Paul Ryan is a disgrace to the state of Wisconsin, and I have confidence that the voters will send him and his "rob the poor to pay the rich" policies packing as soon as they get the chance!

I dont live in Wisconsin but if he lived in my district in Iowa I will vote him out also, i have Steve King as my rep for my district, thanks for the redoing the districts he wont be able to run

it doesnt matter what Paul Ryan thinks, this might hurt him when he runs for office again next nov

Perhaps he's been reading the Earl of Montrose' love poem:

Either he fears his fate to much
Or his deserts are small
Who will not put it to the touch
To win or lose it all

Those so inclined could also refer to the Scottish Play or that lovely quote towards the end of Paradise Lost, but Ryan strikes me as someone who doesn't do caution. He's out to remake American society and if he can't have his way, he's willing to pull it all down around him.

And yes, that's four different literary metaphors horribly mixed. Sue me.

"...a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage..." Works for me.

.."a tale told by an idiot full of sound & fury signifying nothing" That sums Ryan up.

More like the Three Blind Mice, completely unable to see what their ignorance could do to this country they supposedly love....they love it so much, they are determined to watch it burn to the ground rather than work at their jobs, which is governing the country, not pandering to a narrow group of special interests and radicals.

I agree Steve King is such a tool and he represents my district, never once voted for him but since the districts are redone he wont be able to run in my district

If a Republican drives over the edge of the Grand Canyon, and there's nobody around to see it, will he still go crashing to the foot of the cliff?

I'm always annoyed that these discussions only involve non-disabled beneficiaries, with scant attention paid to the over 50 million disabled Americans who rely on these programs for health security and the chance to lead dignified, productive lives.

From a Calvinist (read, "Conservative") perspective, there's really no difference between being poor and being disabled. If you were supposed to have health care, a roof over your head, and food to eat you would have been born healthy into a well-off family.

The fact that you're disabled, poor, etc. just proves that you're not worth the recycling value of the cardboard box you live in.

I'm getting to where I'm thinking that the country would be better off in the long run if on the third he just announced that Congress had left him no alternative so he had ordered that the Treasury pay the bonds first and pro-rate everything else.

Let's see the long-term political fallout when everyone from Grandma to Boeing find themselves on half-pay.

Professor Balkin's opinion is just that, an opinion, albeit a well-informed one. I would like to hear more discussion of the subject by other Constitutional law scholars.

Gohmert's explanation is less ridiculous than Rush Limbaugh's. He said the President chose August 2 because Ramadan begins on August 1!

During ramadan he will appoint his supreme religous council.Mallah Bachmann.Mullah Palin and Super Mullah Perry.

The Republicans are holding the people of this country like hostages until THEY get what THEY want.

Why pick on them.

Because that's how bullies roll.

On days like today, at age 69, I still have things to do with my life. One of those things should NOT be worrying about the collapse of the government, and I hate that I have to do just that. I hate that I am one small sneeze away from having nothing. I figure I'll probably be outa here before my Social Security check is down to nothing, but I don't want to die before my time because Paul Ryan has decreed that it should be so. Whoever coined the phrase "golden years" had no idea what this political generation could concoct.

Thank you for saying aloud what I have been thinking. Let's all begin to call these programs by the correct name-insurance. No different than paying for insurance to cover my car or house-to be used to reimburse me when I need it. Life insurance is the same principle-you buy it & when you are gone its something for your family. SS & Medicare are the same-you pay into them to be used when needed.

The alleged 20% for Social Security is ambiguous. If the 20% represents repayment of SS borrowing, then that would alter the question as to what is shared sacrifice. The money is paid in, but the government borrowed it. Now, the Republicans and possibly Obama and some Dems are trying to reduce the debt by making cuts in benefits. That does not seem fair that current beneficiaries are paying for Bush's wars and tax cuts through SS. Fairness requires a tax hike for all tax brackets to pay for these things. Otherwise, it is the middle class and older people that are paying for Bush's mess while the rich get their tax cuts subsidized.

If the 20% represents all payouts by SS then the question is how much of that really is really being paid by the government since the program has a continuing stream of income from employer and employee contributions. The second part would be how much of that 20% represents repayment of funds borrowed from SS. Once the contributions and repayments are subtracted, then we know the actual amount the government is actually paying out to SS from government funds. There was and is a surplus in SS and therefore, no government funds from general revenue are actually being used. Inquiring minds want to know.

Jack, you are "spot on" with this! If you haven't posted this to other places, please do so. Do you mind if we share this post with others?

Good work. The right has been framing the argument for too long. They have defined what and how the discussion happens.

The discussion should be about how the greed of the rich is destroying this country.

The alleged 20% for Social Security is ambiguous. If the 20% represents repayment of SS borrowing, then that would alter the question as to what is shared sacrifice. The money is paid in, but the government borrowed it. Now, the Republicans and possibly Obama and some Dems are trying to reduce the debt by making cuts in benefits.

For the last thirty years we've papered over the deficits caused by income tax cuts with surpluses from Social Security. Now that the surpluses are ending (as planned, Boomers retiring -- that was the justification for running surpluses all these years) our Lords and Masters are desperate to keep the surpluses.

Thus, the "need" to "save" Social Security by cutting benefits: the surpluses were spent long ago, and now that the IOUs are coming due it's time to alter the deal.

As the saying goes, "Pray I don't alter it any further."

You can be sure the next Republican president will do exactly the same thing Bush did--run up the deficit and claim we need to cut spending. This is how the Republicans will undo SS and Medicare, piece by piece over time.

the following website charts the federal deficit under Bush and Obama.

http://libertyworks.com/

I'm sure you'll be able to point out all the new spending that Obama has done to increase the deficit. TARP? That was a Bush administration program, ended a long time ago, and almost all of the money has been repaid. The auto bailout? Once again, ended long ago, and almost all the money has been repaid. Stimulus program? Also over, and was responsible for saving millions of jobs. The biggest drains on the budget are legacy Bush issues, the two wars that cost billions each week, and the Bush tax cuts.

Perhaps you'd like to look at a graph that shows the huge BUDGET SURPLUS bequeathed to Bush by Clinton. That dizzying cliff that appears the following year is George W. Bush and the repub Congress turning a massive surplus into a massive deficit in ONE SINGLE YEAR. Pretty impressive work by those "budget hawks" in the repub party. And where was the Tea Party then? Where was Grover Norquist? Where was John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell, John Kyl, Michelle Bachmann? They were voting FOR MORE spending, that's where.

Spare me your talking points about tax and spend dems. That is the responsible way to go, bringing in income before you spend it. In fact, we used to have paygo, where you had to pay for any new spending with revenue increases or spending cuts elsewhere. That disappeared as soon as Bush took office and Congress went to the repubs. Instead, we now have borrow and spend repubs, borrowing trillions from China to finance tax cuts to the wealthy and corporation, and to fund two wars. When the chickens finally come home to roost from that disastrous bit of economic skullduggery, all repubs can do is act like a guilty 5 year old, crying "It's not my fault, it's those bad, bad dems that did it".

It's Republicans and Democrats. All each can do is point their finger at each other.

Despite unprecedented spending, Obama will still pull out the old blame Bush card.

Most politicians are only concerned about themselves and keeping their posh jobs.

Let's face it, we would never have even imagined being in such straits when Clinton left office with a huge surplus. Who could have imagined that it would take only a year for repubs to turn that surplus into a monumental and growing deficit? I'll give repubs credit for proving they can spend like Kardashians with a bottomless bank account!

I would have to agree. Most of the politicians in Washington don't have a problem spending our tax dollars. IMHO they love for us citizens to fight amongst ourselves so they can continue to do what they want to do.

Look at where your tax dollars go. It's not going to people, it is going to corporations. Who benefits from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? It's certainly not the soldiers in the war zones. It's the corporations who churn out the weapons and ammunition, who build bases for the troops, who deliver the materials needed to sustain the operations and the troops involved. Who benefits from tax loopholes that allowed 2/3 of US corporations to pay absolutely no income tax last year? Once again, it was corporations that got the entire benefit from that. Who benefitted from the recently passed healthcare bill? Again, it would be private insurance companies, who fought against a single payer or even government option, and instead got 37 million new customers handed to them on a silver platter. Follow the money, and you will see that your tax dollars aren't going to help you and your fellow citizens by building roads, bridges, airports and the like. It's not going to educate your kids, or fund research into curing diseases like cancer. The space shuttle made its last voyage today not because it could no longer do its job.....it died because of funding, so now thousands of people who supported shuttle operations are also out of work.

I'm still agreeing with you for the most part and it's scary! LOL

And I just love it (said with sarcasm) when our taxdollars are spent on putting a path under a roadway for turtles or researching the mating habits of a gnat. Research has it's place but not when we can't pay our debts. California is going to release criminals back out onto the street because they can't afford to keep them in prison but yet we're shelling out thousands and thousands of dollars studying seals. WTH?

If you put all the money from research into the pot, you'd get enough to fund the war in Afghanistan until sometime next week. Research is vital, even when you have no idea what value it may have in the future. Thank god Fleming didn't have to request government funding to study some mold on an orange, or the Curies had to seek a government grant to figure out what had caused their photographic plates to be exposed, or we would never have had penicillin or known of radiation. We could fund all research by simply eliminating tax subsidies to oil companies.

Who could have imagined that it would take only a year for repubs to turn that surplus into a monumental and growing deficit?

Uff..."repubs" had a little help from the burst of the tech bubble (2000 recession), followed shortly by the 9/11 attack which put a 6 month slow-down on the economy (2001), in between which was a 40% spike in energy prices.

The point being that economy is much more complex than which president is in office or which party. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, blame bush for the "loss of the surplus" if you want, but that's not fact-based.

And how much more money would we have had if Bush hadn't started two wars AND cut taxes at the same time, something unprecedented in history? Yep, blaming Bush IS fact-based.

Saying that the tech-bubble invalidated Clinton's budget surplus is disengenuous because the surplus was certainly enough to justify Bush's first round of tax cuts, far excerbating the damage done when the bubble burst.

Of course saying ONE thing is the cause in something as complex as the economy is disingenuous. That's my POINT. If I listed 20 things that had economic impact in 2001-2002 that resulted in the the change from projected surplus to projected deficit, that still wouldn't encompass "the reason."

And of the 20 things I listed, democrats would point to all the things that Bush did and say "It's Bush's fault" and the republicans would point to all the other things and say "It's Clinton's fault." Just like everyone is doing right now with Obama v. Bush.

Neither politically motivated "interpretation of the facts" is accurate.

I think it is more like they finish school, and then promptly declare bankruptcy, so that their debt is erased, THEN they go get a high paying job.

No, the "best thing out there" is for Obama to invoke the 14th Amendment and unilaterally raise the debt ceiling. Or, along the same lines, for the Dems to demand a clean bill increasing the debt ceiling.

Other issues should be debated without deadline pressure and dealt with in a way that does less harm to the economy and our international standing.

There is much debate on the validity of the Presidents ability to invoke the 14th amendment.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/07/14th-amendment-a-debt-ceiling-back-up-plan.html

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/07/bill-clinton-i-would-use-14th-amendment-to-raise-the-debt-ceiling.html

Doppler effect. The train in the doesn't sound that impressive. By the time it is about to squish you like a grape because you are tied to the tracks, it will have your full attention. I suspect everyone is still surprised that the Teapublicans are still turnng this into a game of chicken.

I stand by my earlier thesis that teapublicans all watched Rebel Without a Cause and were unanimous in their opinion that James Dean had lost that game of chicken because, you know...he survived.

Going up in a fireball at the bottom of the abyss...WINNING!

Privatization means 2 things:

1. The poor loose access to care because they can NOT AFFORD IT.

2 . Costs go up, because private companies exist to make PROFIT.

The best answer is to eliminate the wage cap, so that the wealthiest among us pay at the same rate as the rest of us, not a lower one. Also eliminate tax loopholes and preferential treatments of capital gains ( or perhaps make these progressive as well - ie. 5% on the first x dollars each year, 15% on the next y dollars, 25% on the next z dollars, 35% on the next q dollars and 50% on any dollars above that). Then in addition, bring our troops home immediately and put them to work on infrastructure projects, and cut the defense budget by 10%. Then gradually allow the troops to re-enter the workforce and further reduce defense spending accordingly.

There are so many inaccuracies in your post, it is hard to know where to start. Well, let's get to it. First of all, your assertion that if we passed the Ryan plan, we would be relatively debt-free in 10 years is just plain wrong, and even Mr. Ryan admits that. If his plan were adopted, he admits that we'd still have an annual budget deficit of at least $400 billion. And of course, that ADDS to the national debt. The only way to reduce the debt is to run a budget surplus...you know, like we did under Bill Clinton. So, your assertion that we would be relatively debt-free in 10 years was shot down---by Paul Ryan himself. In fact, the only plan that would accomplish what you suggest is that noted by the non-partisan CBO. They calculated that by simply repealing the Bush tax cuts, the budget would be balanced in 5 years! That's right, BALANCED, and in half the time you claim the Ryan plan would do so, (which he admits it wouldn't do anyway).

As for your assertions of the superiority of the private sector in healthcare and social security....I'll try to stop laughing long enough to post this. Let's deal with healthcare first. Healthcare costs are not rising faster than inflation because of the government. The government has NO control over that. It is in fact due to the private sector, primarily private insurance companies and Big Pharma. Insurance companies and healthcare companies spend money on massive CEO salaries and bonuses, marketing, etc. All of that gets added to the bottom line of your healthcare bill. None of that occurs with Medicare or Medicaid. Healthcare costs began to rise drastically when insurance companies were freed from the old regulations that they had to be non-profits, which I believe happened under Nixon. As for Social Security, you obviously must not have any investments of your own. If you did, you would see that you pay all sorts of fees for the investment company to manage your fund for you. And of course, Wall Street is the poster child for huge salaries, massive bonuses even when the companies were being bailed out by the taxpayer to keep them from collapsing as a result of their massive greed and malfeasance. And that is your PARAGON and MODEL for where we should put our social security money????? My social security money would be safer with a homeless crackhead than with those thieves.

And, please, please, be so kind as to tell me ONE SINGLE thing repubs have compromised on in the budget talks. The president offered $4 trillion in cuts, including in social programs. Yet, that wasn't enough, because the president also asked for increased revenues, not by raising taxes, but by closing loopholes in the tax code. You know, those loopholes that allow companies to claim their "headquarters" is in a P.O. box in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying taxes, loopholes that not only allowed 2/3 of corporations to pay NO taxes last year, but to actually receive tens of billions of dollars in TAX REFUNDS!

Let me fix your statement for you: Why won't repubs compromise? Do they really want to see our country go into default? Unfortunately, their actions seem to indicate that they are in fact eager to see the country go into default, in the insane belief that it will sweep them into power and it will magically make this country anything other than the instigator of a global depression.

Thank you Uffda for taking the time to put some truth into his deluded assertions.

1independ... small question. What are you trying to say when you offer the choice of US Postal Service and FedEx? It seems you may be trying to compare a government operation to a private one.

I think this is not a logical question. Can anyone help me out?

carol,

he must have seen that postal commercial, the union one.

The USPS vs. FedEx comment is a variation on the theme of the "Do you want the DMV running your healthcare?" line we heard so much of during the debate over healthcare reform. In response, I'd like to note that FedEx charges a hell of a lot more to deliver the same package as the USPS, and unless you pay even more for overnight delivery, it probably won't arrive any sooner. In addition, FedEx employees are probably paid more. Independentvoice is anything but!

"Government is fraught with waste, fraud, and abuse which we all know. I do not understand why or how anyone defends the US Government being in charge of programs, especially those designed to help the poor."

The fraud, waste and abuse is in government contracts and that means the military. This fraud runs into billions by companies who are doing duties that could be performed by military personnel. That is what privatization does--creates fraud on a much larger scale.

The reasons why the government administers programs for the poor is because the states cannot afford to shoulder the whole burden and some states refuse to provide the proper assistance to the poor. That is because these states prefer to ship their poverty to other states like Illinois, New York, California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and the rest of the large states. Texas has the largest number of people who are uninsured for medical. That is not a coincidence. The state underfunds Medicaid. The federal government stepped in with these programs in the 1960's to level the benefits across the country so that states provide proper aid. Now people do not move to states that provide the largest amount of aid which is what happened after WWII.

They provide long term cuts to our ridiculous spending, which means that within a 10 year period or so America will be relatively debt free. We can go back to being primarily a lender nation instead of primarily a debter nation.

What are you smoking? Where were you 2001 when Bush got elected? We had a brief surplus which Bush "balanced out" with tax cuts which we've been borrowing from the Chinese to maintain!

If medicare were privatized you'd get the better treatment of the private sector and it would be at a lot lower cost to the tax payers. If social security were privatized there actually would be more money available to pay out to social security recipients and, again, it would cost the tax payer way far less. Government is fraught with waste, fraud, and abuse which we all know. I do not understand why or how anyone defends the US Government being in charge of programs, especially those designed to help the poor...

BP, Blackwater, Halliburton, Bernie Madoff, Enron, subprime lending, mortgage backed securies...you sure about the efficiency and honesy of the private enterprise system?

If social security were privatized there actually would be more money available to pay out to social security recipients and, again, it would cost the tax payer way far less. Government is fraught with waste, fraud, and abuse which we all know. I do not understand why or how anyone defends the US Government being in charge of programs, especially those designed to help the poor. The poorest in our country are the most vulnerable and should have the best care. Gee which would I rather have? The US Postal Service taking care of me or FedEx? And yet when we apply the same logic to social security or medicare (or any other public program) the outcry by the far-left is astounding. As if conservatives are suggesting something horribly egregious in nature when in reality conservatives are suggesting the path most sympathetic.

Sympathetic like Jan Brewer's moritorium on organ transplants death panel?

Nice talking to you Jar-jar.

Under President Bush we had 52 straight months of employment and WalStreet hit it's highest levels ever. Ronald Reagan created 20 million jobs during his Presidency. Both pulled us out of recessions created by their predecessors, both by cutting taxes and job killing regulations. What we need is more Reaganomics, not less. I thought we learned that lesson under H.W. Bush. When you raise taxes the economy tanks, when you lower them the economy does great.

1independent -- SHOW ME THE CAR FAX!!! Show me where Reagan created 20 million jobs and pulled us out of recession by cutting taxes and job killing regulations.

Show me facts that raising taxes tanks the economy.

Taxes are lower for the wealthy than they have been since the 50's. WHERE ARE THE JOBS, AND WHERE HAVE THEY BEEN FOR 10 YEARS? The jobs? Viet Nam, China, India, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Mexico, etc. etc.

Please, go unscramble your thoughts before you come back here, 1independentVoice.

I repeat: Jar-Jar, useful idiot swallowing lies and advocating for the criminals who will destroy us. No this is not metaphor, this is not hyperbole.

Reagan's policies crashed the stock market in '87, helped foster the blight of crack cocaine economy, and sowed the seeds of the savings and loans bailouts.

Clinton pulled the nation out of the recession caused by Reagan and Bush the Elder...again, that S and L thing. Clinton created over 20 miliion jobs in his 8 years. Bush the Younger only created 1 million.

Under President Bush we had 52 straight months of employment and WalStreet hit it's highest levels ever

And then the bubble burst the housing sector from subprime loans and the mortgage backed securities they were sold as...BEFORE Bush's term was over. Toxic Asset Relief Program, remember? That was a Bush initiative. It made John McCain break of his campaign and run to Washington like a little girl with her hair on fire to get it passed...after saying the fundamentals of the economy are sound. That always cracks me up when I think about it.

As for deregulation...I'm guessing that you think acid rain and combustable water and subprime loans and mortgage backed securities and catastrophes like Deepwater Horizon, whose regulatory regime was set up by Bush/Cheney which Obama never got around to fixing, and toxic toys from China, and e. coli and salmonella in GREENS are all the hallmarks of a strong nation. Not to mention privatizing out port security to Dubai Portworld.

Good one Jar-Jar...give us some more.

Not that I'm siding with whats-his-name, Don. But it increasingly appears that the 90's sowed the seeds of the 08 real-estate crash...much of the "deregulation" of mortgages, mortgage securities, etc. had their founding in the 90s. The "Clinton Prosperity" was thanks in part to the "tech bubble" that burst in 1999. Due in great part to the low interest rate, pro-bank, pro-market policies of Greenspan (that even he now admits were a mistake).

I wish there were a distinct dividing line between Bush did this and Clinton did that and then Bush II did the other thing...but there isn't, the government policies have pretty much been a continuous arc towards instability in the economy, greater power for corporations and politicians, and less power for "the people."

So while I'm in agreement with you that the economy was better under Clinton, jobs were created, the markets went up, the budget deficits almost balanced. As a small-c conservative, I ask...what was the long term trade off for all that short term prosperity?

Gee which would I rather have? The US Postal Service taking care of me or FedEx?

When FedEx will deliver a letter for $0.44 anywhere in the country including the most remote rural outpost, then come talk to me about how much better they are than the US Postal Service.

Under President Bush we had 52 straight months of employment

What does this even mean?

When you raise taxes the economy tanks, when you lower them the economy does great.

It would lend more substance to the discussion is there was some factual basis to these claims. Our economy did oh so great under Bush the Younger based on his tax cuts.

I conclude that @1IndependentVoice needs a more accurate nom de plume. The posts are plagiarizing from republican talking points. Unfortunately when students plagiarize, it is because they do not understand the material and cannot generate independent thought.

Clinton was adept at making deals with devils and he had gotten some results. He got us into the black briefly. Would his policies have kept us there...problably not. But If there was going to be a downturn, blowing the surplus, however illusory or transitory it might have been, on tax cuts has been nothing but disasterous. And I will add also that he, got us into the black. Briefly. He slowed the melt of the middle class. He did not reverse it.

If I had my choice of past presidents, it would not have been Clinton. Again, too adept at making devils with the devil and co-opting the conservatives' own field. I would take LBJ sans the Vietnam War. Or Eisenhower, without hesitation. FDR after the economic expansion of WW2...face it, he was flailing around trying EVERYTHING until war forced him into deficit investment in manufacturing. I'm sure the idea on its own was as anethma to him as it is today. I'd even take Teddy Rooseveldt sans his imperial foreign policy.

So while I'm in agreement with you that the economy was better under Clinton, jobs were created, the markets went up, the budget deficits almost balanced. As a small-c conservative, I ask...what was the long term trade off for all that short term prosperity?

The problem is that everyone, Obama absolutely most definitely included, that everyone is making worse and worse deals with the devil for increasingly shorter and shorter term gain. All tactics, no strategy. All about winning the next battle at the cost of losing the nation. Burning down the house for the sake of doing some grillin'. And Obama will settle for much less than half the ribs because it is in the spirit of bipartisan compromise. Is this news to anyone?

I like Ike

Me too bones.

Is this news to anyone?

Apparently, it is. "Instant gratification" has been so imbued into our culture that I constant surprise people by talking about my plans for as short a time frame as 6 months from now.

My degree adviser at college can't believe that I have the next 3 semesters of classes sketched out.

I've been on job interviews were the guy doing the interview didn't comprehend that I had a 1, 5, and 10 year career plan. Just flat out didn't grasp the concept that such planning was even necessary. His idea of a "long time horizon" was next week.

So yes, a whole bunch of people would find it "news" that there is any alternative to trading away the future for the present (re: Obama or any other politician)...because they are incapable of thinking in those terms.

www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Laffer-Reaganomics-Created-Jobs/2011/02/11/id/385725

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704364004576132473777840938.html

www.freedomworks.org/toptenpaulryan

www.cnjonline.com/opinion/rep-42815-ryan-dramatic.html

www.nationalreview.com/corner/270299/ending-medicare-we-know-it-andrew-stiles

www.nationalreview.com/corner/270697/coburn-lieberman-unveil-plan-save-medicare-andrew-stiles

www.cato.org/pubs/ssps/ssp7.html

www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11776

Right, Bush was an absolute GENIUS at creating jobs.....a whole 1.5 million of them in 8 years. It is literally the worst performance by ANY president in modern times. If you consider that a resounding sucess, then by extension, Obama must be an even greater president, as he has created that many jobs in just 2 years. I love the fact that all of your "supporting" evidence comes from right wing sources like Cato and Freedomworks. It is just more proof that you are absolutely NOT an independent, but actually nothing more than a right winger who loves to regurgitate propaganda and talking points. Anyone who was a true independent would have steered away from those sources.

Mmmmm...Flavor-aid. Its deeeelicious. It tastes like almonds.

Mr. Independentvoice reminds me of repubs in the late days of the Bush administration, afraid to admit they were repubs, afraid to even associate themselves with that name, so they claimed they were "independents". In other words, cowards. I proudly call myself a liberal, not the nom d'jour of "progressive". If you're too cowardly to admit what you are, then you are too cowardly to stand up for the values associated with the label you try so hard to avoid.

Or perhaps you are so far into the socialist and communist camp that you cannot recognize an Independent and center American when faced with one? It seems to me the far-left would naturally assume anyone to the right of socialist is an extreme right nutjob, instead of what I am which is a regular person looking for common sense answers in politics. I am just not blinded by the propaganda of MSNBC, the New York Times, or any other far-left news outlet.

Sorry that actual facts and data do not support your assertions. The fact that you need to quote far right publications only makes my case stronger. Just be a man and admit you are not even close to being an independent. I am a liberal, proud of it, and calling me a socialist is not the insult you think it is. If you depend on your local fire department, police department, EMTs, and schools, then you too are a socialist....you, along with the rest of society, pays for those services for the good of society in general, even though you yourself may never actually need any of those services.

1Independent

Are you using a right wing random word generator?

If it's right wing, about all it CAN generate is random words!

This is a head line from Think Progress (TP)

as it said good to see some millionaires and billionaires that realize that if they do not at like patriots their grave train(america) will derail.

WEALTHY DONORS TO CANTOR: RAISE OUR TAXES