Should the USA suspend democracy until the economy recovers? Democrats say yes.

You might find it interesting to know that your statistic can easily be flipped around on you. Although Democrats hold approximately 80% of the wealth in the Senate, Republicans hold approximately 80% of the wealth in the House. Actually the two wealthiest members of Congress are Republicans. Like I said before, these stats don't mean anything.

As far as the fact that Red states are poorer than blue states, consider the following factors:
1. Those with a college education are more liberal than those without.
2. The stars of pop culture (Hollywood, pro athletes) are both rich and liberal.
3. Public employees at the managerial level, politicians, lawyers, all make good money, and of course they are overwhelmingly Democrats.
4. Brainwashing: Republicans, the media, and other opinion leaders have been able to divert people’s attention away from economics and towards cultural issues, such as abortion, gay rights, religion, patriotism, race, etc. It’s easier to influence uneducated people, as evidenced by terror groups in the Mideast.

At the local level, Americans may vote based upon economical interests, but as a nation, they frequently do the opposite. Ironically, it's the poor rifle toting hillbillies and little old ladies living off SS that elect Republicans. Basically, poor regions, such as the deep south are far more conservative. This trend is indicative of the rising importance of social issues over economical issues.

I have to ask you, why is this pertinent? You are making these remarks as if they have some bearing on legislative values. Can you explain why you believe this fact to be relevant?

I agree wholeheartedly that the middle class has been under attack for at least thirty years. It's not even so much congressional action, but more political drift that has led us to where we are now.

I also agree that the nation was headed in the wrong direction long before Bush took office. Furthermore, I don't blame everything on Bush. You, however, are failing to see how much of an impact Bush did have on the nation's fiscal stability.

Most of the debt incurred under Obama is the result of continued Bush policies that could not be easily overturned. Long term spending on Medicare D, wars, interest, etc. has led to the greatly increasing debt. I challenge you to look up the US deficit and determine the contributing factors leading to the deficit. You will see that very little of the debt has been a result of Obama's policies.

Your statements in regards to Obama are just ludicrous. Even the most conservative economists estimate that it will be another 5-6 years before credit markets open up and the economy begins to see some real growth. Essentially, this is our version of "the lost decade". Actually, when Japan's housing market collapsed in 1990, it wasn't just a decade, but 16 years before their ailing economy really began to heal. This is the real world we are living in. Macro-economies don't just turn around in a matter of weeks. The fact is, we are starting to see jobs reappearing and the economy is starting to slowly pick up. If you really think that McCain, or anyone else for that matter, could have done better, I'd love to know how.

it's been a while since I was around.

We did not have time to look for WMD until after Saddam was overthrown.
Saddam had been funding Islamic terrorists around the world.
We were not forced to maintain a presence.

I don't know when the Ansar camp was founded, it was there.
When do terrorists become a threat. Many said the same about Osama before 9-11. By 9-11 the were very dangerous but it was too late to stop them.

Al Answar was in Iraq and that is the link. Well half was in Iraq and the other half was in Iran. That is a level of cooperation that cannot be allowed to stand. If Iran thought 3 leftist American hikers were a threat, I am sure they would see problems with a terrorist camp.

BTW: The Islamic terrorists, proudly and loudly proclaiming their eagerness for martyrdom, built their camp so they could escape. If Iraq was invaded, they flee to Iran. If Iran was invaded, they flee to Iraq.

Terrorists were entering Iraq through Syria or Iran. That is a breach of International Law. I seriously doubt that either would have went to war to continue the flow of AQ into Iraq. Call it a threat, or whatever,, they should have been alerted to possible consequences for their hostile actions.

There is no doubt in my mind that if Clinton had told Afghanistan to turn over Osama, or he would send them all to Allah, 9-11 would never have happened. They may not have turned him over,but they would have put him out of commission and we would have been notified.

Threats, with the belief that they will be followed upon, often solve problems and prevent them from becoming larger. Instead Clinton went to the UN when Osama blew up 2 embassies in Africa. A lot of good they did us.

A) You imply a false dichotomy. Despite the right-wing propaganda, most Democrats do NOT want to blindly increase spending; and most Republicans would NOT follow through with their promise to cut spending, reduce your taxes, or balance the budget. In fact, if you (personally) take the time to study our history (using academically reviewed and verified sources), you will learn that it has been Republicans (and blue-dog Democrats) who have borrowed and spent recklessly, increased your taxes (while decreasing taxes on themselves and their wealthy benefactors), engaged in imperialization which is largely the reason for foreign aggression, and removed economic regulations which provided over 50 years of economic stability. Democrat-controlled administrations, typically, have stabilized the economy, and frequently created a better balance between individual/workers and business interests. But what makes your claim a false dichotomy is that you imply if someone doesn't support the Republicans (right-wing), then they must be opposed to cutting spending, capping taxes, and balancing the budget. It's a classic example of, you're either for us or against us.

B) I've spent a large portion of my life studying many facets of history, science, sociology, psychology, philosophy, economics, and business (which I have a degree in), which has given me the opportunity to evaluated multiple "ideologies". However, I have found I'm a rare exception. Instead, most people are unwilling or incapable of doing their own research; so they are unable to put aside their biases and objectively analyze the facts. If everyone did this, more people would see that the right-wing plutocrats are spinning a trail of lies (fraud), instead of repeatedly believing them that "It'll be different this time". Talk about "insanity"... Put another way, before the right-wing propaganda machine (News Corp, Limbaugh, Drudge, etc) reached it's current prominence, the majority of Americans (like most compassionate humans) were left-leaning centrist, capitalists. In fact, in most places around the world and throughout history, it has been necessary for oligarchs/plutocrats to propagandize in order to establish a base. Their arguments/claims are always the same, and they play to people's fears, base desires (namely greed), self-loathing, and ignorance. The latter is why the right-wing opposes educating, and contrives mechanisms like sports, movies, theme parks, inane television shows, etc as distraction - effectively time control. Fundamentally, they know that the more educated the electorate is, the less likely they are to buy their claptrap. In many cases, they spend an amazing amount of money and time trying to defame and besmirch their opposition by distorting history and spewing populist rhetoric like the canard that Democrats are "socialists". By continually painting this picture, and dumbing-down the laborers, they create an environment where those laborers become infantilized - meaning dumb, docile, and dependent. While spinning this fraud and deception (a classic con-game), those same people use their wealth, power, and influence to increase their wealth, power, luxury, and influence. This is not some crazy conspiracy theory, it is a well-documented, historical (and quite successful) strategy of despots and tyrants throughout history. And it is in full play in the US - I'm sorry you can't see it...

C) President Obama is not a bad president (especially compared to several of his predecessors), although he has not been as effective as most of us would like. His negotiating skills are non-existent, and his unwillingness to call out the right-wing plutocrats for their misfeasance/malfeasance almost makes us believe he is in league with them. But, in comparison to the far-right to radical-right set of candidates being considered for the Republican nomination (and considering our dysfunctional electoral system), I would rather vote for a president I consider to be a right-leaning moderate than the others. This president has reduced your taxes, cut the deficit, attempted to stabilize the economy using a strategy that has been used dozens of times by Republican presidents (you call it stimulus), fought for your rights, has repeatedly shown his willingness to cooperate (aka bipartisanship), and attempted (despite incredible opposition) to improve the lives of the majority of "middle-class" Americans.

The right-wing plutocrats, though, have waged a campaign against this president (and the country) that I consider an act of terrorism, organized crime, and an insurrection. A few of them have been indicted for their actions; but, because of the level of corruption in our government (all branches and levels), especially our justice system, very few are convicted. And those that have been convicted often get off with little to no punishment.

However, if there were a better (ie strong, progressive centrist) candidate that had a reasonable chance of beating the Republicans, I would happily give them my vote. Personally, I would like to abolish the political parties, and reform our government (all aspects) to restore/establish a mutually beneficial (uniquely syncretic) republic/democracy - just as our founders attempted to do. In short, I am an advocate for a separation of politics and government, just as our founders advocated a separation of church and state, and for much the same reason.

The government does not possess the ability to directly spend money out of the SS trust-fund. Essentially, the SS Act provides that by law, operative word there being law, any surplus reported by the SS administration may be utilized to purchase government securities. These securities are then paid back with interest in the future, thus providing excess funding for the program from what was paid in. The key concept to gather here is that any securities purchased with SS money are equivalent to intergovernmental debt. Therefore, the only responsible way for the government to spend this money temporarily "profited" is to pay down the private debt, which offsets the intergovernmental debt and makes it more reasonable to accommodate the future payments. If you remember correctly, Clinton did just this. The tech boom in the 90s provided an overload of payroll taxes and SS income. It should also be remembered that in the 80s the Greenspan Commission knocked out some stellar bipartisan agreements to fund SS for at least 75 more years. All of this was working impressively well, until Bush was "elected". Bush touted the apparent surplus, knowingly hiding the 2 trillion owed to SS, as an ideal reason to present the wealthiest people in the country with massive tax cuts. Furthermore, he implemented Medicare D, a permanent spending increase, while ignoring simple accounting facts. The deficit is comprised of both the private and intergovernmental debt, but sadly most people are only concerned with the private debt.

In addition, before you go spouting off income tax data which has been recited incessantly by desperate conservatives, perhaps you should stop to consider the income disparity in this country. This statistic sounds disconcerting at first, but once you stop to consider that the top 20% of households receive 85% of the country's wealth, it starts to make more sense.

Approximately 44% of Americans who do not pay income tax are claiming benefits for the elderly, such as SS payments. Furthermore, approximately 30% claim credits for children and the working poor, such as the child-care tax credit. It should also be noted that the Bush tax cuts were instrumental in forming this demonized tax structure. Not only did Bush’s policies expand the Earned Income Tax Credit among married taxpayers, but it doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1000. The other half of households not paying income tax are literally deemed too poor to pay them. Naturally, our tax structure exempts subsistence levels of income from paying the tax. Unfortunately, this group of people has been rising as incomes decline, disparity rises, and social mobility remains stagnant. Remember that millions of households have lost wage earners. Most importantly, people should remember that even the bottom end of the economic ladder is paying payroll taxes.

Republicans are now proposing that we replace our progressive form of taxation with a devil's version of the fair tax or 999. In 2010, Obama lowered payroll taxes to 6.45%. Herman Cain misleads the public by alleging that this is a tax decrease to all. When half of Americans are paying 6.45% in payroll taxes only, how is imposing a 9% income tax and 9% consumption tax a decrease? He must not understand that employers are responsible for the other half of the payroll tax. Even when this temporary measure expires and rates resume at 8.45%, this will still be an increase. In addition, this would impose a high tax on non-taxable, limited income for the poor and the elderly, such as SS recipients. Do I even need to mention that this half-cocked plan would require eliminating the SS trust-fund and thus re-writing the SS Act? Let's not forget that he advocates abolishing the capital gains and estate tax, which would allow the wealthy to invest larger portions of their income and collect untaxed, unrealized gains. This is a direct attempt to mollify the wealthy and place the tax burden on the poor. Anyone with even a small background in economics should understand that equal monetary contributions do not constitute a shared burden. For example, employer and employee share the monetary contribution to SS currently; however, 95% of the SS burden is absorbed by the employee. The fact that this 999 Plan has been greeted with praise by Republicans is obvious proof that the right feeds off of vitriol and propaganda. This simple income tax statistic has acted as a catalyst to fuel the hate of Republicans and contribute to just another form of class warfare.

The Finance Reform Act of 1968, placed all incoming tax revenues into one account and paid all bills out of the same account. On the surface this seems to make for more efficiency, but on the contrary it looted the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds.

True, US governemnt securities are purchased. Government securities being a nice word for loans. Loans with interest, don't want to forget that. The problem is that the government does not have the abilitiy to repay those loans,even if the interest is knocked off the bill.

Your so-called intergovernmental debt now totals, about $125 trillion dollars. While deceptively called intergovernmental debt, it is actually owed the people who have paid into the fund. I don't recall Bush saying anything about a $2 trillion surplus. If he did say that, he was either lying or he had not idea of what he was talking about. Even if he did say this, someone should have climbed all over his lies.

This problem was set up when Bush was in college. It was a Democratically controlled Congress that passed it and a Democrat President that signed it. I am willing to say that Republicans signed it and more kept their mouths shut across the years. The media also failed to report on this.

Included in this law was the provision that Congress would be exempt from Medicare and Social Sercurity and would have their own programs.

You have a lot meanlingless words in your comment. The words of any understandable value attack the Republcans and defend the Democrats. The latter comment means that if it made sense, it was a lie.

Have you ever considered rising above being a liberal attack dog?

Oh where to begin...I hate it when I'm exhausted and I feel forced to correct silly errors.

Social Security finance and investment has not been changed since its creation. The money has never been placed into a general fund or different account. You are confused. The legislation you are referring to altered the way in which SS funds were accounted for in the Federal budget, but not the way the program functions. Essentially, all Federal programs with trust funds were accounted for in the budget beginning in 1969. Congress did not have a budget process during this period, but they would soon adopt procedures for setting budget goals with the usage of budget resolutions. The resolutions were to reflect a budget that included SS in the total. That was the only difference. They basically created what is known as a “unified budget”. This simply changes the accounting practices, but it does not change the operation of the program or where the money is placed. Long story short, this form of accounting for SS in the Federal budget was eliminated in 1990.

I think that you really need to re-read my post, as you clearly did not understand it. For one, I did point out the interest that must be paid when SS bonds are retrieved. I also mentioned that the government does not have the money to maintain this obligation as a result of poor policy decisions. I never claimed that Bush touted a $2 trillion surplus. What I said is that he touted the projected surplus, while blatantly ignoring a $2 trillion deficit that was already owed to SS. Rather than acknowledge the increasing intergovernmental debt, Bush claimed the proposed “surplus” as a reason to implement large tax breaks and increase Medicare spending by creating a prescription drug program.

Congress has not been exempt from payroll tax for over two decades. Prior to 1984, members of Congress were covered only by a separate Civil Service Retirement System that was criticized as being overly generous. Because they did not pay SS taxes, they received no SS credit for their time in office. In 1984, congressional members were required to begin paying into the SS program.

I suppose I wouldn't have to act as a “liberal attack dog” if you could improve your reading comprehension and get your facts straight.

Happy Halloween!

You are clearly misinformed. Your anger and petty attempts to attack the facts that I have presented serve only to further demonstrate your obvious ignorance.

“Touting something puts it into the present time.”

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Bush did “tout” the supposed surplus as a means of implementing legislation that would increase the debt, while purposefully ignoring the growing intergovernmental debt.
Of course it was a “projected” surplus, as it didn’t actually exist at the time. In addition, “apparent” is a suitable substitute for “projected” in this context. Merriam Webster’s definition of apparent: appearing as actual to the eye or mind; manifest to the mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may not be factually valid.

Rather than focusing on semantics, you would be well served to do some research and attempt to actually counter the argument that I have made. You dismiss factual claims as unfounded, yet you offer no evidence to support your assertions.

You say that “Bush could not hide anything while campaigning, as he had no authority to do that”. I never stated that he officially hid documents or evidence of an increasing debt. Clearly, that is not what I am proposing. Bush did, however, present choice information without openly presenting other pertinent pieces of data. All presidential candidates and politicians do this. They manipulate public sentiment by emphasizing one side of an argument. Many people were against his policies for the exact reasons I have stated. Unfortunately, when Bush lobbied for tax cuts, he failed to acknowledge the actual debt held by the public and instead chose to present the projected surplus as a valid means of convincing the people that they were indeed entitled to tax cuts.

Alan Greenspan is a well-known economist and Republican. I suggest you read his book “The Age of Turbulence.” In the book, Greenspan clearly explains the cautions Bush was implored to heed and his blatant disregard for responsible fiscal policy. The projected surplus began to disappear not long after Bush was in office, yet he refused to change course from his campaign promises. He insisted on rebate checks, long-term spending increases, and tax cuts with no way to pay for them.
All of the aforementioned information is documented and easy to verify. You can choose to remain ignorant and throw empty insults or you can choose to become informed.

By the way, I find it quite amusing that you have made numerous attempts to insult my writing ability, while demonstrating a clear lack of aptitude for writing yourself. If your grammar weren’t so poor, I might actually give your complaints some consideration. Moreover, if you are having difficulty discerning a message from my writing, I suggest that you brush up on your reading comprehension skills.