September 26, 2017
Contributors Latest News | Poll Questions | North Korea | Ayla Reynolds | Obamacare

Comments for: GOP protecting wealthy at expense of poor

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News and the Bangor Publishing Co. encourage comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

    Excellent! Right on observation!!

  • Anonymous

    “Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate. ”
    -Bertrand Russell

    There is one party; the “business party”. ….and the corporate nanny state dwarfs social welfare spending. Democrats would do well to stand for livable wages, thus reducing the need for welfare as a subsidy for slave wages. Make Republicans argue against the epitome of “personal responsibility”.

    • Anonymous

      So the government would set the hourly wage?……that may not be a bad idea….then we would all be supported by the government…….there are no scenarios where the government sets wage controls AND have our country resemble what it is today….You clearly and without a shred of doubt, have absolutley any idea of how business in America works…you, on the other hand know exactly how price controls work……in socialist countries.

      Only 13 people read the BDN News printed edition, now if we can match that for the online edition (with the help of your comments) we may be ok….

      • Anonymous

        In 1980, CEOS at America’s largest companies were paid approximately 42 times the salary of an average employee at those same companies. In 2010, they were paid 343 times as much — an eightfold increase. I can think of nothing that justifies this. Are today’s CEOs working eight times harder than their 1980 counterparts, or are the workers eight times as lazy? Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter is absolutley right that the most destabilizing force in the world today is growing income inequality. Cite right-wing economic theory all you want, but sooner or later the poor will rise up in rage if millionaires continue to accumulate wealth with one hand and cut services with the other. Politcal compromise is a lot less bloody.

        • Anonymous

          I wouldn’t worry too much about the inequity between CEOs and workers. Yes, it is indeed disgusting and nothing but pure greed. The biggest worry we as Americans face is no job at all, CEO or lowly worker. Here is a scary number that should make every single American puke straight up. 5,833,233%. That is the increase in percentage of our trade deficit with communist China in the last 26 years. In 1985 it was $6 million. In 2011 it was $350 billion. It is expected to top $400 billion in 2012. That isn’t even the total trade amount, it is just how much we come up short. The dim wits in Washington who “negotiated” our current trade agreements should be tarred and feathered. Any politician who signed onto these ridiculous trade agreements should be required to wear Chinese flags on their lapels instead of American ones.

          • Anonymous

            I would worry about the underlying causes of pay inequity. There is a reason, we disallowed it under the Marshall Plan when the U.S. helped Europe and Japan rebuild. It undermines the civic freedom of ordinary people. Politicians continuously act at the behest of business and the wealthy against the will of the majority of Americans. VERY undemocratic.

          • Anonymous

            We get Chinese made stuff and they get promises on pieces of paper from us.

            Who is getting the best side of that triangular deal?
            WalMart comes to mind.

            We vote with our dollar.

            Buy American.
            Build American
            Build our middle class.

            Middle class power requires middle class politics.

          • Anonymous

            A middle class is a creation of sound public policy; voting with our dollars doesn’t work, though. Voting with our votes? Our voices on Capital Hill? Our strength comes from our civic power. As consumers we are very weak…

        • Anonymous

          Well put. Why on Earth do people believe exploitive forces are entitled to use both their market and political to take such a disproportionate share? “Freedom is participation in power” ~Cicero

        • Anonymous

          World history is replete with revolutions but started by the middle class, NOT the poor. But don’t worry, with the current direction of the country and the lack of leadership from the White House, there will be more and more poor so maybe your uprising against corporate America will indeed eventually occur.

        • Anonymous

          I would be more concerned with the growing income disparity between the political class and average citizens.

      • Anonymous

        ata please on the readership. As for price controls, remember Nixon’s? Also, there’s a difference between minimum wage and price controls.

        • Anonymous

          A wage floor ensures users of labor actually bear the full cost of employing that labor. It’s called “personal responsibility”. …sick of the notion that we “owe” imaginary “job creators” anything for utilizing people for their own profit.

          • Anonymous

            Your wage floor, especially your proposed “living wage”, causes prices to rise across the board. Thereby negating the supposed gain. You end up back where you started in a short time.

          • Anonymous

            Not true. Prices are set to what the market will bear — regardless of cost to produce. We are as productive as ever! But the share of what we produce going to wages/labor costs is historically low. The share going to corporate profits is a record.

            Even if you were correct, you cannot justify this “entitlement” to cheap labor to benefit consumers. Consumers are not entitled to be shielded from the cost to produce what they consume.

      • Anonymous

        I have a background in Economic Development, and know EXACTLY how “business” works — privatize profits but socialize costs. “Socialsim for the rich, and savage capitalism for the poor. Cheap, below-cost, subsidized labor has become one expensive “entitlement”, and I have news for you on the horse you rode in on: NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO EXPLOIT PEOPLE IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY!!

        “Business friendly”? HA! Think the corporate welfare and authoritarian police state (that knows how to suppress labor) of COMMUNIST CHINA!!! (Why do you think “business” isn’t flocking to “small gummit” Somalia? Small government? Fascist dog whistle for corporate control….

        YOU ‘clearly’ have “no idea” how a democratic society works….

        “It is well understood that nothing so excites the glands of a free-market capitalist as the offer of a government subsidy.”~Wendell Berry

        • Anonymous

          Background or not, your ideas on the matter are rather upside down.
          I have yet to ever encounter a corporation that has forced me to pay them one red cent. Every transaction has begun as a matter of my own free will.
          The govt on the other hand confiscates enormous amounts of my income through income taxes, sales taxes, fees, fines, tolls, etc. none of which I have ever formally agreed with, all to buy votes with fsvors to certain fair-haired constituencies. Govt waste is rampant. Corporate waste is limited because those that are too wasteful either trim expenses or go out of business.
          Don’t blame business; blame govt, right after you blame the media for willfully misinforming the public in an effort to sway it towards its liberal utopian vision.
          And consider taking some courses in economic development. You could use them.

          • Anonymous

            if he actually got any formal education in economic development he might as well have flushed the money you know where….

          • Anonymous

            Taxation is a responsibility outlined in he Constitution. Your “right”to enjoy the benefits of American society tax- free is as imaginary as it is childish.

            Wal-Mart heirs are neither “entitled” to vast amounts of corporate welfare nor the use of the social safety net to subsidize their labor costs.

            Corporations are a creation of “big government”, (it’s called a charter). …to try and govern them with your individual “consumer choices” is to prostrate yourself to some imaginary invisible hand. You govern them as a sovereign citizenry. ( ..like the ORIGINAL Tea Party)

            You don’t even know what an “economy” is, or whom it is meant to serve.

            YOU need a lesson in Economic Development. A sustainable economy works when so called “job creators” to pay their freight — ALL their costs, AND their taxes for the infrastructure and protection they enjoy, even though Communist China is willing to give them” free stuff”.

          • Narsbars

            You freely give to Exxon, BP, and GE ? Billions of tax dollars going to cause zero and even lower tax rates for companies that never forced you to pay them. I guess there will be a check off box on your taxes this year Give to GE? Yes/NO
            Then the banks that never trimmed expenses, or bad loans, or billions in perks for loser management took your money and didn’t go out of business.
            Don’t like the tolls? Don’t drive.

        • Anonymous

          What you are describing is crony capitalism, not the free market capitalism that built this country.

          • Anonymous

            What we HAVE is “crony capitalism”! ….because of our insistence on relinquishing our civic power in favor of our ineffectual “consumer choices”. The sort of capitalism that built this country was “housebroken”; subservient to democratic power.

      • Anonymous

        So you agree that the price of gasoline is not President Obama’s fault. Thought so.

      • Narsbars

        Have you been living in a cave, way underground, since the 1930s? You never heard of the minimum wage?

        • Anonymous

          The minimum wage has lagged inflation to the point of irrelevance. It needs to be both raised to a livable standard, and indexed to inflation.

          Not only would this ensure the basic survival of working people, but would also de- politicize the issue.

    • Anonymous

      Walmart, one of the largest employers in the US, is a case exemplifying your very well stated point. Walmart employees are instructed by their employer as to which govt assistant programs they can avail themselves of to supplement their miserly, unlivable wages… Thus the taxpayer subsidizes Walmart’s wage policies… The Walton’s would do well to learn some “personal responsibility…”

  • The GOP has a golden opportunity to demonstrate their flexibility and willingness to compromise by accepting the president’s current proposal. It is not a perfect 50/50 trade, though it, you would think, would be preferable to the alternative.

    Those loyal GOP in the middle and lower classes – your reps have their chance to stand up for you and prove that they are not just for the big guys. Will they let everyone’s taxes go up for their defense of the ultra-wealthy? Or will they stand up for the little guys? This is a turning point in my opinion…back to the center, or further right.

    • Anonymous

      The president’s current proposal is a joke (made Mitch McConnell laugh right out loud). Call the bluff and let’s see what happens when we go over the cliff!

      • Anonymous

        So Mitch laughed? Who cares. Not everyone is all that impressed with him. He is not a happy camper, as what he wanted to happen this last election did not. Poor Mitch.

        • Anonymous

          Election? What election? There was an election?

      • I asked another poster the same thing and got no reply – is it, or isn’t it better than nothing?

        Will you be laughing when your income taxes go up (and could have been avoided with a little give?) While I am not excited about the possibility of a few grand less in my pocket, you won’t hear me whining. Will you?

        I don’t need to ponder about the “taxed enough already” people. They’re whining already, it will only get louder. And of course it will be Obama’s fault, not their “allies”, who are for the middle class, working men. Right?

        • Anonymous

          They’ll be laughing sure, because nothing gives them any pleasure but blaming Obama. So let the country slide into recession again, fine with them.

      • Anonymous

        The House Republican proposal is a joke — I’m glad the president is standing firm on the subject of making the wealthy pay a higher rate. The voters agree with the president.

      • pbmann

        Yes, please call the Presidents bluff. The American people know who is responsible for the mess we are in and they will vote to give even more seats to the Democrats in the Senate and control of the House next election.

    • Anonymous

      Do you actually think that giving the president the power to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling is “reasonable”? Do you really think that a proposed budget that actually increases spending while being presented as making cuts is balanced?

      • Yes, I do think it’s reasonable. Can you explain why it’s not?

        Saving money, getting closer to black is the end all goal. Playing the shell game – calling reductions cuts, or cuts reductions – it doesn’t particularly matter. No, it’s not going to bring balance…though it is a better solution than nothing. Yes or no?

  • Anonymous

    A well written piece.

    Tea Party has-beens, please take note.

    • Anonymous

      Typical leftist dreck. You give people freebies (that someone else has to pay for) and they will vote for you EVERY time. Explains the last election, the direction of the country, the satisfaction with the status quo (malaise or outright decline) and the fiscal mess known as the Obama economy. YOU OWN IT.

      • Anonymous

        Freebies is it? What freebies are those?

        • Anonymous

          Any federal government assistance given to those who have paid little or no federal tax would be a freebie.

          • Anonymous

            That describes quite a few of our enlisted personnel, actively working poor,and the retired.

          • Anonymous

            All the people you mentioned actually WORKED…that’s the point.

          • Anonymous

            Um, that wasn’t his point at all. And that is not what he said. His point was about who paid little or no federal taxes and who also got federal assistance. I responded to his point.

          • Anonymous

            Most of Romney’s “47%” who he said are getting handouts ARE people who worked — military personnel, retirees, and the working poor (who are paying payroll, sales and other taxes, but don’t earn enough to pay federal income tax). That’s the point.

          • Anonymous

            Most of the people who are poor “actually work”! That exhausted mother you glare at in the grocery store swiping her food stamp card? She’s been caring for YOUR children all day ; or caring for our elderly (you know, what economists inhumanly call “low productivity jobs).

            Or maybe she greeted you at WalMart — a subsidiary of oppressive, authoritarian slave-labor regimes…….

          • Anonymous

            The 47% mantra is one polluted view of the country. Fortunately, most voters recognized this a month ago. Keep harping and watch your irrelevancy continue.

          • Anonymous

            The country also voted in a Republican congress

          • Narsbars

            No, they didn’t. They returned a weakened house, increased the Dem lead in the Senate. Do you even know what bodies make up the congress?

          • Anonymous

            That describes tax breaks for the wealthy and handouts to big corporations.

          • Briney

            Major oil companies and the world’s largest corporation – GE. Plus, multi-millionaires still enjoying Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich.

      • Anonymous

        Economic Development is basically “freebies for corporations”…. ….shocking how little people know who is, in fact, robbing us blind (HINT: it isn’t the poor).

        Stop looking for the wealth and income we no longer have to support our families in trailer parks — you won’t find it.

        You cannot explain poverty by looking at the poor.

      • pbmann

        Alaska, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana all receive more Federal Funds than they pay in (ie. freebies) and yet they all voted strongly for Romney…. Hmmmm

        • Anonymous

          How do explain Maine

  • Jonathan Albrecht

    Excellent column. Factual and precise.

  • Anonymous

    Please consider just one point in this column: Witting argues that Government spending creates jobs. To test the theory of stimulus spending, consider France: Thirty years ago the French national debt amounted to 22% of GDP. Over that period of time the French economy grew 73% after adjusting for inflation while the national debt grew 609% in real terms and now accounts for 90% of GDP. All that government spending should have translated into a booming economy – it has not. Unless the United States has the courage to deal with entitlement reform we are headed down the same disastrous road. This debate is not about protecting the wealthy it is about running our country in a fiscally responsible manner and no amount of taxing without entitlement reform is going to solve the problem.

    • Anonymous

      It really is useless to readers of this section….

      • Anonymous

        Yeah … what he said.

        Pfft.

    • There has to be a starting point. Obama’s current proposal – 4t in cuts deficit reduction over 10 years + asking the wealthy to pay a bit more is not going to get us in the black, though it is a starting point. Better this than stagnation and back peddling.

      Entitlement reform isn’t something that is going to happen overnight. To call the problem extremely complex is a massive understatement – any sort of reform will be painful to many Americans who will have to absorb and pay for the “adjustment” – Democrats and Republicans alike. Entitlement programs have been broken for a lot longer than Obama. This can has been kicked and kicked again down the road, by presidents and congresses of both parties alike.

      • maineiac123

        What entitlement programs are you referring to? I’m really tired of hearing about “entitlement” programs that are so ambigious.

        • Primarily SS and Medicare, though un-employment is a major one as well.

          • pbmann

            Unemployment?

            You mean the system where workers and corporation pay into an insurance (Hence the name Unemployment Insurance) fund for use when said employee is out of work?

          • Yes. Those that pay in are entitled to collect. The problem occurs obviously when the collection exceeds the contribution.

          • maineiac123

            Then I guess you’ve fallen for the repuglican lies then haven’t you. SS and Medicare both take in more than they pay out. They are completely self-supporting and seem to be for quite some time. They have little if anything to do with the deficit. Un-employment compensation is supported almost entirely by wages. Although it’s “employer” paid that really is meaningless because all the the employer really has done is reduced your wages by the amount he pays in unemployment compensation. Why not talk about the real issues of disproportionate wealth in the country, of the losing of the middle class because of the concentration of wealth in so few, of those so few commanding the attention of our politicians. I guess it’s easier to blame the elderly, the sick and the poor.

          • Have you read any of my other posts? Seriously, you’ve got tunnel vision. That knee of yours is jerking too fast.

            I disagree that we are on a sustainable route currently, though I do agree that the income disparity is a major concern. We could get things back on track, though adjustment is needed. Start talking realistically. The pie in the sky – oh everything is just fine, no need to worry junk is almost as bad as the chicken little stuff.

            Some good reading:
            http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2011/03/17-house-budget-rivlin

          • maineiac123

            Make a sensible comment and you’ll get more and better responses. I’m refering to the post above not some you’ve made elsewhere. I’ll stop my knee from “jerking” (whatever that means) as soon as you put your brain in gear.

          • Explain what is not sensible about it. I support the president’s proposal and suggest entitlement programs are in need of reform (which is rather common sense)… and you conclude I have fallen for GOP lies and advocate Republican policy?

            Saying Repuglican 10 times and recycling stale, partisan talking points (not to mention inaccurate) is not putting your brain in gear. Read the testimony above if you’d like to do that.

      • Anonymous

        What 4 trillion in cuts over 10 years? The proposal i saw was for 400 billion over 10 years, (or 40 billion a year), with 50 billion in new stimulus spending next year alone to continue indefinitely after that.

        And the so called spending cuts are not cuts at all. Only proposed reductions in the rate of growth with no guarantees they will be honored.

        • “Cuts” was inaccurate, you’re right – I was referring to deficit reduction, which would supposedly be achieved by a combination of decreased spending and increased revenue.

          Most such proposals from any party are inflated and look good on paper, but in reality the savings will always be less. Do I believe the quoted $4t is realistic? Not particularly, though I do know that what is being proposed will be more effective than doing nothing.

        • Anonymous

          Either way, the Republicans’ proposal offers much fewer cuts. You should be ragging on your guys, not Obama.

    • Anonymous

      The USA is NOT France. Your comparison is beyond ridiculous.

      • Anonymous

        The USA is NOT France. In what way exactly? Because we are managing our spending better than the French? Or because we haven’t proposed a 75% tax on the wealthy – yet? Have at it, why do you feel that unless we tackle out of control spending we are going to be any different than the French>

        • Anonymous

          Perhaps you would benefit from looking at actual govt spending numbers over the last twelve years… You wouldn’t make such unsubstantiated comments…

          • maineiac123

            It’s a lot easier for people to simply make things up rather than find out the truth. Isn’t it funny that some of the best economic growth this country ever had was when the max tax rate was in excess of 80%.

        • Anonymous

          You seem to have bought the talking points that claim France is headed down hill, and we are right on her tail. Neither point is true. France has the 5th largest economy in the world. The US is #1.

          France is the second wealthiest nation in Europe, and the fourth wealthiest nation on the planet. The US is #1.

          The United States has hundreds of thousands of miles of untapped natural resources. France is dependent on water flowing from other nations for 35% of its domestic supply. Her forest cover is down to below 10%, and She would be hard pressed to support all her citizens without trade with other Nations. In a pinch, the USA could supply all the food her people would need, and still have extra to market overseas.

          The USA owns 15% of the planet’s fresh water, Has the potential to supply 60% of the planets wheat, and is in position to be the worlds largest supplier of natural gas, and is soon to market some of these resources.

          I consider myself a conservative. That position has taught me that it it is extremely unwise to bet against these United States.

        • Anonymous

          You ask, “The USA is NOT France. In what way exactly?” Uh, for starters, we are not in Europe, and by and large we don’t speak French. Many of our states are larger than France. Our history, culture, and customs, are different from those of France

          French government, despite recent reforms, remains more highly centralized than that in the U.S.

          The French have an actual Socialist Party, and the current president is a Socialist. One of the losing parties in the most recent election has the delightful name, “The New Anticapitalist Party.” The French president shares power with a prime minister, who is appointed by the president.

          The French cabinet and prime minister can be revoked by the National Assembly. The French have about seven political parties with seats in the National Assembly. Governing coalitions have to be formed in order to maintain the prime minister and get legislation passed.

          French Senators (the upper house) are chosen by the electoral college, not by direct popular vote. Their president, however, is chosen by direct popular vote.

          Outside of Louisiana the U.S. legal system is not based on the Napoleonic Code.

          Shall I go on?

        • pbmann

          The rich in France actually wanted the higher taxes because, unlike the vocal ultra-rich in this country, they put country first over riches.

          • Anonymous

            Is this the same France where people were on strike because working 38 hours a week was too much, and not being able to retire in their 50s was an abomination?

    • Anonymous

      Your comment is so sensible and well-reasoned it is hard to imagine how anyone could disagree, yet three to date have. Amazing.

    • Anonymous

      Do you consider Medicare and Social Security to be entitlements? They are not. They are benefits that we have been paying for all of our working lives and they are earned not freebies or given to us.

      So define these so called entitlements if you will please.

      Take a look at the military industrial complex if you want to see taxpayer money going down a rat hole for stuff we don’t need and don’t want. but they cry and say they have no money for our veterans.

      • Anonymous

        You believe that Medicare and Social Security are entitlements. You have been told this by politicians pandering for votes.

        The reality is that these programs can be ended tomorrow by a simple act of congress. The supreme court has ruled that you have no legal “right” to the money collected as taxes for these programs.

        • Anonymous

          I specifically said they are not entitlements so I don’t know what you’re talking about.

          • Anonymous

            You stated that: “They are benefits that we have been paying for all of our working lives and they are earned not freebies or given to us.”

            If you earned those benefits then you are entitled to them. Even if you did not use the word that is what you believe. You “earned” them so they are “owed” to you and you are “entitled” to them.

            Definition of ENTITLEMENT

            1

            a : the state or condition of being entitled : right

            b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract

            2

            : a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program

            3

            : belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

          • Anonymous

            They’re earned and paid for benefits, they’re not entitlements first.

            When a person meets the eligibility standard to receive benefits then they are entitled to them. It is basically insurance.

      • Anonymous

        They are both entitlements, and not simply because that is the budget-ese for these programs. You are paid from both these programs, and you draw more from them than you ever paid in.

        • Anonymous

          I disagree.

        • Anonymous

          “Entitlement”- noun: that to which one is ENTITLED.

          In Idiotland, it is considered the opposite……

    • maineiac123

      This debate is in fact about protecting the wealthy. Look at what the Repuglicans are offering. Cut SS benefits, a program that brings in more than it puts out, cut medicare, gee another program that brings in more than it gives out, plus another 300 bil to be take from the middle class and the poor. What do the wealthy give up? In essence nothing. They will simply find a new way to get around the tax deduction limit. Wnat the government run in a fiscally responsible manner? Let’s start by making the wealthy pay the same in Social Security taxes as everyone else does, ie, no upper limit. Just imagine the extra Social Security income on those $40 mil bonuses.

    • Anonymous

      There is nothing “fiscally responsible” about the military industrial complex. ….nor about outsourcing our wealth, overseas tax havens. People working harder, for more of their lives, latchkey children, families drained of resources to care for their elderly……

      Time to remember who the “economy” is for!

      A small elite has become accustomed to the historic share of wealth and income they now control. No democratic society can survive unless that changes, but there will be a fight.

  • Anonymous

    Lee, while you have many good
    points that I agree with, you also show me what trouble me the most about
    politics today. Politicians and pundits seem to think it’s their way or the
    highway since President Barack won the election. Unfortunately for the president
    and the pundits, we still need to work with both sides to accomplish anything.
    We have not had a budget in 3 years and our debt rises every day. Just hear in
    Maine we just heard of another DHHS shortfall and they haven’t added to the
    enrolment of the program, they just keep expanding service. We really need both
    sides working together so that this country can move forward.

    • Anonymous

      Yes, we do need both sides to work on this. Are you listening R/TP?

      • Anonymous

        And TP/R, which is a big part of the problem.

  • Anonymous

    Raising taxes on the top 2%, even a measly increase will not match the spending put forth with the request. Do we really want no cap on the budget? Make everything simple and close all the loop holes in the tax tables. Cut spending and cut programs, that is the only way things might turn around. Can’t spend more and support the world year after year when no one wants to help support your country.

    • Anonymous

      Huh?

    • Anonymous

      Raise the cap on payroll taxes. Though ending perpetual war is best, failing that, we SHOULD tax the wealthy and corporations…. Then, they may use their disproportionate political clout to end war and spare our military families lifelong heartache.

  • Anonymous

    Does this person really believe what he wrote?

  • Anonymous

    Poverty in the U.S. is manufactured by the federal government. Policies of the government make health care more expensive, make food more expensive, make energy more expensive and keep housing expensive.

  • Anonymous

    ‘Protecting the wealthy’ is good because anyone who earns wages is going to be ‘wealthy’ for tax purposes pretty soon. ‘$250,000 is a millionaire’ is just a start.

  • Cecil Gray

    The GOP presented their budget today; a blueprint of what Romney ran on. They will defend the top 2% till hell freezes over. There is no conscience and spirituality across the aisle in tea Land.

  • Gary Libby

    I’ve heard that if John Kerry does become SOS, then Patrick Duval will run for the Senate, and he would beat Brown anyway.

  • During the Clinton Administration, Ms. Rice was the brains behing not accepting Osama bin Laden when he was offered to the USA. Do you think those two were good decisions? She also went on five separate Sunday shows and flatly lied to the American people. Was she making the lies because the Sec. of State and Defense refused to lie for Obama? That woman has a long history of doing harm to the United States. They all knew what happened because they watched it on closed circuit television from overhead drones. Do you think the truth should be determined?

    • Anonymous

      Two Rices, one name.

      Condaleeza.

      And some people thought she would make a good President.

      Good grief.

  • Anonymous

    More tiresome class warfare and Republican-bashing from the leftist clergy.

    What is it about $16 trillion in federal debt that you fail to understand? There is only one party serious about addressing this country’s serious problems, and it certainly is not the Democratic Party, which is far more concerned about gay rights and allowing people here illegally to nuzzle the federal teat.

    The Republicans are the parents in the room; the Democrats the children.

    • Anonymous

      George W Bush started 2 wars on the cuff. Iraqi oil money was going to pay for it. Unpaid for still.
      And your telling us Republicans know how to spend money wisely?

      • Anonymous

        GW Bush’s legacy will be that he protected this nation while spending far too much money. A Democrat-led Congress voted in support of both wars, then stabbed Bush and this country in the back like cowards when things got difficult.

        Republicans have the only serious plans to save this nation from fiscal calamity. Adults! Democrats just want to selfishly spend, tax, and repeat. Children!

        • Anonymous

          lol

    • maineiac123

      Let me see now. Since 1980 Repuglicans have held office for 20 of those years, Demorats 12. In every single one of those Repuglican administrations the defict got larger and larger and larger. In one of the Demorat administrations the the deficit actually got smaller. This latest Demorat administration inherited from Repuglicans one of the worst economic disasters this country or the world has seen and yet somehow you blame it all on Demorats? Why haven’t the Repuglicans ever addressed this issue before? Why do the only want to reduce the deficit by essentially hurting the elderly, the poor and sick? That is what they are talking about you know. It’s time Repuglicans put this country first and do what they pledge to do when they took their oath of office rather than pledging to Norquist and Koch.

    • Anonymous

      WE’RE the adults in the room? If so, we’re the ones standing in our huge living room, six new cars in the driveway, trying to watch our three big-screen TVs and the cable has been shut off. What do we do? We ask the kids, “Who got us in this mess?”

    • pbmann

      Republicans serious about debt reduction? Ha!

      The Ryan plan, you know the darling of the Republican Party, would have reduced the deficit by $100 Billion over 10 years while cutting spending by $3.5 Trillion over the same time but cutting taxes by $3.4 Trillion .

  • Anonymous

    This article shows that you might be a pastor, but you don’t understand politics or political parties.

  • Anonymous

    Republicans need to stick to principles and stop with these partisan games. They’re seeking cheap wins by using cheap attacks.

  • Briney

    By far, and to date, the best interpretation of our current political divisiveness.

    A really fine column.

  • Anonymous

    Is there a push to redefine the word “entitlement?” I’ve seen people trying to rebrand it quite a bit this week.

  • BDN Ombudsman

    This is the same tired, naive, anti-conservative narrative that we have heard for years. The GOP is mean and they want to hurt poor people! Actually, this could not be further from the truth. The Tea Party, the GOP and conservatives don’t “want” to make cuts to entitlements. However, they are the only ones who seem to comprehend that if we want to live in the greatest country on earth, we must protect entitlements to ensure that our grandchildren are not living in a Third World country. Money does not grow on trees and taxing & spending does not promote a healthy economy.

    • maineiac123

      They don’t want to make cuts to entilements? Are you serious? That is all the talk about. That is almost there entire message and method of dealing with the deficit. I don’t see them talking about cutting defense, or corporate welfare just so-called entitlements. Are you aware that SS and Medicare bring in more than they pay out?

  • Anonymous

    There is nothing more disgusting than an alledged man of the cloth perpetuating lies to his flock. Lee Witting may you burn in hades

    • maineiac123

      Please point out the lies first.

You may also like