs can't be too restrictive but we don't want a Bhopal incident either. Unfettered capitalism can result in financial disasters as we've witnessed in the last decade.

What I have seen is cash rich firms of all statuses waiting for the economy to grow. Waiting for the gov't to grow the economy? I don't know. I do know that the economy is consumer driven whether you're B2B, B2C, or B2G. Can't generate jobs if there is no demand for the product/service.

I also know that unless steps are taken to both generate tax revenue and cut spending, the deficit will hurt business long term and never be able to generate consumer demand to help drive business growth and hiring.

It would seem to me that ending the bush tax cuts on the 2% of S corporations classified as small business would be an investment in the future of your own S corporation. To end cuts on all Americans will only depress the economy and further drive down demand and really have a negative effect on all firms.

Therefore, the lesser of the 2 evils is ending cuts that may impact 2% of small businesses as S corps. Looking at the ADP reports where firm growth is by size, it appears businesses less than 50 emps have been quite the little engine of growth.

Raising the top marginal rate has the effect of reducing investment in the very small businesses that produce the jobs and that all politicians pretend to want to help. It is not that the business owners are rich so thier pass through income should be fair game just like the salary millionaires. The issue at its true core is that these Sub-S and pass through businessess grow by reinvesting their profits and their profits are taxed at the individual level whether they actually distribute them or not. A growing small business needs to reinvest at least a third of its earnings to fund its growth; yet the owner pays tax as if he recieved all the earnings. These owners, who put 1/3 back into thier business to benefit growth and the jobs of their employees may pay tax on $1Million but actually only take $600,000...so they pay state and Fed tax of about $400,000 and then really only have $200,000 after tax...even though the IRS reports that they make $1,000,000. Its as if their tax rate was 80%, and that is under current law.

The easiest way to produce more manufacturing jobs (80% of manufacturing jobs are in Sub-S businesses) in this country would be to allow Sub-S business to deduct or defer the individual tax on any amounts of earnings that they retain or reinvest in the business. This would immediately increase investment in small manufacturing business and it would produce jobs immediately. You can tax the earnings later when it is taken out on sale of the business.

LI asked for size/scope of S-corp employment. According to this Ernst & Young study (assuming I'm allowed to attach):
Flow through businesses
- account for nearly 95% of all business entities, employed 54% of private sector work force, and reported 36% of all business receipts. They employ more than 1/2 private sector work force in every state except Delaware and Hawaii. http://www.s-corp.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Flow-Through-Report-Final-2011-04-08.pdf

Hi 11 -
Thanks for the link - yes had seen that as well as the study "Long-run macroeconomic impact of increasing tax rates on high-income taxpayers in 2013." also provided by E&Y. The latter seems as a follow up to the link you provided.

I do not dismiss the data, but I do take it with a grain of salt given the follow up study the study was underwritten by the White House's opponents (as well as the S corp assoc). The follow up study went on to state a total figure of 700,000 jobs in 10 years, given current economic conditions (and that's a stretch to say the least) which represents but 0.005% of all jobs.

But the data does show S corps, and As discussed below, it is important to note that the line between activity ultimately subject to the corporate or individual tax is blurred because some flow-through businesses, primarily partnerships and limited liability companies, can have corporate owners - but does not define.

Indeed, there are also long-term effects from permanently extending the tax cuts without cutting the deficit. This is what the Congressional Budget Office said in 2010, after studying the impact of full, partial or temporary extensions of tax cuts: "The permanent extensions of the tax cuts would have much larger negative effects in the long term than the temporary extensions because the amount of additional government debt would be so much larger."

To "11" -

Lastly, let's take the E&Y studies at their face value.

If these temporary tax cuts were meant to spur economic activity - why didn't they? Originally meant to spur activity after the 2001 recession where something like $2.3T was lost in economic activity, the tax cuts contributed another $2.3T adding to the deficit, wiping out the CBO 10 yr projection of $5.9T in surplus.

Yet, unemployment began rising in 2006-7. Home foreclosures increased eff 2006. By Jan 2008, we had lost 23% of all manufacturing jobs in the US (americanmanufacturing.org) and the stock market never recovered to pre-2001 recession levels. Reviewing the Consumer Conference Board's HWOL (help wanted online advertising), there was a dramatic drop in posted jobs starting around 2006. Seems the tax cuts weren't adding jobs.

Therefore, fail to see how extending the temp tax cuts is going to now create a different environment when in the best of conditions it didn't happen.

As a business manager, I can honestly say, I do not know of one of my counterparts or myself that will stop competing if taxes go up 2-4 points. I know that if I don't compete, someone else will be there to fill my spot. Yes, it will be more challenging to make the $$$, but I know that without demand, I will never grow. Adding more people without demand is foolish and inefficient.

I contend business tax cuts don't primarily create jobs, they reduce deficit creating a strong economic climate for growth.

Liberals (a.k.a. 9/11 truthers) vowed to impeach Bush over 9/11 so what's the difference? How many times was Bush impeachment brought up in the democratic-controlled House? Many times.

I started criticizing Bush in Aug 2001 myself and was called un-American for it. People have a right to criticize the President. It comes with the job.

Cheryl, I agree that we do not need bashing. However, Obama is not exempt from the same treatment that other Presidents have had. All Presidents are subject to Congressional inquiries.. Do I think we should have another impeachment procedure? NO! But, we do need to find out what happened in Libya--and, even you have to admit that the administration made lots of mistakes. It is clear that Romney was snookered by Obama and Crowley in that last debate (in light of the newly released 60 Minutes interview-where he admitted he had avoided the use of "terrorism". 60 Minutes deserves censuring for the report that it held on to--it was malpractice by the press. Do I think it would have made a difference in the election? Maybe, maybe not.
Has Obama received the same treatment over Sandy that Bush received for Katrina? No. And, FEMA was closed in NY due to the weather this week. Sadly, this storm also has victims not being served. Do I think it is Obama's fault? No. But neither was Katrina Bush's fault. The difference is in the press coverage. Both Presidents told FEMA to get to the chase and fix it--neither time has it happened. Frankly, it is just not logistically possible.
I agree that Hannity should lay off--but so should MSNBC lay off the Republicans. Did you hear Chris Matthews express gratitude for the storm? Unacceptable. I know he apologized--but the sad part is that his love for Obama outweighed his love of mankind.

I never said the losses at Boeing were due to ObamaCare. You've got Boeing, Lockheed Martin, McDonnel Douglas & more which are cutting back because of less defense spending. They will be cutting back more in 2013 due to the sequestration the President proposed which even the Generals don't want. After all, Liberals hate the military.

The other links in the post go toward layoffs due to ObamaCare. The list in the last 48 hours is 55 companies and growing.

Sad thing is Cheryl - The Obama administration got the defense contractors to delay the notices in direct violation of Federal Labor law.

http://blog.al.com/live/2012/10/administration_asks_defense_co.html

Cheryl - you know all that noise coming from the Kathys and Lees and Joe Bs is nothing but the empty noise from the far right. There is no civilized discourse with that fraction as they are incapable of rational thought (the conservative brain). Keep picturing the meltdown at Fox election night when 'they' finally realized their math doesn't add up. It didn't then, it still doesn't.

However, I find that those in the center right, moderate republicans are wonderful to exchange ideas, discussion of the topics and offer well thought questions and discourse. That's why I draw a distinct line in the republican party between their fringe and the true GOP. I expect they'd extend the same courtesy between the moderate and liberal dems and the fringe in the dem party.

If I have not said so yet in these discussion boards, I will do so now:
Thank you, to my GOP neighbors for your courtesies and challenging discussions.

President Obama armed Al Qaeda who were the rebels fighting in Libya. They killed 4 Americans in Libya even though there was a CIA team approx. 1 mile away. Obama has also armed Al Qaeda rebels fighting Assad in Syria. Don't believe me, Google it yourself. I do believe Al Qaeda was responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans in 2001.

Al Qaeda is now in 30 countries. Up from 9 when the President was inaugurated. They are FAR from being 'decimated'.

If you are willing, I am very willing to have a civilized discourse on this.

Locally -

When Liberals cannot argue facts, start name-calling eh? You can't have a civilized discussion on the issues? Are you that incapable?

Patrick is right, Cheryl. Go find some history books that go back to elections in the nineteenth century. They got pretty ugly. So-called "yellow journalism" was rampant around the turn of the 20th century. And, don't forget that Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton had a duel and Hamilton was killed--that's pretty extreme. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were also foes--although I'm pretty sure there was a grudging respect.
Nevertheless, that does not make bashing a good thing. We all are guilty. However, free speech is important and we do have a right to express our views.

Not when Retropubs only get their media feeds from Fox, Drudge, WashingtonTimes, Rush and the rest. This moronic distrust of 'the lame stream media' had Romney actually believing only the likes old Rove, Will, Krauthammer and other pundits as well as only right wing biased pollsters that he was going to win and was 'shocked' when prior to midnight on November 6th he began to realize that he was done.

Lee, additionally the most recent CBO report notes the negative impact of a tax increase (and not extending the tax cuts) on jobs in the USA - The CBO this week released a report that examined the near-term effect of various provisions involved in the fiscal cliff. Extending all tax cuts would boost employment by 1.8 million jobs (with a range of 500,000 to 3.1 million) in the fourth quarter of 2013.

Wait a few and you'll see it's an, "I told you so"...

That list is growing longer by the hour.

Just out, Petraius had a ellicit affair... I suppose he hung around Bill Clinton too much.

Really? Come on, please! Clinton's departure was informally scheduled many months ago and Petraeus was caught in an extra-marital affair (AND was in the Bush Administration before he was asked to become the CIA lead).

Nice try but stop the stretching before you pull a muscle.

No News here VA. your being redundent. And Clinton, well you can't rewrite that event try as you may so don't waste your 1's and 0's.

As the post states, the Boeing layoffs were in the defense division. Do you have a problem reading english?

As for 'Liberals hate the military' - why then did Tim Kaine disenfranchise military members serving in Virginia in 2008?

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/October/09-crt-1114.html

Liberal politicians hate the military because the vast majority vote GOP.

Cheryl, I have presented the facts and you can't handle the truth. Just like the 4 Americans that were left behind in Benghazi. Where is the respect? I can't hear you. Where was the rescue? I can't here you. They were neglected, can you imagine that? I can't hear you. And you say that BO has respect for the military. What rock are you under???

Marshall - 9/11. nuff said. Now, go away. pick a continent, any continent...

Locally Involved try as you may 9/11 under Bush was not a cover up was it. Beghazi... well nuff said there my friend and we just have the tip of the iceberg on the imperial presidency of BOOOoooo! Aside from that Bo neglected to help 4 Americans that repeatedly asked for help. Wait until Hillary Clinton Talks and gies up the deal. You know she has her butt covered

So, Locally is a 'truther'? Explains so much...

Cheryl, I think killing people is also questionable. Do you realize that innocent children are also killed in those drone attacks? Do you not think the use of those drones is close to terrorism? We are losing precious intelligence when we kill rather than capture--but it also relieves the President of the dilemma of where to put the terrorists.

I am not sure how I feel about it. I do think that it had been Bush using the drones that we would have the WaPO expressing dismay.

Killing American citizens without due process as President Obama has done is in violation of the Constitution.

Cheryl, take a look at the jobs bill and then you will understand why. Now also tell me why Reid has refused to act on any of teh 57 job bills that the house has sent to him??? Why? Reid wants it only his way and he hasn t been willing to work andcollaborate with sen republicans or the house. Thereyou have it. Its a one way street and thats why nothing is getting done and you blame the republicans for holding up the process... wake up!

Bush admitted himself the intelligence about the presence of WMDs was wrong,

That is not manufacturing evidence is it... Everyone admits source info was inaccurate. The dems fell into that same hole didn't they. Thats one thing and making up evidence is another. Get it straight.

See comment below. The hearing about birth control had six women testify as witnesses. The earlier hearing, which they walked out on, was about religious liberty. What does Sandra Fluke know about religious liberty?

Cheryl, your wrong again. There were several women to testify and that fell through at the last minute as they walked away. The Dems suggested and alternative at the last min but Fluke was not a qualified witness so she was turned away. You try to twist things around and say no women were invited at all. Lets be clear with our facts instead of trying to twist them to make a political point.

And why did that happen Cheryl?

It was a hearing on religious liberty with a half dozen ministers called to testify. Looking at the transcript of the hearing, both parties agreed to the witnesses to testify. A later hearing featured mostly all women as witnesses talking about birth control. At the eleventh hour and 59th minute, the Democrats wanted to switch one of the ministers out and insert Sandra Fluke into the witness panel on religious liberty. Gerry Connolly lied [GASP] as did the two women who walked out considering other members of the party voted against them. BTW/ What in the world does Sandra Fluke know about religious liberty?

The organizations still have to pay for BC Cheryl, what rock are you living under. Do you think theinsurance companies are paying out of the birth control contraceptives out of the kindness of their heart. No don't think so. I think you know this...

DOes the organization decide to offer a plan with birth control or the insurance company? 100 times out of 100 it is the companies decision whether or not to offer that type of plan.

Cheryl,
I wouldn't waste my time trying to carry on any discourse with a moron such as Marshall Smith that is too lazy to research a story in any other media not generated by the right wing media bubble (RWMB).

LOL Jonathan E.!

God told me not to drink the tea. He also told me to laugh at those that drink the tea. But, feel compassion for those less fortunate.

big warm hugs Jonathan E.

God told me to love my neighbor.

Cheryl - saw the Frum interview and read the book reviews - this is next on my list. Frum was fascinating on the topic.

LOL! David Frum? Frum is a transplanted Democrat from Canada who has sold out the Republican party.

Thank you, Lee! I think that you're exactly who he's talking about. Stay the course. Please. Really.

If it's okay and desirable to speak of the merits of non-whites, why is it some kind of outrage and "hate" to emphasize the merits of whites? Why do people like you hate white people so much, and why are you so afraid of the prevalence of whites?

A quick assessment of the kinds of neighborhoods that most of you diversity hustlers actually choose to live in tells a different story of how you vote with your feet, and take pains to avoid having to deal with the realities of diversity at the street level. Hypocrites.

In the past, when immigrants came to America, they embraced the new country. There wasn't any question of "dual citizenship" because travel was difficult and expensive and instant communitcation was not possible.

Today, it is very easy for immigrants to keep their ties to the "old country". I am not saying that is bad-but it does keep some people from assimilating into our American society. The earlier immigrants did not come to America and immediately get welfare--they may have received charity -but not income and benefits. While the first generation of immigrants may not have learned English, by the second generation most were fluent.
Today, immigrants freely travel back and forth. They speak daily with their families and can bring their aging parents here --and, within a few short years, the aging parents can receive benefits without having paid contributions to the system.

My recommendation to immigration reform:
First, secure our borders.
Follow up on green card violators.
Be generous with amnesty--but not with citizenship.
Verify citizenship on any new voter registration--the current system is only self-verification--i.e. check the box.
Limit family members allowed to immigrate. Currently, there is a daisy chain with no end.

Kathy - past immigrants did not assimilate any more or less than they do today. I know from personal experience. I can put you in touch with a whole sector of this population that can tell you - we're european immigrants from 1892-1924.

My father was born in this country - and he didn't speak english until he was 9. He went to a catholic church school. that taught only in their language.

My grandmother was born in Erie. She spoke Hungarian, Czeck and Slovak. Even when she married, my grandfather barely spoke english. He worked the mines along with his brothers. As did all my grandparents and uncles. The stores had signs in polish, russian, hungarian and some had english. Going to church in the early 70's - mass was in our language. In the late 70's they switched to latin. My grandparents still speak the language, I have forgotten most of it. My grandfather received his newspaper in language, not english. I have friends in jersey that are 3rd generation italian - and their grandparents still barely speak or read english. Go to the house and the language jumps in and out of italian. Same with my friends who are Polish.

I can only think that you were raised in a less than diverse community with no polish, irish, italians. Because if you grew up in more diverse areas then you would know that they still have not assimilated! Yet, just like my latino friends, they embrace this country. It's what America has always been about. You just have a very singular view of that.

LI - maybe it's a Hungarian thing ... my wife's Hungarian parents grew up under very similar circumstances :) We need HB1 reform now. High tech entrepreneurs should receive the red carpet treatment. More broadly -- we need Visa and immigration reform that continues Americas legal immigration growth. LI -pls see my response to your S-corp/taxation thoughts above.

Locally,
I am not from Erie or Buffalo--but I have good friends who are. I know about the "Polish Catholic" and the "Italian Catholic" churches, etc. I have friends who did speak another language at home--but their parents encouraged them to learn English and assimilate. Yes, they were proud of their heritage--and the"Old Country"--but did they return to the "Old country" ? Did they talk daily to their familes back home? No, they began the assimilation process--was it instant? No--but by the second generation, it was common.
I have friends from Iran who constantly go back to visit there and criticize our country--yet they are American citizens. I doubt your ancestors did that.
They were proud to be here.
If your father had gone to public school, he would have spoken English. I have friends who spoke another language until they went to school and then spoke English--and their parents insisted on it. They learned it quickly--although the parents may not have.
Today, you are allowed to have an interpreter -if you wish it -to vote. And, yet, in order to pass the citizenship test, you must speak English. This makes no sense to me.
I don't think the Hispanic community in this area makes great demands, but we do provide bi-lingual instruction in some schools. I'm not sure if it is still law, but, at one time in California, schools were required to provide instruction to immigrant students in their native language. Try that when the kid comes from Nepal..

Kathy -

Returning to a communist country which is what happened to my family's country wasn't an option. Returning to a country that was committing genocide against my family's people wasn't an option. Plus, they could barely scrape the money to ride in steerage as it was.

Now, and again, I provide a prospective from my own business experience, there are 3 basic levels of assimilation. First gen generally don't speak the language and send payments back to the old country to family. Second gen speaks the language, can't really read or write it, no longer sends payments back to the old country and prefers to conduct their lives in english. Third gen immigrants don't care about the old country. Consider themselves Americans and relate to Americans. Rarely do immigrants return to live in their original country of origin. Those that do end up coming back to America (again, personal experience) because living in the old country isn't what they remembered.

As for my family, east europeans, everyone spoke in the language. Would frustrate us kids since we couldn't get all of it and we knew they were talking about us :-). We're third gen, and we still cook the food and have our kids refer to their grandparents in the old language so they remember how proud we are of our culture. We pass on our culture to our children.

Kathy - cont'd.

When my grandparents became 'naturalized' they did so in their own language - not english. My father at age 9 learned english quickly simply because he was young. My grandparents still read in the old language (and yes, there's a national paper that still publishes in language). Learning the language doesn't have to be required, it simply will happen because it's required to succeed. No one comes to America to fail!

Technically, I can't tell you that my grandparents were legal. Their name shows up on no ship manifests or in any of the Ellis Island docs. They do begin to start showing up in the census as 'workers'. Doing odd jobs as they got a foothold. Sure there were no hand outs then. When my grandfather was crushed under 2 ton of coal, he was fired from his job. No medical health available, my grandmother nursed him for a year as he lay bedridden, raised young children and walked 5 miles to and from a factory to work. No microwaves, just a wringer washer (a luxury), it was hard.

Should we know require all immigrants to suffer as such? No. Help them assimilate and become Americans. Why? Because immigrants have large families. These kids end up staying in America and paying taxes - more importantly Social Security. The more people paying into SS of working age, the more I have a guarantee of benefits. Great studies in The Economist.

So, make a path for undocumented workers. Give a hand up (not a hand out). And, be proud of your heritage!

Locally,
I have already said that we should give amnesty. Go back and read. However, the difference in your grandparents and in the current situation, is that your grandparents came and went to work--they found jobs. That does not always happen here. Your grandparents took care of their children and fed them (although at times I'm sure it was very difficult). The government helps those here today (and they should--no child should go hungry).However, we may be helping some of them too much. Take President Obama's aunt and uncle in Boston. They are undocumented--should they really be receiving welfare and housing and food stamps.
My parents were not the children of immigrants. Yet, my mother had a VERY poor childhood and food was not always readily available. My father joked that when he married her the only thing she knew how to cook was beans. Her family, though educated, never wealthy, was hit particularly hard during the depression. My husband's family also had this type of experience. They lost their homes--much like people of today. The government did not bail them out. They had to double up and work and struggle. Was it fair? No. But, eventually, they succeeded. Would they have succeeded had they been given handouts? I don't know. Probably not to the degree that they did.
I don't have the answers--but I do know and have seen that handouts take away motivation. Think about it. I suspect you have not had a lot of handouts and are probably successful.

Kathy -

I did not intend for you to u'stand that I denied your statement of amnesty. My point simply being that why should we make it as hard as immigrants of the past? We can see much faster improvements in assimilation if we assist in that path. Why 'wait' for them to succeed when it can be expedited and therefore benefit the country faster? People don't come to America for handouts. They come for better lives and want to work. It is the antithesis of the human spirit to live hand to mouth - that's why we all have seek to achieve a level of comfort.

European immigrants of the past really didn't have to 'find' jobs - Ellis Island looked at their country of origin and shipped them off to an area where there were others and manual labor was needed. Others were shipped to where family member were already there. The whole daisy chain thing.

And, yes, throughout my career I have at times had to take unemployment. I don't consider that a handout, I paid into it. It was a safety net I valued since it allowed me to have a roof over my head until I got back on my feet. And, yes, family members had too also as well as receive 'gov't cheese' when they lost their jobs in dying industries (seamstresses and miners). My extended family is a microcosm of the American experience of all income levels and education.

I disagree handouts take away motivation. It's embarrassing, humiliating, and humbling. Providing for self and family is a source of pride and motivation.

The Immigration Act of 1965 got rid of the policy of favoring immigration from European countries, and instead put in place new policies and quotas for mass immigration from the third world. Ted Kennedy and his fellow communists realized that the only way to guarantee they'd win elections in the future with their anti-American agenda was to just "elect a new people" by importing swarms and swarms of third-worlders who would gradually, in a matter of decades, replace the mostly white Judeo-Christian culture, and have lots of illegitimate children because the democrats would pay them more and more checks for each illegitimate child (ah, Johnson's "Great Society"). Pay them not to work, give them free housing and free lunches and free medical and free this, free that, and they'd vote democrats for life and all of their bastard progeny would breed like rats too and vote democrat to keep the gravy train flowing. Blacks and hispanics have a 70% birth illegitimacy rate, and they make more money from the taxpayers when the men are not married to the moneymaker. It is perfectly okay and encouraged for democrats to cultivate these demographics as loyal and reliable, cohesive voting blocs, and it's even a mainstay of the political discourse to prattle endlessly about the GOP courting them based on race category, etc., but just let a republican (or anyone) begin to speak of a strategy of white solidarity in voting and there is immediately a frenzy of outrage and indignation!

Don, after reading your comments (and assuming you truly believe what you are saying about immigration), then I have only one thing to say to you - "I've got a nice piece of real estate in Area 51 to offer you..."

And that's all you've got to say, Sandra, You can't rebut a word of what I said.

By the way, Jody, that was very well-said.

Chery, you are still deluded if you think that organizations will not have to pay for contraceptives because its coved by a 3rd party. BO is telling you a lie( typical, I know) and you have druck the cool aid, pity you. When Iare you going to think for your self and stop taking liberal stuff to keep them in office. Moting is free including the 13000pages of regulation under obamacare. Wait till you start complaining that you can't get medical help for an issue and yur premiums continue to go up at the same time to cover less and less. The writing is on the wall...

Wrong. The second hearing had women testifying about birth control. The Democrats at the first hearing which was about religious liberty had 6 ministers testify. 3 supporting the Republican side and 3 supporting the Democratic side. The Dems tried to get a female activist into the religious liberty hearing and their request was voted down. This caused Congresswoman McCarthy & Ms. Norton to walk out. The Democrats then decided to pull Ms. Fluke from the 2nd hearing. There was still a later hearing that same day on birth control. My wife was at the hearing and she says Republicans were in attendance.

The Sandra Fluke prostitute solicitation was not an actual congressional hearing. It was made to appear that way to give it a bogus air of legitimacy. When democrats found out that they couldn't be allowed to have an official hearing for her solicitation, they set up a room with lights, tables, name plates, water glasses/pitchers, cameras, and microphones to make it look like a congressional hearing. Apparently it worked, they fooled people. As usual.

Cheryl,

You are attributing things to me that I do not appreciate. I absolutely do not hate immigrants--or the President. I do think he has a point of view that is very different from mine. I also do not think that he really understand economics or the work ethic. Our country is a nation of immigrants --my own ancestors were immigrants--and I welcome immigration--but it is a problem and we have to recognize that. You are attacking people personally for expressing concerns and views that are different from yours. You may think we are wrong--but please leave the personal attacks out. That is straight out of the Alinsky handbook that the Democrats use so well. Tolerance works both ways.

Actually Cheryl, I don't hate the President and I didn't hate Bush either when I criticized him for the exact same things this President is doing only worse. What I was against under Bush and am against under this President is the BIG Government Liberals on both sides of the aisle who are spending our kids money into oblivion. Right now, each of our kids own $220K toward the National Debt. In about 5 years, that figure is going to be over $300K.

This is what the post says:

"Companies Planning MASSIVE Layoffs

Boeing has announced massive layoffs in its defense division. I posted previously about a Las Vegas company that fired 22 employees because of ObamaCare. Kerry Picket at The Washington Times has posted a list of more companies that are following suit and laying off people."

Where again does it say Boeing is laying off people because of ObamaCare? The point about Boeing is that this Administration begged the defense contractors to delay these layoffs until after the election. The layoffs in the defense contracting have less than 30 days notice. Some of my friends have gotten them. Federal law states companies have to give 60 days notice when an employee is laid off. This is why the administration told the defense contractors they would use your tax dollars to help these defense contractors with the legal bills over these layoffs.

Your information has been plaed over many time Cheryl. You can believe what you want but they excepted message except by your ilk is that the info was inaccurate and not manufactured as you wish us to believe. I would say we have more of a problem in Benghazi with the cover up that this admin is counducting. Even BO s own party can't get any cooperation from BO and the WH. If you don't believe me then google the efforts of Sen Feinstein and other Sen dems. Of course you will not be able to handle the truth so spin it to your liking but the facts are the facts. Something that libs have difficulty with along with the complexity of other truths and events!

Wrong. You should read the Wikileaks dump on Iraq which was full of DoD and State Dept cables. It is eye-opening just how badly this administration & the media lied about Iraq.

uh, Cheryl, your repeating my post.

Actually 6 women testified on the 2nd panel. The Dems tried to pull a last minute switcharoo and insert Sandra Fluke to testify alongside 5 other Ministers about religious liberty. Their request was voted down. What does Sandra Fluke know about religious liberty?

I will ask you again Cheryl, what does Sandra Fluke know about religious liberty from a theological viewpoint?

Lee - as a web developer, what do you know about religious freedom from a theological standpoint? As a man, I ask you, what do you know about female reproductive issues resolved with the pill? As a new father, if you were a single father with a child and had to balance the cost and responsibility of child care and a FT job with no help? If you could get pregnant as a man, but had not yet intended to do so, how would that affect your ability to be the breadwinner with sole parenting.

Since as a man you have never had to deal with the benefits of contraception has upon the body of a woman, I say, bow out of this conversation or grow a uterus and we'll talk.

"what do you know about religious freedom from a theological standpoint? "

I know quite a lot. If you want to debate me on the issue, have at it. I doubt you know much at all.

As for reproductive issues, I have experienced quite a lot seeing my wife go through some things over the years. If you want to debate me on the issue, have at it. I doubt you know much at all.

Cheryl,
I have openly criticized the President. I do not recall criticizing immigrants-except to say that they need to try to assimilate. We all know that immigration and citizenship is an issue that needs a resolution. I certainly am aware that we cannot pick up families and ship them back--we need to find some way to resolve this issue. However, Reagan tried blanket amnesty for those already here--and, it did not stop the flow. We must first stop the flow.
As for Don Joy, I do not speak for him. On occasion, I have disassociated myself from his comments.
I did not imply there was involvement on Obama's part--I was just using his aunt and uncle as public examples of illegal immigrants who are abusing the system.
Obama won the election--and, if you have read what I have written, you would know that I am against impeachment. Did I think he should be elected? NO! But, we do not need impeachment.
I do not agree with Michele Bachman on social issues--but she is on target as far as fiscal issues. I would have voted for her. I have said here before that I am pro-choice. However, I am also pro fiscal responsibility. My great hope is that the Republicans get off the social issues. However, I think the Dems are way too left field on social issues--and I don't think free birth control for women who can afford it is something to sway my vote.
And why was Obama's aunt granted asylum?

Kathy anything you say contrary to popular opinion to the libs is unfair criticism. Unless you towe their party talkiong points you are being unfair. The libs can't handle the truth here, quite unfortunate. BoO is leading them like limmings off the cliff. 4 more years of BO will take care of them and unfortunately though the damage will be done to the country.

So then, why was her request for political asylum denied in 2004 then she continued living here illegally in direct violation of Federal law? If her request being granted in 2010 wasn't political...

The Presidential election is over and Obama won.

However, you must remember that each member of Congress is elected by his/her district voters and represent the voters. These members are elected because the voters expect them to vote in a certain way. Obama does not have a mandate any more than the members of Congress.
They must compromise. The trouble with the Dems promising cuts is that the cuts never happen. In the past, the Republicans agreed to tax hikes expecting with an agreement to spending cuts that never come.
This time, the cuts should come first. Again, raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires may be popular with those who aren't--but is it really fair for those on the receiving end decide how much those on the paying end should pay? (I might add that I am not a millionaire or billionaire). My husband and I do pay a lot of taxes--but probably not as much as Obama's aunt gets as income. So, think about this: the amount of money I pay in taxes and perhaps those of a neighbor or two are going to support Obama's aunt. Is that fair? I know you will come back with the war issue--but the national defense is for all of us. I give money away to local charities--probably as much as I pay in taxes. That is my choice.
My daughter does not make a lot of money--but she supports herself modestly and pays for her own health insurance.. Yet, Obama's aunt gets more in housing, food stamps and welfare than my daughter makes. Is that fair?

Kathy - would you like your daughter to live in the projects and eat off of food stamps? You choice in standard of living.

I think it's incredibly unfair that a single person pays MORE in taxes than ANY other taxpayer. If you don't have a mortgage - there are no tax deductions to benefit from. Is that fair? If I go into debt and strain my finances, you get help. If you are liquid and a good citizen I receive no benefits. Paying for an apartment is the same with one salary or two salaries. Mortgage is the same for one salary as it is for 2 salaries. Yes, utilities may rise - but they don't double.

There's lots of things that are unfair. But I don't begrudge a homeowner if they are living on strained finances - they choose to live a lifestyle that is different than a renter. I think it's unfair to condemn the poor to life on the streets.

My family and I have been in this country for a number of years and worked hard to make a living and at becoming recent citizens of the US. To tell how I see it ther eare many here now that work hard but have concerns as to the govt and what it should provide for them. You see many of these peoples have come from countries in the south that have dictatorships and govts that take care of many needs. They alsocarry a tight fist with the peoples of their country. . I tell you from my experience growing up in South America that this is not the way to be. You say someone has safeguard and look out for the poor. What right do you have to consider that you must look out for these poor peples when they try their best. You then end up making them more dependent on the govt for susetenace There are already many programs govt andnon govt to help them and you do more harm. the govt Taking money taxing all people to pay for those that you think do not have enoughand threatning folks that have more money then you by taking and confiscating more of their wealth and property is a poor value seen by the people where I come from. The govts become ever so powerul doing this. Believe me I have come from a country ike this and have seen other countrie that give and take from their peoples. May family and I did not come to this country for this and never expected this to happen. Leave me out of you group that feels that ( continued)

Conrtinue from below - I andmany others need you help to live and they only way you plan to do this is taking it from others that you think have too much. I suppoose one day If Im able to make too much to live on and support my faily you will wamt to take that away from me and mine. That is far to said for this country.

(cont'd)

Add to that a system of checks and balances and voting (which is why there was such an uproar over voter restriction laws) - key to maintaining a democracy. That is why getting out the vote, public education, and a balance of income equality through a tax system and access to education are so key.

All that being said, income does need to be addressed so that there businesses can grow and the middle class grows. Even Henry Ford gave living wages to his employees so that they could afford to buy his cars! (speaking to business thriving on a strong middle class driven by consumer demand). Pay it forward might be a good phrase. Once you have it all - you can't take it with you when you die, so use it so others have the same opportunity.

Equal opportunity is not the same as equal results. Equal opportunity does not exist in a dictatorship.

To Recardo E:
If you don't feel that you should contribute to the commons in this country such as roads, national defense, schools, libraries, Internet and so many things provided by various forms of our government I suggest that you either go back and study American history and get your act together or return to the country from which you came.

Look up the transcript yourself. As you can see from this report on the incident 5 (not 6 as I mentioned) clergymen were to testify about religious freedom not about birth control. There was a later panel that dealt with birth control. This was complete grandstanding by the Democrats

If you need more links from the media, do a simple search.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/healthcare/contraception-circus-reigns-at-oversight-hearing-20120216

I ask again, what does Sandra Fluke know about religious freedom?

Cheryl - you might like this link on how the debt got to where it is.

http://www.upworthy.com/the-complete-guide-of-what-to-blame-for-our-debt-problem-brought-to-you-by-math?c=o98

Of course, I do not expect the fringe to u/stand. It seems as if they may be going thru the 5 stages of grief.

BTW, Dems won 5 out of 6 governorships that were up. Made gains in the senate and the house. Mostly the fringe element voted out. Might be a trend here.

Our fiscal problems today stem not from Republicans or Democrats. The problem we have is BIG Government Liberal politicians on both sides of the aisle like President Obama & Mr. Boehner and yes Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Jon Cornyn, John McCain just to name a few. Bush didn't get us into this mess by himself as this mess we find ourselves has its roots 8 decades ago. He didn't help matters at all as Bush governed economically like a Liberal. How President Obama has done worse is by acting like FDR did during the depression by ramping up Government spending (or have you not seen the $1T deficits plus for four years running now) and nationalizing instituions.

One of the biggest myths coming out of the Clinton presidency was that the federal debt had been erased, and that we were on track for a more than $5 trillion surplus - a 10-year figure that was already made dubious by a weakening economy at the end of the Clinton Presidency and a pent-up Congressional urge to spend in the late 90s & 2000s.

Clinton & the GOP raided the Social Security trust fund to balance the books in the 90s. Considering that the deficit grew (see ustreasury.gov) even on Bill Clinton's watch, we were NEVER gonna get a $5.6 trillion dollar surplus.

[More...]

[...]

Now, as for immigration, coming over the border illegally is a Federal crime. Has been on the books for 75 years+. This President halted deportations (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/28/us/politics/traffic-violations-wont-earn-illegal-immigrants-deportation.html) so he could get the Latino vote in 2012. Amnesty is not an option because it cheats the millions of legal immigrants who had to go through the proper channels to become citizens themselves. We MUST close the border and allow these folks who have not been in trouble access to the same path the legal immigrants took to become citizens.

On immigration, this is a terrific video to watch. You think it's bad in the USA now...

http://redalexandriava.com/2011/01/11/immigration-by-the-numbers-video/

RE DEBT @Locally,3:33pmSatNov10: “… you might like this link on how the debt got to where it is. http://www.upworthy.com/the-complete-guide-of-what-to-blame-for-our-debt-problem-brought-to-you-by-math?c=o98 “
Upworthy.com is a great site. I found it a while back, but thanks for posting  this video explanation so others might broaden. The video is good because it is active rather than a chart just sitting there.
I’ll upload related charts in the “photos” section at the top of the article.

Cheryl - you are a much more patient and diplomatic person than I! You're keeping me on good behavior :-D

Wonder how many marriages have been saved by The Pill? If restricted access actually had ever happened in the past, perhaps there would be far more men for access.

Of course don't ignore Jesse Jackson Jr with questionable campaign finace issues hanging over his head. Irregulariteis going back to the shananigans of the former Dem governor of Illimois and so on and so forth. It happens all the round.

Cheryl, I don't think anyone on this board begrudges helping feed hungry children or people who really are suffering and cannot survive. What I think most people do resent are the people who are systemically on the dole. There are generations of families who are on welfare and this needs to stop. The only way to stop it is through jobs--not welfare. Taxing wealthy people in order to divvy up money is not going to help. Helping small businesses through low taxation and low regulation will help. Like it or not, companies are laying off and not hiring due to Obamacare. You may not like Romney and argue about his business, but it is a fact that he helped created lots and lots of jobs--far more than were eliminated.. You fell for the demonization that was created by the Obama campaign and his Republican primary opponents. Romney has paid millions in taxes and given away far more than that. However, he lost and Obama won. That does not mean that he was elected King and gets to do whatever he wishes.
You seem to begrudge his wealth. Do you begrudge the million dollars of our money that the Obama's spent on a state dinner for the President of Mexico? That's more than the GSA spent on a four day junket. $4700 per guest for a state dinner???
There is plenty to criticize on all sides.

Kathy -

Companies are not layoff due to Obamacare (pls ck their financials as I did and then do a correlation with their financial contributions, as I did, then we'll have an informed discussion).

There are people in all societies that lack drive. However, Welfare to work limits their time on 'the dole'. A majority of people choose not to live a life of limited income and food stamps. It may be prudent to not paint with such a broad brush. I believe, from your comment, that you felt demonized by Cheryl's comments regarding the needy and hungry - I did not. I believe we all believe a community responsibility to provide safety nets and we all do not wish to be taken advantage of - either by those that game the safety net system OR those that game the financial system.

Demonization begins with your very targeted comments on Obama's state dinner, etc. Of for God's sakes! You really want to play that game? Difference I see is Obama NOT coming from a background of privilege and feeling ENTITLED to continuing that privilege as sooooo many of those that have do. Don't be part of the problem that you profess to disdain. I personally don't believe you intend to, but you do so on a number of issues.

Romney gave a majority of his charitable givings to the Mormon church. That's his choice. Doesn't make him a charitable person. I wonder if his faith did not require tithing how much he would actually do. I respect his being humble about giving.

Cheryl,
The very wealthy are going to stay wealthy. It is the people who have saved and sacrificed to become comfortable that are worried. They are afraid that the taxes are going to keep them from keeping what they have earned and invested to help their own families, etc. Kind of The Grasshopper and the Ant kind of thing.
And, Cheryl, abuse of position and power knows no Party. Yes, Republicans are guilty--but no guiltier than the Democrats. Blago and Jesse jackson Jr. are examples as are many others that I could name. Are you trying to imply that only Republicans are concerned about Blago and Jackson? I would think that a lot of honest Dems are very concerned about them. Wow.

Cheryl, what a hypocrit you are. Recardo says in no uncertain terms that the policies he rejects in his country are similar to what he sees the libs espouse in this country . And you suggest that he get a balaced view. He rejects out right the view you advocate and you can't deal with it. Get real lady
Obama has been in office 4 years and substantially increased the debt and instituted policies detrimental to the economic welfare of this country. You still blame Bush for BO failures go figure. $ more years you will still be blaming Bush for the economic collapse of this country for the continued socialist policies that BO espouses. They don't work. Tax and spend will lead to collapse of the economy. Why don't you take a moment and read Milton Friedman and F Hayack for an education.

"and the wealthy got tax cuts and more breaks in the tax code."

Actually, everyone got a tax cut. Not just the wealthy.

I said I would vote for Akin over McCaskill because of the votes she has made. I agree with Akin on fiscal policies--not on social ones. My concerns are the fiscal policies. Akin may be wrong on the social issues--but he is not a crook.

You would vote for Jackson Jr. over Allen West wouldn't you?

Cheryl, I am confused on how you saved and sacrificed under Bush due to your fear about the deficit, but the deficit under Obama is fine and dandy and the next four years will be the same. While you may have some valid arguments and opinions regarding certain subjects, it is displays like this that are hypocritical and really do not make sense that cancel out any valid claim you might make.

And I can hear your defense already....we are spending so much because it's Bush's fault and the rich are still not paying enough.

Cheryl, One of the "perks" of being elected is that you are subject to criticism. Get over it. Obama will continue to be criticized for his words and his actions. Good grief, you have certainly done enough Bush bashing. I don't think any Romney supporter on this board has treated him as a "saint". He was my choice for President over Obama. I happen to believe that he is an honest man. You do not.
That is your right. But, it doesn't really matter anymore.

Now that Obama has been reelected and the press does not have to worry anymore, I imagine that the press will start doing a little more investigative reporting of the administration. Tighten your seatbelt=--it is going to be a bumpy ride.

You open yourself to critical comments and you will get it so deal with it.

Jody,
While I understand where you are coming from--I, too, am very disturbed about the expense that FCPS is encountering on educating -and helping to feed- the extreme number of new students. The sad part is that people are coming here for jobs and I guess they are not finding them Many of these kids have just arrived here illegally--we are not talking about families that have been here for years. Yet, we are told that the borders are more secure than ever and that fewer illegals are coming.
However, these are children and we cannot allow them to remain uneducated or unfed. That is reality.
As far as the signs in the polls, by federal law Fairfax county must provide signage in Spanish. The county must also provide interpreters for those who need it. Since the citizenship test is given in English (and it is not easy), I do not understand this requirement.

There have been textbooks used in our public schools for decades now, and teachers, which are blatantly hostile to America, toward white people, and have overt communist messages directed at our kids--a single paragraph mentioning the Cold War, one sentence to Ronald Reagan, and many pages or entire chapters dedicated to Che Guevara, etc. In the Southwest, there many teachers and school districts and textbooks which openly call for AZTLAN, which teach brown supremacy and La Raza to make war on whites, and which depict whites as devils who should be killed off and the land of the Southwest be made part of Mexico.

This type of thing has gone on so long in every city, town and county/state that it's a wonder any republican gets elected anywhere anymore. Given immigration and birthrates, in a few short decades there will be no difference whatsoever between our country and the tyrannical socialist hell of Hugo Chavez' Venezuela. Chavez and Obama are BFFs as I am sure you know.

They won't lose business, the other pizza places will be raising their prices too. They'll maintain the same capacity but with more part time, fewer full time employees. No one really knows what the cost of health care will skyrocket to under Obamacare. If only Obamacare had focused on cost control instead of just adding to the expense. The uncertaintly has had a chilling effect on businesses.

As an aside, the latest 8k quarterly report shows income and other taxes at an eff rate of 13% of net income. Pretty sure his employees are paying more than his corporation or their CEO. And, apparently a high tax rate isn't presenting a drain on profits.

You mean legal & illegal don't you?

11 -

1. The E&Y study with S Corp Assoc is obviously there to promote a position. It is what it is.
2. The studies say themselves that S corps and other pass-throughs are difficult to separate from corporate entities but many are. Give the exception for debate's sake Sole Proprietorships and LLCs
3. Tax rates have been at their lowest in 30 years. Low tax rates didn't help. Where's the jobs they're creating? Majority of jobs over the past 32 months have been created in small businesses.
4. 23% of all manufacturing jobs were lost eff Jan 2008. Low tax rates didn't help.
5. For corporations saying they're living on the margins, then low tax rates are nothing more than corporate welfare at the expense of the deficit and economy. If a company cannot compete in a low tax rate economy, they find a way or fail.
6. There are constant changes in technology, regulatory, environmental, and competitive environments constantly that affect a businesses ability to compete. This is a simple reality of business. We compete as business by providing a better service/product efficiently.

The ACA isn't going to make or break a business, Ending the tax cuts will not either. Our abilities to navigate the constantly changing and ambiguous competitive will.

Bill Kristol, conservative commentator today:
"It won't kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires," he said on "Fox News Sunday." "It really won't, I don't think. I don't really understand why Republicans don't take Obama's offer."

"Really? The Republican Party is going to fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires, half of whom voted Democratic and half of whom live in Hollywood and are hostile?" he asked.

"By lowering rates and cleaning up the tax code, we know that we're going to get more economic growth," he said at a press conference. "It'll bring jobs back to America. It'll bring more revenue. We also know that if we clean up the code and make it simpler, the tax code will be more efficient. The current code only collects about 85 percent of what's due the government. And it's clear that if you have a simpler, cleaner, fairer tax code, that efficiency -- the effectiveness and efficiency of the tax code increases exponentially."

11 - Latest CBO report "Allowing income tax rates to rise for wealthy Americans, and maintaining rates for the less affluent, would not hurt U.S. economic growth much in 2013, the Congressional Budget Office said on Thursday,"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/09/us-usa-fiscal-cbo-idUSBRE8A71D020121109

"CBO expects that even if all of the fiscal tightening was eliminated, the economy would remain below its potential and the unemployment rate would remain higher than usual for some time," the report said.

Economic Affects of Options:

The CBO said extending all of the tax cuts would boost U.S. gross domestic product growth next year by a little less than 1.5 percentage points.

If the tax rates were extended only for individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples earnings less than $250,000, CBO said, growth would rise by 1.25 percent.

Wall Street estimates show third-quarter GDP growth was 2.8 percent. Unemployment is currently at 7.9 percent.

Eliminating the automatic spending cuts to military and domestic programs would add back 0.75 percentage points of growth, as would extending an expiring payroll tax cut and long- term unemployment benefits that are expected to end next year, the CBO said.

But the office also warned of the consequences of taking such actions without reducing deficits that have run at $1 trillion in each of the past four years.

Low blow LI - using Bill Kristol's words against me. I can't stand that warmongering neocon! He spins a good yarn on global policy (which I usually disagree with) but he is an economic nitwit! In one sense he's right - a tax increase will not hurt the millionaires. The people they (un)employ will be the ones who experience the actual pain. As for the CBO - it's worth noting that even under these deplorably low Bush taxes on those disgusting millionaires, that individual tax payments are up 26% over the past 2 years. Tax revenue at $2.45 T is near the historic high of 2007. The big problem is on the spending side - $3.54 T - or $800B more than 2007, the "one-time emergency" stimulus spending has now been incorporated into the baseline Fed budget. This does NOT include the new HealthCare spending that starts 1/1/2013. Two years ago, President Obama signed into law, the extension of the current tax rates, citing that increasing taxes in the face of a recession would have a negative effect on economic growth. That fact remains true today.

11 - hahaha, all I know is that Kristol is well respected in conservative circles and two republican friends of mine (both having served in GOP admins) think well of him. So, I went with it.

The fact still remains that there is no gain without pain and every sector of our country will have to contribute. The temp tax cuts have been a form of corporate welfare (along with subsidies). This will be a challenge to our business skills to find a way to be a better competitor. You're either in the game or not.

We know in business that you cannot grow through cost cutting alone - you must find ways to nurture and grow as you cut. Examine the productivity of your BD folk, pricing, more efficient production and delivery methods, solutions that make your customers better at selling and marketing your products/services. There are many ways to win - find the way for your business. But to sit there and say I can't unless the gov't gives it to me - well, is no different that the arguments we've heard on people needing assistance without working to improve their situations.

Everyone's going to have to give. Tax cuts haven't resulted in better business as you've stated in your posts with the difficulties you've been facing. Time to try something different.

LI - thanks for the exchange, time to move on after this ...

First, I fully agree that other business factors matter way more than taxation. I spend very little time on business factors that I can't control - taxation being at the top of the list. However, it was the issue we isolated for discussion given the President's desire to increase taxes on business owners like me.
I'm merely pointing out that increasing income taxes by say 5% and Health Care Taxes at 3.5% will obviously decrease business investment as the the after-tax return on investment will be significantly reduced. Pure math. A transfer from private business investment to public debt paydown. A bet that Washington will spend this transfer more wisely than thousands of private business owners. Maybe so - Singapore has done well with this top-down approach but I sure hope we do better than Cash for Clunkers! With the massive global financial de-levering still ongoing, it's a tough case that you are making that the greenshoots are here, that the global economy is growing so strongly that businesses can overcome this 8.5% cost absorption headwind. In short, adding substantial cost burdens to employers during a slow growth (and hopefully not contraction) period is ill-advised. While it may be popular to stick it to employers, popular politics does not always yield prudent policy. Finally, they think they are socking it to the rich. Unfortunately, the sucker punch will land on the working class... again

11 - I see it this way, the weaker firms will be weeded out. I don't plan to be one of them. My plan is to take advantage of good employees and additional assets and customers that I can pick up. Sure, it'll hit my bottom line profits short term - but that's short term. My job is to sell to my investors the vision as a leader. I have plenty of managers to execute the ground game.

This type of contraction is business as usual in recessionary times. Now I need a game plan to take advantage of the opportunity. Please do the same. As you said, there are plenty of things we can control, take the wheel. Establish your vision. Go for it by leveraging the hits to your advantage. You'll have a better firm for it. All the best!

Amazing that many still trust a party that haven't noticed the changing demographics that's been in play for years to not seeing the financial collapse. They have their own little bubble and haven't even noticed it's been popped!

And, the rest of America was to trust these guys with our future when they don't see the future even after they've been slapped in face with it!? LOL

Who's excluding anyone? Blacks, asians, hispanics, eskimos, polynesians, you name it, all have been more than welcome to join the GOP all along. They prefer not to join the party which emphasizes personal responsibility and economic liberty, and which eschews race-hustling. Blacks and hispanics, in general, are not inclined to the GOP's message of responsibility, as evidenced by the 70% out-of-wedlock birthrate among those demographics. It is the democrat party that overtly panders to non-whites by emphasizing racial division and handouts and looting whitey. People like you incessantly call for the GOP to abandon its message in order to appeal to masses of those who do not share our values and principles. Why? Why do we need two identical parties? Why is the prescription not for the GOP to instead make an overt play for more of the white vote, seeing as just about everyone has deemed it perfectly okay to base appeals on race? Is there something wrong with encouraging racial pandering towards whites, and solidifying the demographic which is mainly attracted to the GOP's message, yet nothing wrong with pandering to non-whites? The hypocrisy never ends with you people.

Don, good to see you're back and feisty a usual. I still say we need to get the Retropubs together for a drink somewhere - we never got everyone together - traffic was crazy that night with people rushing to get to polls. Jody got your message late also. I'm thinking maybe a Friday or (less traffic) Saturday night somewhere to discuss the Democrunk victory.

Deborah, thanks, I'm game.

Don, sane and rational people everywhere would love for the GOP to follow your suggestions and appeal only to the white party from now on. That would ensure that future elections will result in less and less GOP candidates winning, which means that eventually sanity will reign and the GOP will die out. If the GOP continues to believe only in "white power", then eventually it will be forced to acknowledge reality. It's obvious after this election that money alone can't buy votes.

Sandra, what you say doesn't make sense. Whites are still the largest demographic. If whites voted in the cohesive manner that, say, blacks for example do, every single election would be a landslide for the GOP. That is, the elections that are not based on racially gerrymandered districts specifically designed to give a congressional seat to a black person. So my question to you, again, is: If it's okay to base campaigns partly on convincing racial identity groups to vote for a particular party, why would it not be okay to shore up the white vote within, say, the party which attracts more of it in the first place? If it's okay for, say, blacks to vote in lockstep with their race, wouldn't it then be a reasonable and winning strategy to persuade whites that it is also okay to unite within the party of property rights, fiscal sanity, and the antidote to Orwellian political correctness?

And I've still yet to see or hear anyone give an accounting of how and why it is appropriate to say that the GOP excludes anyone at all, based on demographics. Women and members of every kind of group of all stripes have always been more than welcome with open arms to vote republican--after all, we are the party that ended slavery and forged ahead with the Civil Rights legislation in spite of forceful, often violent, democrat opposition. The problem has been that the Marxist democrats have succeeded in their decades-long pogrom of political-correctness which falsely depicts America and white people as oppressors, and minorities as victims who need the handouts and PC affirmative-action programs of big government in order to achieve "equality." Meanwhile, the GOP has emphasized not group identity, but individual rights and achievement. Maybe this is the real reason why the GOP is losing ground--we have actually bred and invited in among us truly anti-American legions, who prefer not the message of individuality that made America what it once was. Nowadays, the message of identity politics and racial groups as voting blocs is what resonates and wins elections! Well, then, shouldn't the GOP simply do what works, then? Reaching out to blacks and hispanics hasn't worked; they mainly just bite our hands, because they don't want to be told that 70% out-of-wedlock and dependency culture is wrong.

...by "in among us" I don't mean into the republican party, I mean into the United States.

Don, I'm encouraging you to reach out to the white population. Have at it! I just don't think it's going to get you anywhere. And if you're wondering why women are turning away, then I suggest you look to your hateful and oppressive social policies. The GOP attempts at defunding Planned Parenthood, ordering women to undergo unneeded sonograms, railing against gay marriage. If that is your platform, then fine, but don't expect people (of any race) to vote GOP just because they are white. I know a number of whites (especially women) that won't vote GOP because of it's extreme conservative social positions. There's no conspiracy here, Don. People just don't like the GOP positions enough to vote for them. I used to be a Republican, but gave it up years ago when the extremists took over. The party we have now is NOT the party that Abraham Lincoln was a part of. So keep your positions - I'm not trying to dissuade you. I just don't see the GOP taking over for the foreseeable future. I don't want someone telling me how I should think, which is what I see the GOP party trying to do.

Sandra, I do not wonder why women favor the democrat party over the GOP. I know why. It is not for any of the reasons you allege.

Don, I find it interesting that you know why women don't vote for GOP candidates, given that you are not a non-GOP woman. I am an independent woman voter, and speaking for myself and my friends, I know why we didn't vote for GOP candidates.

Don, this is 170 pages! Quite a link! Not sure how to contact all the Retropubs, but I prefer Saturday night but I'm flexible if others want Friday night. I'm not sure where everyone is located - most are probably in the Fairfax, Vienna area so if anyone knows of a place up there to meet that would be great. I'm not sure how to announce this to all the Retropubs - can only hope they are following. There may be a way to announce it on the site somewhere - do you know how to do this? And to Sandra - the GOP is not all whites - we have a great mix of everyone and like Don said, anyone is welcome to join. I'm not sure of the percentage difference in the popular vote but it wasn't a slam dunk by any stretch of the imagination. There were a lot of Americans who voted for Romney and now a lot of disappointed people. We can only hope for the best!

Deborah - I never said the GOP doesn't consist of all whites. However, Don's statement above (if you read it) states that he feels the GOP should "make an overt play for more of the white vote" and "encourage pandering towards whites", which I take to mean continuing with your current policies and platform. I'm all for it, as I think it will drive more moderates and independents to vote for Democratic candidates. And no, I'm not a Dem, but an independent, though I feel that right now the only party offering non-Jurassic social policies is the Democratic party.

No, Sandra, it wouldn't be a continuation, it would be a radical new approach. I've already described why.

Even more troubling are the reports coming in from Ohio, particularly the precincts in and around Cleveland--90% turnout in almost all of them, and alleged 99% votes for Obama. This is just flat-out fraudulent.

Don, I know right. It amazed me with as many people out of work and the economy in such poor straights that Obama would win the election. I still don't see how this could be, but who knows.

From the front page of the St. Lucie County Supervisor of Elections website:

note* - turnout percentages will show over 100% due to a two page ballot. the tabulation system (GEMS) provides voter turnout as equal to the total cards cast in the election divided by the number of registered voters. also note that some voters chose not to return by mail the second card containing the amendments.

http://www.slcelections.com/

Deborah, email me at donaldgjoy@gmail.com if you want to coordinate our after-action strategy session and revenge-plotting.

What, then, explains the 59 precincts in Philadelphia all of which report 100% of votes for Obama?? What about the over 100 precincts in Cleveland which report the same? That's just massive fraud. Not one single vote for Romney among all those precincts?? Come on.

...change our strategy to go all-out to consolidate the white vote--bring conscientious whites back from the abyss of democrat socialist hell--or just hang it up and let America go the way of Greece, Venezuela, Iceland, Spain, Rhodesia, et. al.

Don, we all know that the libs promote the democratic party as the go to to have the government take care of you, to get what ever you want with others money. And of course they say know that we need to change our tune since we lost the election. Did they do likewise when they lost, did they give uo the idea of uncontrilable spending and raising taxes when they lost? Did they give up the idea of murdering innocent unborn children? They gie up the idea of destroying the 1st and 2nd amendmen? Did they give up the throught of drilling for oil and gas where ever it can be found to make us energy independent and to jump start the economy? No they didn't . They will continue with the failed policies of this administration it seacrecy and corruption. As long as you are able to buy votes and give out stuff paid for by hard working people then we will hae atough road to hoe. Hopefully we can save the country before it turns into the state of California in the image and likeness of bankrupt countires of Europe.

Marshall, I just don't see America doing anything but continuing to slouch and slide down into the swirling toilet of third-world socialist stagnation. There's no reversing this trend, apart from a miracle. The party which booed God at their convention hung on to the presidency and increase their hold on the senate.

Don Joy - you'd think as a 'security specialist' you'd know better than to post your personal email account on a public site. Silly, silly, man.

Why? What the hell do you think anyone can do to me that I'm not prepared for already?

Hard to fathom Don and beyond comprehension.

Oh, dj - one would think in your field you should know what one can do with an email account and name. Things your guns cannot prevent.

Head to the bunker know, make sure the cameras are operational...keep looking over your shoulder. They're coming to get you...

Locally Involved, as I said, have at it and give it your best shot. Think I was born yesterday? People like you live your lives cowering and grovelling and never learning how to deal with adversity, hiding behind fake names and frightened that someone might catch you saying something that violates political correctness or that they'll hack into your bank account or some crap. Waaahhhhhhh trust me, I've been through all of it and worse, that's why I'm a republican, I know that adversity is what builds character. I use my real name here because I want people to know that there are still some among us who aren't afraid to stand up and face reality.

Cont. PART 2:
> More mooching: related examples:
-- If you refer to Social Security, we paid into it for years
-- Medicare: ditto. still pay some.
-- Welfare to Work: Republicans lie about Obama removing work requirements …not true. Governors, including Romney, REQUESTED state flexibility. The basic work requirement is still there!
-- Disability status due to military service injuries? …civilian emphysema from breathing air polluted by a dirty coal-fired plant next door etc
-- Food stamps/other poverty-level: not applicable
> “…masses of third-world denizens...overrun us seeking free stuff.
The vast majority of immigrants do not seek "free stuff" --that is a denigrating line that bullies--folks like you, Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly sneer and throw around. Most people only seek freedom and opportunity to work,,,then contribute to giving another generation a boost.

Do you, or have you, done anything but snicker and badmouth... soaking up crap from sites like "Obama Must Go" and regurgitating it ?

> “…our attempts at embracing and welcoming in diversity in the same bend-over-backwards display…” THAT is exactly the problem. Presence of diversity among IS A DISPLAY – staged, forced, fake –NOT SINCERE & AUTHENTIC.

> Preserve the culture which their forbears fought and died...: Any relatives of YOURS? Did any of your family serve in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, middle east actions? Why do I ask?
Because YOU SPIT AND STOMP ON MY FAMILY'S BLOOD, BUDDY.

PART ONE: It does no good to reply, but this post is particularly onerous because your descriptors are your constructs, your stereotypes…not me!

First, I have respected many traditional Republicans, but NOT today’s radical RINOs. Classic example: In 2008 John McCain set straight the woman who said: “But he’s an Arab, a Muslim”.
Mitt Romney has not done anything similar, just smirked and/or looked away.

SEE NOTATIONS FOR SOME OF YOUR POINTS (>)
> White female, over 65, born in D.C. grew up in Md & Pa, college
> Democrat: YES
> Hater: NO
> Fiscal sanity: of course needed (fiscal moderate-to-conservative)
> Personal responsibility: RESONATES. I.e., don't lecture or label me or mine, thank you! We demonstrate this. Some of us could even grow our own food if needed -- can you?
> More big government: Typical far-right mantra; mostly not true (LOOK at statistics)
> More spending: Typical far-right mantra; mostly not true (LOOK at statistics). Also, how much will government have to grow and tax to monitor and enforce anti-abortion laws?
> More looting: ???
[see part 2 next]

Got your goat, Ann, because I typed the truth. I've already described in detail my military service record elsewhere on these threads, and I'm not about to indulge you yet again. Your ad hominem is pointless anyway. Enjoy your socialist stagnation and dhimmitude, you voted for it and you deserve to reap the whirlwind of your blind ideology.

...and Obama GUTTED the work requirement from welfare.

Deborah, you see the GOP as being misunderstood. I see it as living in a bubble of their own making. I have no problem with fiscal austerity, when it is conducted in a sincere way. I do have a problem when the GOP paints all federal workers as lazy and overpaid, and applies cuts in a mean-spirited way (reducing all Planned Parenthood funding because you disagree with abortion and birth control). You see yourselves as righteous - I and many others see the GOP as oppressive. You claim not to want government to tell people what to do, but then you go out and pass social laws based only on your own religious morals. Look around you and realize that there are many out there who worship differently, who have different (but equally redeeming) social values, and who have different opinions. I find it funny that you all claim there is some "great conspiracy", when in reality the GOP tried to fix elections by passing onerous "voter fraud" laws that had one thing in mind - reducing the opposition vote. Nobody here expects handouts. However, we also don't expect to allow big business to do whatever it darn well pleases at the expense of the lower and middle classes. I look at all of the that the GOP PACs spent, and wonder how you can claim that all of these donors are going to go under because they can't afford to pay a little more in taxes.

Yeah, real onerous, requiring voters to show the same level of ID they have to show to buy beer or cigarettes in order to be at least minimally sure they are who they say they are when they vote. Give me a break already with the lame lefty talking points.

The only reason we had the 2,700 pages of Obamacare shoved down our throats was because democrats STOLE the Minnesota senate seat and plopped that clown Al Franken into it. In a race decided by 312 votes, 1,099 convicted felons voted, and there have been 177 people convicted of election fraud in that one race alone--with 66 more people awaiting trial! Notice how you never hear anything in the democrat media about this? It changed the entire course of United States history, that Minnesota senate race, when democrats kept finding boxes of ballots in their car trunks (all of them somehow miraculously marked for Franken), and resulted in 1/6th of our nation's economy to come under bureaucratic socialist tyranny, yet nobody in the media seems to be interested in spreading the news.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1099-felons-vote-in-race-won-by-312-ballots/article/2504163

'Wasserman Shultz and her fellow Democrats are doing everything they can to stop reasonable anti-fraud measures, like removing ineligible voters from the rolls and voter ID. Through it all, they maintain they are simply defending our most fundamental right, the right to vote.

'But voter fraud involves that right, too. "When voters are disenfranchised by the counting of improperly cast ballots or outright fraud, their civil rights are violated just as surely as if they were prevented from voting," write Fund and von Spakovsky. "The integrity of the ballot box is just as important to the credibility of elections as access to it."'

Sandra, the GOP is misunderstood if you think every Republican goes to church and is righteous and doesn't believe in birth control, etc. There are extremes amongst the Dems, the Repubs, and the Indepens. Being conservative and being a Republican to me has little to do with birth control and abortion. Those are womens' health issues and nothing more than that. I believe people (men and women) should both be responsible for the use of birth control so that women don't have an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. Notice I said responsible - personal responsibility is not that tough. Birth control should be made available to those who can't afford it. The economy and jobs and all those other biggies are what I'm concerned with not womens' health issues or what church beliefs people have. I consider myself a religious person but I don't go to church - I don't feel I need a building to go to to to talk to God - I talk to God from my own home or car or bathroom wherever I feel the need to and I don't talk to him that often because I'm not really a needy person. It's all the negative campaigning that constantly tries to paint Republicans like we are these holier than thou bible thumping rightous morons than snub our noses at the rest of the population. That's just not correct. I would say the majority of Republicans want fiscal responsibility - that's the number one need right now in America and along with that goes good jobs and a strong nation that can defend itself.

Perhaps the GOP is misunderstood. However, it still remains that evangelicals and white protestants voted overwhelmingly for Romney/Ryan.

Therefore, the messaging the GOP went with in this election apparently overwhelmingly resonated with the religious indicating a rather one note platform.

Votes and prayers
Nov 8th 2012, 16:49 by Economist.com

How the presidential vote split along religious lines

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/11/daily-chart-2?zid=309&ah=80dcf288b8561b012f603b9fd9577f0e

Locally, I thought someone provided a link that said the evangelicals weren't going to vote because Romney is a Mormon! Links don't really mean that much - generally they are just written with one person's point of view with statistics that match what he/she wants to get across because he/she has searched for statistics that support his/her point of view. If you were an evangelical who would you vote for - a Mormon or a Muslim? Probably a coin toss. So if I provide a link that shows that people on welfare and looters voted for Obama does that mean that that's what the Democratic party stands for? Hopefully not - now do you see what I'm talking about - totally misrepresented and misunderstood. If the GOP is going to constantly be portrayed as the far right bible thumping evangelical anti-abortionists then I guess it's ok to refer to the Democratic Party as the party of looters and lazy people who don't want to work and are constantly seeking abortions. See how silly this sounds - of course neither party stands for these things. There are extremes to every party and these extremes don't (and shouldn't) define the parties. In math they are referred to as outliers - they are outside of where the main data is located ie., not the norm and thus shouldn't be mislabeled as representing the norm. That's all I'm saying.

Deborah, I respect your opinion, as many of your beliefs are the same as mine. I do, however, differ with you in that you seem to think the GOP does not push its social and religious conservatism on others. That is exactly the reason I dropped out of the GOP. I see it especially here in Virginia - with the GOP control of the Virginia government, they are avidly pursuing what I consider extreme right-wing social policies such as requiring sonograms before abortions, even if both doctor and patient agree there is no need for it. They are trying to defund Planned Parenthood clinics, which offer birth control, and they are creating regulations that are completely unneccessary to force abortion clinics out of business. Does that mean I favor abortion? I myself wish that abortion wasn't necessary. However, I don't presume to speak for anybody else. If I had a fetus that was a product of rape, or that would be born without a brain, I would like to have that option. I find it hypocritical of the GOP to say they are against government making decisions for individuals, then doing just that because it suits their right-wing conservative goals. I find it impossible to understand that they want to do away with abortion, but advocate for not teaching high schoolers about contraception, and try to defund clinics which offer birth control. Until the GOP stops trying to force its brand of social/religious conservatism on everyone, I will not vote for GOP candidates.

So, Deborah -just so I do not misunderstand...

You're dismissing The Economist, one of the world's most respected and widely read weekly magazines ready by just about every GOP and dem and world leader...

okay.

And, you're dismissing the basic facts of data - not opinion - but the actual charted data showing religious vote by party line.

okay.

Now, if you'd like to know why R/R lost, it's because of this mass denial of basic numbers. Y'know. Math.

Perhaps if you posted a link from a non partisan, widely respected site which supported a rational opinion, there'd be more confidence in your comments.

Now, so I am not misunderstood. The data is not saying that the religious votes along party line defined the GOP. The GOP defined itself. The voters simply went with what resonated with them.

Deborah, first off, Obama is a Christian, so referring to a choice of Mormon vs. Muslim is just wrong. I don't know why the GOP continues to refer to him as a Muslim just because of his name. Secondly, the reason I refer to the GOP as a party that is composed of right-wing religious people is that all of the policies I've seen passed in VA this year have to do with anti-abortion force-people-to-do-it-the-GOP-way. Our governor promised to find funding for transportation improvements, which are seriously needed, and I have seen nothing regarding that issue. All I see is an emphasis on social issues. I voted (against my better judgement) for a local GOP candidate because he promised to work with local neighborhoods on local issues. I was extremely disappointed (and won't vote for him again) when he spent most of his time helping to pass what I consider asinine right-wing conservative social policies. I have seen none of the my local GOP reps addressing financial or transportation issues. I have seen then pushing through and concentrating on extremely conservative social issues. Will I vote for a GOP candidate in the foreseeable future? Sorry, not again.

Sandra - I hesitate to classify Deborah and others of that viewpoint as GOP. Like yourself, they are not the GOP I know now or then. GOP use to mean fiscally conservative and social issue agnostic. That paradigm has been turned on its head. The GOP I know are rational, have worked with GOP admins, are respectful of differing opinions. We need a strong 2 party system (would be nice to have a better 3rd party to keep things lively) for a strong democracy.

The party that calls itself GOP today has been hijacked by a fringe element. This fringe element does not see a need for a strong 2 party system. They see a need for their own fringe solely.

Fringes die out. On the other hand, the fringe has brought the dems to the center making their candidacy viable as seen attracting more moderates, independents, and old guard GOP. We've seen it as the dem party won 8 of the 9 swing states, gained 2 seats in the senate and more seats in the House.

The fringe does not see what every other voting group in the country has seen and heard. Until the blind can see, many republicans, as yourself, will have a lot of hard work ahead to get your party back.

Locally Involved, I agree that the old GOP party used to be more concerned with being fiscally conservative than socially conservative. My parents were Republicans, and I originally started out as one. However, in the last decade or so I noticed how the GOP devolved more and more into an extreme, socially conservative right-wing religiously-oriented group. I am an independent, not a Dem, but I have been voting Dem because there is currently no viable 3rd party that has any chance of getting a candidate elected. I am not against GOP fiscal conservatism. I do think that we need to streamline things and make them more efficient. However, I object to the way the GOP tries to do this by demonizing different groups. It angers me the way they attack all government workers as lazy, stupid, and wasteful. I don't like they way the GOP categorizes all minorities as lazy, illegal, and living on the dole (GOP party, unless you are a Native American, your ancestors were also once illegal aliens). Instead of building concensus and working together, the GOP now tries to tear down people by attacking them and trying to portray them using untruths. I agree that this is due to their party being hijacked by the fringe elements. I also agree that unless they change, they stand little chance of regaining prominence.

Hmmm, you're right dj, Obama did not win any traditional red states. Could it be that the voter fraud laws in those states kept the GOP from their own fraudulent votes, thereby costing them the election? Maybe R/R actually won VA, but those laws prevented the GOP fraud from occurring...

ooh, yeah. VA is a traditionally red state. Must be something wrong with your logic. Okay, admit it, pointing out the obvious re: your logic!

Um, what are you trying to say? The fact is that the law was actually changed in Virginia to require LESS stringent ID standards--people can now just bring fake utility bills (as Jim Morans' son advised on camera) and be given provisional ballots.

Well, I guess the VA Republicans are just bad republicans since they passed their version of the ALEC inspired voter ID law. As is the case in other states, this law is designed to discourage eligible voters from exercising their franchise.

For fraudulent purposes, one can also fake the voter id card issued by VA. oh, the horror!

Don,

That is just such bunk. Obama won several states in which new voter ID restrictions had been put into place for this 2012 election, including Wisconsin, Illinois, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Virginia, Florida, and Iowa.

Barbara, get your facts straight.

Don,

Ditto. You say "Obama did not win any state where anti-fraud measures (voter ID) were in place." With what do you support that statement? It is wrong.

Obama DID jettison the work requirement. Declaring that "bed rest" is "work" is typical of this dystopian regime.

It's going to be fun watching you socialists flail around for the next 4 years, incessantly trying to keep up the charade of blaming capitalism for the results of leftist socialist policies which crashed the economy and keep us in economic stagnation. You never hear the media or even republican leaders bringing up what Obama was doing in 1994 which helped bring about the housing crisis, nor do many ever really point out emphatically that it was only after the democrats got control of both houses of congress in 2006 that the unemployment rate started to head skyward and the economy began to crash. I will be delighted when the public awakens, finally, to the painful reality that socialists eventually run out of other people's money, and all of this voting for more socialism takes a hiatus. Unfortunately, because of human nature and the nature of electoral politics in universal suffrage, a hiatus from socialist election victories is the best we on the right can expect; looters and moochers will always mainly prevail when the lowest common denominator can vote--they outnumber the prudent, wise voters.

Cheryl - Wrong. Even the GAO said that only Congress can change the law.

In a report issued in September, the GAO report said that since welfare reform (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, aka TANF) became law, the HHS has never granted work requirement waivers similar to the ones the Obama memo authorizes.

Specifically, the GAO concluded: “Since the creation of TANF, HHS has not granted any section 1115 waivers related to TANF. Many states received section 1115 waivers under AFDC, and they were allowed to continue these until their expiration, the last of which expired in 2007. No provision in law allowed these AFDC waivers to be extended.”

http://www.gao.gov/products/B-323772#mt=e-report

Lee--email me at donaldgjoy@gmail.com. We're plotting a get-together.

KEL, by your own token, Bush is not to be blamed for the economic crisis which occurred in 2008, because democrats controlled the purse strings, both houses of congress, in the two years preceding. Obama was one of them, by the way. Bwahahaha

http://thesnarkwhohuntsback.wordpress.com/favorite-passages-from-atlas-shrugged/the-story-of-the-twentieth-century-motor-company-atlas-shrugged-part-ii/

Keith, I totally agree. I have a good friend who owns a small business and she's exactly there right now. They have no idea what they've done, all we can do is hope for the best.

"Unemployment checks create jobs" ~ Nancy Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi: Quit your job, other people will pay your bills

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRY7Wvim8-8

America. Love it or Leave it.

But stop whining. Bitter party of one, table ready.