Going After the Stupid Vote

According to a recent poll by the Gallup organization, more than six in 10 Americans (63 percent) think the United States benefits from having a class of rich people.

There may be something in this for President Obama to consider since his campaign for re-election is be based on dividing Americans based on how much money they make.

Despite all the shots he’s taken at the so-called rich, despite all the times he’s told us they’re not paying “their fair share,” most Americans not only think the country benefits from having rich people around, but a majority of Americans (another 63 percent) — who do not consider themselves rich now — would like to be rich if they had their choice.

None of this should surprise anybody.  Of course most people would like to be rich.  Why wouldn’t they?  And what kind of dolt would think the United States does not benefit from having rich people around.

Well, I’m glad I asked that question.

According to Gallup, while 80 percent of Republicans think the country benefits from having a class of wealthy Americans, and while 59 percent of independents feel that way, a measly 52 percent of Democrats agree that the United States benefits from the rich.  And here’s the number that is so fascinating (and I mean that word in the worst possible sense): 46 percent of Democrats — no doubt the most liberal in the party — say the country does not benefit from having wealthy people around.

Let’s remember that the top 1 percent of working Americans pay about 40 percent of all federal income taxes, and the top 5 percent pay about 60 percent.  So, without a class of rich folks, who would finance construction of interstate highways and pay for the military and help seniors with retirement income and the poor with medical care?

Not the bottom half of wage earners, since they pay only about 3 percent of all federal income tax.

So, what should we conclude from all of this?  I think it’s fair to surmise based on the Gallup numbers that Republicans are the smartest Americans, that independents come in second, and that 46 percent of Democrats are too stupid to vote.

The bad news is a lot of them do.  In fact, without the “stupid vote” Mitt Romney would win in a landslide.

 

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • azcribz

    If liberal Democrats don’t like rich people then why are the richest states in the US LIBERAL STATES?  DUH!   Why do the richest cities vote Democrat EVERY TIME?

  • Nancygaryn1

    everyone better start thinking obama is the one to vote for mitt does not know what the heck hes doing and we dont have time to Train him !!!! He looked like he was gunna cry last night thats what PEOPLE SAW!!!!!! Hes a BIG BABY!!!! OBAMA KNOWS WHAT HES TALKING ABOUT MITT DOESNT PLUS REALLY DO U THINK OBAMA WANTS WARS??? NOOOO REMEMBER HE HAS DAUGHTERS HE WANTS THE BEST!!!! FOR ALL THATS THE DIFFERANCE, U ALL BETTER THINK VOTE OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • faul mccartney

    when the beatles became popular, they were in a special 95% tax bracket.  they realized that they were finally making money, but it was taken away from them by the government.   They left England and became tax exiles, paying no taxes. 
    what happens when the rich in the US leave en masse?  who pays then? 

    • Azcribz

      seeing as Romney only paid 13% they don’t have much to worry about-hello!

  • MCH

    I like the rich because one day I  will be  rich if I use my head, have goals, work hard,  Guess what? It is hard to be rich!   Liberals take dreams away,  want you to be a non thinker, non dreamer and  owned by the government.  Yes you become  stupid and you vote for more things to make you more stupid and unstimulated.  Please don’t vote let the rich minded vote for you.  

    • Azcribz

      Then why are the richest states and cities filled with liberals? Stop drinking the Kool-Aid-
      do your research-the richest states are almost ALL BLUE-how do you explain that?

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/PPL2AXPXJMWPEJWFN34MPC5RNY terry

    HES GOT THE STUPID VOTE

  • Berryraymond

    I find, with further investigation, when a liberal tells me that they don’t think there should be so many rich people around, what they are really saying is that they don’t understand the first thing about economics.  I always ask them what middle class, or poor person they worked for?  It’s also funny to ask them to tell you what is rich, give me a number.  Most of the time the number is usually twice the amount the liberal makes himself.  I think we need more economic education, the true liberals will never change, it’s a matter of DNA.  We can educate the stupid that Benard talks of in the article, “Going after the stupid vote”. 

    • Azcribz

      Im a liberal and I’ve never heard anyone say any such thing-the most liberal states are the richest states-so I guess that blows your theory? New York? Hugely liberal-San Fran-hugely liberal-Boston-hugely liberal-the most educated people? Hugely LIBERAL

  • Tonyb

    I am thrilled to death about the poll asking Veterans who they favored Romney or the Usurper.  By 28% they favored Mitt Romney.  People are all over the place making excuses why these vets do not favor the Usurper.  The media does not have a clue about what is going on all over the internet.  There are hundreds of thousands of people who now know that this Usuper has been flaunting a forged birth certificate and a forged selective service card.  That does not fly well with those true hardcore patriot veterans.  Someday the media will catch up with the news of the day, the Usurper is a fraud and a liar like no other in the history of this great nation.  I am so looking forward to the Bill and Bernie show when all this crap hits the fan and they realize they have totally missed the crime of the Century.   

    • Fire Coach K

      Wow. Just wow.

      I fully expect one of you to say, “Oh, this guy doesn’t speak for all Republicans.” Let’s not pretend, though, that this wingnut’s batshit crazy views aren’t shared by an awful lot of you. And batshit crazy people should never, ever set America’s agenda.

      • Paul Courtney

        Agreed.  Never, ever.  So you must be hoping for a continued R majority in the House of Reps, otherwise Nancy “I make batshit crazy look like MENSA” Pelosi sets the agenda.  No?

        • Fire Coach K

          You reckon she was born in Kenya too?

          • Paul Courtney

            Now, now, there’s no cause to insult Kenyans.  What do your stats show re: economy for the middle class while she was Speaker ’06-’10?  While she was in complete control of the agenda ’08-’10?  Bet even Coach K can tell when someone is ducking.

          • Fire Coach K

            Oh believe me, I’m not thrilled with the politicians on the left, either … just for different reasons than you. You guys paint Democrats (and Obama in particular) as “radical.” What? Did I miss something? No one took away your guns, the Bush tax cuts got extended, we didn’t summarily pull out of Afghanistan, we’re still waging a costly and pointless war on drugs, there was a tepid “ok, gays should be allowed to get married” statement but ultimately it’s left up to the states, we haven’t really done anything about climate change (or air pollution in general; even a tightening of smog regulations was pushed back to next year), Gitmo is still open … THAT is a radical leftist agenda? Really?

            I think this (along with the obvious racial component) is why the birther thing is so enduring and so popular on the right. When you look at the actual policies, there isn’t a lot of actual radicalism. So you have to make him radical by imagining him to be foreign.

          • Pcourtney14

            Oh, I believe you.  The left ought to be less than satisfied with The One, and like you, ought to avoid defending Nancy P. Not that I’m complaining, but veto-proof majority can’t raise tax rate on “rich”, repeal DOMA, reduce carbon or lower the sea?  Comm. in chief can’t get out of Iraq ahead of Bush schedule?  And the press rooting for each of these items?  Won’t blame those who think a community organizer “radical”, but it strikes me as an empty word.  Besides, he was more radical as a candidate, didn’t prevent his election.  And yes, we can’t rid ourselves of racists on the right any more than you can get rid of anti-semites on the left, but Obama won in’08 by a good margin, so those racists don’t carry much weight.  What was really funny was saying, at this site, birthers are driving our agenda.  Bernie scorned that (small) crowd a few months back.  I daresay he has more influence on the right than D. Trump, and I won’t complain about that, either.

          • Fire Coach K

            I’m not sure how small that crowd is; has anyone done recent polling on that? Last year in one poll, 51% of Republican primary voters thought Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. … I wonder where that percentage now stands.

          • Paul Courtney

            Looks like this “born in Kenya” actually started with BO’s publisher.  That said, the number is more than I’d like, but if that poll were accurate, our nominee would not be Mitt.

          • Bob Hadley

            Remember, President Obama did not have a veto proof majority in the Senate until Al Frankin was seated and Sen. Spector left the GOP. 

            Even then, to get 60 votes on anything, Sen. Reid had to navigate around the more conservative members of his caucus – Sen. Nelson from Nebraska, Sen Tester from Montana, Sen. Lieberman frrom Conn., and (I think) it was the new Sen. from W. Virginia.   That’s at least why some legislation (e.g. the health care bill and the stimulus) was watered down or never proposed.

            I don’t think the birthers are driving the GOP agenda, but  prominent GOP people – e.g. Romney, Speaker Beihner  (sp) – tiptoe around the birthers.  To my knowledge, the only prominent member of the GOP to decisively oppose the birthers is Sen. Graham.   He was thanked by being heckled at a town hall meeting and asked when he was going to join the “Democrat” party.

            BTW, did you notice Romney’s recent not-so-subtle sop to the birthers?  He said something to the effect that, in addition to the qualifications to become president  that one must be native born and an American citizen, he must also be…..

            Unless I missed it, Bernie has not scorned the birthers, who constitute a substantial portion of the Republican base.  Bernie has let it be known that he thinks Obama was born in Hawaii as documented, but i don’t consider this scorn….  On second thought, many birthers feel such a mild form of free expression as scorn.  I guess that’s why some birthers have given him heat.

          • Paul Courtney

            Bob:  Tried but couldn’t find it.  As I recall, Bernie did a column on another subject, an aside said Rubio would make a good VP.  Some birthers posted that Rubio wasn’t qualified “just like Obama” because he wasn’t “natural born”.  Bernie then did a column scorning them, or maybe more precise, baiting them.  Drew,like, a thousand posts, many from birthers and others saying I’m not a birther but he’s not natural born.  They begged Bernie to respond, he never did, driving them even more berserk.  They kept at it for a few more columns (on other subjects) before the admin had to push them out.  We each have our cross to bear, and I won’t blame Mitt for tip-toeing around ‘em any more than I blame Obama for tip-toeing around OWS kooks-politicians are not going to alienate the base very readily.  It’s still a free country, no matter what Hannity thinks.

          • Bob Hadley

            Paul,

            I read Bernie’s column about Sen. Rubio with a secondary remark on the birthers.  I also read the column that supposedly gave birthers a quiz.  In my view, neither of those columns scorned birthers. 

            In fact, Bernie’s criticism of birthers was muted in compariison to his usual style.  Bernie’s criticism is typically biting and hard hitting.  But I take you at your word that it constituted scorn in your view. 

            As for comparing OWSers with the birthers,  that’s a false equivalency.  Whether or not you agreed with it, the OWS movement was  sustantive.  Even O’Reilly said he sympathized with it.  

             OWS soon attracted a hooligan element that grew like a cancer.  
            And, yes, you would be correct to point out that no prominent Democratic politician criticized this hooligan element, as far as I know.

            On the other hand, the birthers are, at best, flaky to the very core.  Whether President Obama was born in Hawaii and whether either his long-form or short-form COLB were fraudulant are questions of fact, not an opinion based on social and economic analysis. 

            If the birthers were somehow correct, this country is facing a major
            crisis.  A fraud is our Commander in Chief????????  But if the birthers are incorrect, which they obviously are to anyone who investigates the matter using neutral and primary sources, they have no redeeming value at all. 
            They’re kooks.

  • Glennbogart

    All right, Mr. Troll, suppose we agree that the rich are getting richer.  If they invest their money wisely and get a good return on it, how is that a bad thing?  Their receiving a return on investment is hardly “redistribution.”  Taking that return from them and giving it to people who have not earned it is redistribution — or, more honestly speaking, theft.  I ain’t hardly among the rich, but I want no part of theft.

    • Fire Coach K

      How is that a bad thing?

      Well, let’s look at the nations with the greatest income inequality: Namibia, Botswana, Haiti, Angola, Bolivia, Rwanda, Lesotho, Mexico and so on.

      Now let’s look at the nations with the lowest income inequality: Denmark, Sweden, Japan, Finland, Norway, Germany, Austria and so on.

      Which group strikes you as healthier, happier, more stable nations? If the U.S. had to emulate the nations on one list or the other, which would you choose?

      I’ve thrown around a lot of statistics illustrating how the wealthiest Americans have become absurdly wealthier in recent times, while the middle class has been treading water at best, and in most cases going backwards. This is bad not just because of the sheer numbers of Americans involved (say, the middle 60% vs. the top 1%). This is ultimately bad for everyone — the top 1% included — because real economic growth (not to mention political stability) comes from a strong middle class. That’s who provides the consumer base for all manner of products and services, which in turn drives investment.

      This is not to say that the top 1% are evil; of course they aren’t. But they most certainly are looking out for themselves, and they’ve spent hundreds of millions convincing the GOP base to vote against their own economic interests. They didn’t create jobs with the Bush tax cuts for “job creators,” which added $1.8 trillion to our debt. They simply grew their after-tax income and their share of America’s wealth by leaps and bounds. Then they parlayed that into more political power, which in turn helped them create more wealth, and so on and so on.

      It hasn’t been positive for America. I honestly don’t know how someone could look at where we were 10 years ago or 25 years ago vs. today and conclude otherwise, which is why Romney’s plan to double down on tax cuts for the ultra wealthy (and raise taxes on 18 million Americans who can least afford it) just seems insane to me.

      • Paul Courtney

        Hey, lefty, you got me.  I was not aware Mitt had a specific tax cut proposal “across the board”, which includes the ultra wealthy.  My error.  Why would he do that, providing ammo for your war on the rich?  Guess he has convictions or something.  
                Will you folks ever see the “Bush tax cuts for the ultra wealthy” as a tax cut also for the middle class, so large that Dems couldn’t undo them even when they held all the cards from ’08-’10?  I’m in the middle class that moved off the income tax rolls, and I fear another four yrs of Hope & Change, and I’ll be on the EIC rolls (which would suit Dems fine).      What your stats don’t reveal is that the US middle class moves fwd and back over time, surging fwd in the ’20s and back in the ’30s (under FDR, solid dem congress and very high income tax on the wealthy).  Another huge surge fwd in ’50s and ’60s, mostly under dems but big income tax cut under JFK.  Another fall backward in ’70s, mostly under dems, then huge surge fwd again from mid ’80s through ’90s, with low tax rates.  Middle class has been moving back for ten yrs but is that a result of Bush tax cuts?  Your stats don’t make that cause-effect, friend.  Articles in National Review have addressed this for some yrs now, telling Rs that they ignore it at their peril.  Here’s why we are no more impressed by your stats than (presumably) Duke’s Bd of Trustees-we know that if you get the tax hikes you wish for, it will bring a middle class crash because big money will move out.  Don’t believe me?  Ask John Kerry why he docked his yacht in CT.

      • Jeffreydan

          What caught my eye was how the rich “most certainly are looking out for themselves…”, which is absolutely true! Those fat-cat rich democrat politicians are all about themselves! They enjoy amazing tax-funded perks, further enrich themselves in ways they never could as private citizens, and acquire as much power as they can while they fool gullible liberal voters into believing they’re just a bunch of selfless, caring, average people. ; )>
          America’s greatness comes more from people wanting to be the next Henry Ford than those who climb to power and say they can solve everyone’s problems with more tax money.  

          Come on, Pally. If you aren’t aware that democrats love personal wealth more than any Republican, the whole time pretending otherwise, your naivete takes all the fun out of the debate.

          No sarcasm, I admire your passion coming here to present your case.

      • Drew Page

        Do people from Namibia, Botswana, Haiti, Angola, Bolivia, Rawanda, Losotho and Mexico emigrate to Denmark, Sweden, Japan, Finland, Norway, Germany and Austria, or do they emigrate to the U.S. ?    Maybe that might have something to do with the income inequality in the U.S.

        Seems to me that you are promoting ‘outcome equality’ regardless of intelligence, hard work, perserverance and sacrifice.   Do you feel that those who do not demonstrate these qualities should reap the same rewards as the industrious?   Those in the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of all income taxes; 50% of wage earners pay no federal inciome tax, yet receive the lion’s share of social welfare benefits,what’s their “fair share”? 

        You ask which of the listed countries we would prefer to emulate, third world or European socialist countries, I reject the options.  America is, or was, a country that guaranteed equal opportunity, not equal outcomes for its citizens.  People who live here have the opportunity to succeed or fail.  That is American exceptionalism.

        • Fire Coach K

          Let me just go line by line through your utterly inane response.

          You seriously think America has income inequality not because of the tax policies and the trade policies that the elites have implemented, but because poor people move here? Wow, that is just … so … dumb.

          And are you really so profoundly stupid as to think that I’m promoting “outcome equality regardless of intelligence, hard work, perserverance and sacrifice?” No, what I am pretty clearly advocating is a strong middle class. Again, compare America when it had a thriving middle class vs. America today; when was America better off, then or now?

          Yet again, for the umpteenth time, the percentage that the top 10% pay in federal income taxes sure hasn’t precluded them from reaping ENORMOUS gains both in terms of their after-tax income as well as their share of this nation’s wealth — even in the midste of the financial crisis. The share of wealth held by the top 10 percent of U.S. households increased from 49% in 2005 (before the crisis) to 56% in 2009. And at the exact same time, the middle 60% has been treading water at best, and in many cases going backwards.

          And yet you’re going to complain about “social welfare benefits” for the poor (which have undergone enormous cuts in recent years), while conveniently overlooking the “social welfare benefits” that we shovel to the rich (like, say, oil and agricultural subsidies).

          Your continued finger-pointing at the poor reminds me of Reagan’s story about the “welfare queen” in Chicago with “80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards. … She’s got
          Medicaid, getting food stamps and she is collecting welfare under each
          of her names. Her tax-free cash income alone is over $150,000.” Great story, right? Except it was 100% false. A complete fairy tale. No such person existed. Thirty years later, “social welfare benefits” have been gutted, the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer, but nothing in the GOP mindset has changed.

          Your bloviating about equal opportunity and “American exceptionalism” is just right-wing talk-radio hot air. If you don’t let Detroit go bankrupt, you don’t believe in “American exceptionalism.” If you don’t follow 30 years of gargantuan tax cuts for the wealthy with another $250K tax cut for millionaires, you don’t believe in “American exceptionalism.” In other words, you hate America. And that’s an absolute crock.

          Don’t even get me started on your bullshit about equal opportunity. Of course not everyone in America has equal opportunity. Even you can likely grasp the concept that a hedge fund manager’s child has infinitely more opportunities than a homeless person’s child. And guess what — no one is trying to give those two kids the exact same opportunities. NO ONE.

          I’m not sure when bending over time after time after time and saying ‘Thank you, Top 1%, may I have another???” became patriotic in the minds of you right wing nutjobs. But just take a look around and see if continuing to destroy the middle class — which is precisely what your policies have accomplished — is really the way you want to go.

          • Jeffreydan

              Tell you what, there’ll be no more “land of opportunity” talking point from our side if you quit with the tired old “rich get richer/poor get poorer” talking point.

              Regarding your aforementioned lib talking point, it seems kind of silly. Personally, I’ve experienced everything from luxury, to weight loss from little food on hand, to paycheck-to-paycheck, to having no place to sleep, etc. My life has been rags, riches, and everything in between. The only thing that was guaranteed the entire time was my freedom, and I wouldn’t want it any other way. 
              My dad was extremely poor until adulthood, built a business and did quite well, had ups and downs until retirement (even afterward).
              Know about Kenny Anderson? He had no money until he made it to the NBA, became a millionaire and lived very luxuriously for several years, then retired broke.
             Larry Bird? As poor as a poor person could be early in life, now very wealthy after decades of working extremely hard and using his brain.

              The poor also get richer and the rich also get poorer, in other words, and that’s no matter who’s in power. If it’s an efficient economy you want, put people in power who respect the Constitution and won’t waste our money. (Read: someone very much unlike the guy currently in the White House.) If you think life must be fair for everyone, you’ve really cornered the market on wrong.

              Not enough people listen when they’re told life ain’t fair.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/PPL2AXPXJMWPEJWFN34MPC5RNY terry

    NEXT, HE WILL BE VISITING GRADE SCHOOLS, KINDERGARTENS PASSING OUT
    FLYERS AND GIVING SPEECH ABOUT HOW YOU ARE NOT GETTING THE MILK AND
    DIAPERS YOU NEED DUE TO RICH ROMNEY

  • Hamburgladybug

    All I know, is that I’m tired of my tax money going to help everyone else out. I don’t mean the really needy, but to all the others who don’t work cause it’s easier to stay on welfare or unemployment than to go out & work everyday. I’m just middle class, but how fair is it that I have to pay taxes and the lower 50% doesnt hv to pay or they get it back at tax time. I THINK THERE SHOULD BE A FLAT TAX FOR EVERYONE, then the more or less you earn will decide what you pay!!!¡!!!!!!!!

    • Jeffreydan

        The very last thing democrats want is any law that gives everyone equal treatment.  

      • Fire Coach K

        Be careful what you wish for, Hamburgladybug. If you don’t think the past 25 years of wealth redistribution from the middle class to the ultra wealthy has been bad enough, then implement a flat tax and watch the fireworks. America would become an oligarchy, which ultimately would be bad for everybody — including the precious “job creators” in the top 1%. It’s tough to sell your products and services when you’ve raped the lower 99% so brutally that they have no disposable income.

        • Brendan Horn

          You come across as a crazy, racist, communist. Communism has never worked and will never work. Socialism has never worked and will never work. This stuff about the top 1% comes across as petty jealousy and insanity on your part. Your ideas would never work and will never work. You have no facts to offer. They are neither cold nor hard nor relevant. 

          • Fire Coach K

            Racist? What in the world have I said that is even remotely racist? Similarly, I’m by no means either a communist or a socialist. I highly doubt that you’re capable of defining those terms.

            Can you refute any of these facts that I’ve cited repeatedly?

            Aren’t federal revenues at a 60-year low, as a percentage of GDP? Isn’t that odd, considering the right-wing mantra that tax cuts result in higher revenues? The Bush tax cuts have been in place for a decade; where are the higher revenues?

            Doesn’t the top 1% control 40% of America’s wealth? Wasn’t this number 33% as of 25 years ago?

            Hasn’t the top 1% seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, while those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall?

            Isn’t America’s income disparity (top 1% vs. the other 99%) at its widest point since 1928? (And golly, what happened right after that?)

            Hasn’t the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center said that Mittens’ tax plan would add $3 trillion to our deficits over 10 years? Does it not entail giving $250K tax breaks, on average, to people earning $1 million? Does that strike you as fiscally responsible?

            Feel free to refute any of those statements, using FACTS to support your position. Or is whining about “petty jealousy and insanity” pretty much all you have to offer?

    • Faul Mccartney

      You can’t buy a vote by asking people to be responsible for themselves and their actions. 
      Heck, if someone put forth a proposal that anyone aged 18-50 that was getting welfare, food stamps, and housing assistance had to work 40 hours a week doing community service, or even 20 hours a week, they’d be considered a monster.  
      Our society is all about the entitlements people have for converting oxygen to carbon dioxide.  As long as they continue to do that, they feel they should still be paid and paid well.

  • Missy123

    Maybe the whole solution here is to teach our kids to stay (no maybe FORCE) them to stay in school, get an education and then maybe, just maybe, they may be able to support themselves and THEIR families by working as hard as they can and doing their best to move up in their companies whether it be McDonald’s or Advanced Processing & Imaging or Dow Chemical Company or even O’Reilly Auto Parts or Starbucks.
    If kids continue to drop out of school or continue to be the class clown and think they’ll become a rap star, they are so sadly mistaken!

  • http://shawmut.blogspot.com/ Dave O’Connor

    It might even be further considered that the “Stupid Vote” encompasses the ‘Alpine Club’ of social climbers.  “Gee, Veronica, we get to join the ‘Elite’!”
    And, heaven forbid don’t let the chance of being ‘elite’ pass by – certainly don’t think of how many commoners,  your own neighbors and kin, that choose to be as select an element as one’s self. Follow the mendacity prone of the country and, in Massachusetts, the Hagophiles.

    • Fire Coach K

      You mean the elites who will get a $250K tax cut under Romney’s tax plan, which would add $3 trillion to our deficits over 10 years?

      And do you mean Massachusetts folks like, say, the former governor of that state, who used his remarkable business acumen to make them (drum roll, please) 47th in job creation?

      • http://shawmut.blogspot.com/ Dave O’Connor

        Surely, one must consider the mamke-up of the Massachusetts General Court (legislators), which is politically correct and vicious against any measure proposed an opposition party.  Frankly, they’ve deferred most of the law-making to the courts.  It gives them more time to travel out of state to fund-raise.
        Matters little to me, I lived and worked in this country when it meant something.
        You might be comforted to know I’m leaving the scene shortly. 

        • Fire Coach K

          You’re clearly desperate to spin Romeny’s job creation record as governor as anything other than an abysmal failure, but what you just wrote was a meaningless word salad, with a vague allusion to the “activist judge” boogeyman that you right wing nuts hold so near and dear. Romney should take responsibility for his job creation numbers, if he wants to tout himself as some kind of brilliant job creator.

          Here are the cold, hard facts: According to state unemployment numbers, the net number of jobs added during the four years Romney was in office was 24,400 — a fraction of the total of about 200,000 lost during the 2001 recession. Massachusetts was 47th in job creation, and one of the states it managed to beat was Louisiana, which got decimated by Hurricane Katrina. Overall, during Romney’s tenure as governor, Massachusetts was one of just six states that didn’t add back all the jobs lost during the 2001 recession.

          • http://shawmut.blogspot.com/ Dave O’Connor

            As you see it. Indulge!

          • genann59

             David, if you check on the posts on goldberg.com this same clown shows up again and again. He is nothing but a troll, making the same inane remarks backing the koolaide drinkers all the way. Flick him and his remarks off as the gnat he is.

          • Fire Coach K

            Look, I know you right-wing nuts just want to scream “he’s a Kenyan sochulust Mooooslum jihadist ho-mo-sec-shul” in peace. I don’t care. I’m going to present the cold, hard facts, and if you don’t like them, you’re free to present other data.

            This clown in particular is pontificating about the “elites” from Massachusetts. Excuse me? Have you checked who your presidential candidate is, and what his tax plan entails?

          • genann59

             Now that I realize why you are here (trolling) I’m really beginning to find you amusing. Good for some really good laughs. Keep it up.

          • http://shawmut.blogspot.com/ Dave O’Connor

            I gathered as much, and appreciate your comment. Of such, I generally dispatch with; “Thus defines him.”

      • Jeffreydan

          Even if that projection were to prove correct, we all know how little controlling deficits matters to democrats, so give it a rest.

         BO (you know, the former “vote present” senator with no acumen whatsoever) has done nothing to merit a second term. Well, unless making excuses and blaming others are considered good governing.  

          We all know how much de

        • Jeffreydan

          Oops! Pardon the failed edit on previous comment.

          • Fire Coach K

            OK, so you’re saying that facts are irrelevant to you if they clash with your partisan notions, and you just want to continue believing what you want to believe. Sounds about right.

  • genann59

    Mr. Goldberg, what the perhaps need to point out to that 46% of idiots is that without the rich, and the taxes they pay, the money would not be in the government coffers for foodstamps, public housing, medicaide, school lunch programs (which I thought food stamps were meant to provide for anyhow). They might point out that if the rich end up  out of the country or moving their taxable assets out of the country, some of those who sit around all day complaining that they are benefiting enough from the taxes paid by the rich might actually have to get off their rear ends and start flipping burgers at MacDonalds, if there are enough people left with enough money to buy burgers at MacDonalds.
    I cannot remember any time in my life time (65 years) where people felt justified and entitled to stay home and live off the labor of others as so many currently do. And not only feel entitled but feel like they are entitled not only to necessities of life but also luxuries all off the backs of people who actually work, at no cost to them. To me, perhaps a fool, that shows a country whose citizenship is definitely in decline, morally, ethically, and intellectually. God bless America, the once greatest country in the world.

    • Fire Coach K

      Yet again, taxes are at a 60-year low, and no one — no one — has benefitted more from this than the top 1%, which now controls 40% of America’s wealth. The top 10% controls 93% of the nation’s wealth. THAT is entitlement, THAT is class warfare and THAT is income redistribution.

      If you think moving those tax rates a couple of percentage points off historic lows is going to prompt the wealthy to abandon the U.S. en masse, or that the Bush tax cuts have accomplished anything other than adding $1.8 trillion to our debt, I have a bridge to sell you. And again, even the people who pay no federal income taxes pay a wide array of other taxes (sales tax, etc.) to the tune of 16% of their incomes, on average. So spare me the “no cost to them” nonsense.

  • Xistentl1

    I know too many of the 40% and isn’t it ironic that are the same ones that want FREE medical care, subsidized housing for the poor, subsidies for child care, as well as free birth control, etc. etc. etc….. Oh, and more money spent on education, as well as a minimum wage of at least $10-12 an hour.  Oh, I forgot food stamps, as well as federal housing for the homeless.  A few of my liberal friends even think that being a marijuana smoker “that cannot quit” is a valid reason to receive disability benefits.  What a country.  And always when I ask,  “How do we pay for all this?”  I am sure you know the answer.  ‘TAX THE RICH MORE, as well as the corporations who they invaribly see as heartless and corrupt.

    • genann59

       Don’t forget, they are now trying to add high school dropout status as a disability, which will enable you to SSI and all the other free goodies.

  • Eileen Slinkman

    A vote for Mitt Rommey is a needed change to Obama’s change.  Do It!!!!!!!

    • Nancygaryn1

      we donot have time to train Mitt

  • http://blog.cyberquill.com/ Cyberquill

    I don’t even understand why the people vote for the president in the first place. 

    The original Constitution, as passed in 1788, set forth a popular vote for the members of the House. 

    Then, in 1913, the 17th Amendment established a popular vote for Senators as well. I don’t see an amendment that establishes a popular vote for president.  

    If the Framers wanted the people to elect the president, then what did they want the electors to do? And why on earth did they call them “electors”? To perfunctorily cast votes based on majority will is not “electing.” That’s being a robot. The same outcome could be achieved by awarding points instead of electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote. 

    So the fact that the Framers chose electors, as opposed to inanimate points, suggests that they wanted these electors to actually elect. And the reason, of course, was to guard against the “stupid vote” from a large segment of the population. The assumption was that, on balance, a small select group of electors would make smarter decisions, and that having the people vote for House members was direct democracy enough. 

    Whether those electors, if allowed to do some actual electing, would elect more wisely than the folks is debatable, of course. Fact is, though, that according to the Constitution—and unless I’m mistaken, the Constitution is still in effect—these electors, not the people, are supposed to elect the president.

  • Kayakbob

    I wouldn’t call them “stupid”.  To me it is more like “naive”, or “envious” at  the very least quite “frustrated”  that there are people..that..OMG…have more than they do – and somebody needs to do something about that. And we know who (or what) that “somebody” is.

    Government

    • Fire Coach K

      Government certainly hasn’t been shy about helping the ultra-wealthy grow both their income as well as their share of America’s wealth by leaps and bounds; I don’t see you crying about that.

      And yet it’s still not enough; as I posted below, Mitt Romney’s plan calls for further tax cuts that disproportionately benefit millionaires and billionaires. Funny that it’s only “redistributing wealth” and “class warfare” when it benefits somebody other than the elites.

      • Kayakbob

        thanks for making my point.  You don’t know anything about “me”, but I and everyone else reading this can see your deep frustration with the reality that there are the haves and the have-nots in this world. 

        • Fire Coach K

          I know precisely what I said about you: That I don’t see you crying about the government helping the rich. God forbid the government help anybody else, though.

          • Kayakbob

            I get it. People that seem themselves as victims look to government and say “why not give some of that to me?”.

            I earned my own way speaking of which, I need to get back to EARNING a living. ta-ta

          • Fire Coach K

            Certainly the ultra-wealthy aren’t shy about looking to government and saying “give some of that to me,” hence the Bush tax cuts and Romney’s tax plan.

          • Jeffreydan

            “The ultra-wealthy aren’t shy about looking to government and saying “give some of that to me,” hence the Bush tax cuts and Romney’s tax plan.”
            ————————————

            A little lesson for you: “give some of that to me” better fits people like George Kaiser and George Soros, billionaires Obama treated very generously with Americans’ tax dollars. “Quit taking so much of my money/trying to take more of my money/squandering my money” is more apt when talking about tax cuts.

              America has a debt and deficit so large that “behemoth” doesn’t come close to describing it, and Washington is infested with people who couldn’t be trusted to fund a trip to the deli. Only a fool or a lunatic would think taking more money out of wealthy people’s paychecks makes sense.   
                  

          • Fire Coach K

            A little lesson for you: “give some of that to me” better fits people like George Kaiser and George Soros, billionaires Obama treated very generously with Americans’ tax dollars. “Quit taking so much of my money/trying to take more of my money/squandering my money” is more apt when talking about tax cuts.

            ————————

            Oh really? Read my response to your nonsensical assertion that everyone would get a tax cut under the Romney plan. In point of fact, 18 million Americans would get a tax increase so that the wealthiest of the wealthy could get tax breaks of up to $725,716. That is the wealthy saying to the poor, “give some of that to me” (“that” being what little money they’ve managed to scrape together).

            Only a fool or a lunatic (or a really wealthy Republican) would look at what the Bush tax cuts have wrought over the past decade and say, “Let’s have more of THAT.” Those cuts added $1.8 trillion to the debt. Where are the jobs that the glorious “job creators” were supposed to create? Both the income as well as the share of America’s wealth possessed by the top 1% have grown explosively. Where’s the trickle down?

            And incidentally, the Tax Policy Center says Romney’s plan would add $3 trillion to our deficit over the next 10 years. By contrast, President Obama’s plan (to increase taxes on the top 20 percent of earners by a whopping 2% while leaving taxes on other Americans essentially unchanged) would REDUCE our deficit by $2 trillion over the next decade. How in the world can you, as someone who is allegedly so concerned about our “behemoth” debt and deficit, support a plan that adds $3 trillion rather than one that cuts $2 trillion?

          • Jeffreydan

              Oh, I dunno, maybe because tax cuts historically have increased revenues to the gov’t, and democrats historically have wasted money on cronies and black holes, Solyndra being a good example of both.

              I’ll take history over the estimates on the future any day.

          • Fire Coach K

            At about 14.8% of GDP, federal revenues are now at their lowest point in 60 years. The Bush tax cuts have been in place for a decade. Exactly when should we expect to see those increased revenues?

          • Missy123

            But were it not for the rich, how many people would be left without jobs? Then, how many of those people would be put on the “governmen payroll?”
            If it not for the rich, who would provide jobs?
            Small businesses would be overun with applicants for the few jobs they would have and even then, they wouldn’t be able to pay people a decent salary because the government would want more taxes, they COULD NOT afford to offer their employees insurance of any kind and educated people would have to go overseas just to get a job, which would leave us where?
            Don’t bite the hand that feeds you because if you do, there may not be enough of the hand to give!

          • Fire Coach K

            You know, asking the top 5% to pay between 1.2% – 6.1% more in federal taxes isn’t “class warfare,” it isn’t some form of hatred for the rich and it certainly won’t put them in the poorhouse. It’s simply looking at what has happened in the past 10 years, evaluating our current situation and saying. “OK, the Bush tax cuts for the “job creators” have been in place for a decade now; where are the jobs? Taxes are at a 60-year low and wealth disparity is at an 80-year high … do we really want to double down on that strategy?”

            And that’s exactly what Romney is proposing to do. He wants to give $250,000 tax cuts (on average) to millionaires and raise taxes on 18 million Americans who can least afford it — and in the process, add $3 trillion to our deficits over 10 years. If you make $1 million a year, I can absolutely see why this plan sounds fantastic to you. If you make less than $1 million, though, it is deeply irresponsible.

      • Drew Page

        FCK  —  I don’t like it when government, either Democrat or Republican,  sees fit to reward their rich friends in exchange for votes, graft or payments of any kind either while in office or later.   Both Democrats and Republicans do this.  

        You are already blaming Romney for something he has only proposed, yet have said nothing about Obama’s rewarding his Wealthy campaign financiers who own major stock in companies like Solyndra and Petrobras.  

        I really don’t care if those earning a million or more per year pay an additional two, three, four or five percentage points in federal income taxes.   But I would like to see anyone earning income in excess of the poverty rate pay 2%, 3%, 4% or 5% in federal income taxes, instead of nothing.  Nearly 50% of all income earners pay no federal income taxes.  All of these people are not at or below the poverty level.  What’s their “fair share” supposed to be?

        • Fire Coach K

          Well, you think their “fair share” is evidently 2%-5%, on top of the 16% they already pay in assorted other taxes. I don’t know how you get blood from that stone, especially when the GOP is chopping all manner of assistance for that same group while proposing $250K tax cuts for millionaires. But if you can tell me how to do so without sending those teetering on the poverty line straight over the edge, I’m all ears.

          Incidentally, I’m glad to hear that you don’t personally care is those earning over $1 million pay an additional 2%-5% in federal income tax. The Obama plan, which would cut $2 trillion from our deficits over 10 years, is to increase millionaires’ tax rate by 2% and leave everybody else untouched. That is what is causing all of this wailing and gnashing of teeth on the right, and all of these cries of socialism and Marxism. Two stinking percent, at a time when taxes are at a 60-year low and income disparity is at an 80-year high.

      • genann59

         I do not believe any administration since the Tea Pot Dome Scandal has done so much to enrich their friends and donors as the current administration has done. I saw a report yesterday that 86% of the $18 billion in energy grants went to people either connected to the Obama administration itself or to others in the democratic party, with friends and donors to Sen Reid being right up there in getting these government grants. Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth on that issue.
        I saw a remark the other day which also pertains. It went something to the effect, Obama only dislikes the rich who do not donate to the democratic party.  Look at the corporations who have made massive donations to the democratic party and then look at how many of them got refunds on their taxes, even with billions in profits since Obama took office. Look at Buffet, who is still fighting tooth and nail against paying the millions in back taxes his companies owe IRS, which standing before us talking about how he thinks he should pay a higher rate. How about Buffet paying what he owes before telling everyone that he and the other rich need to pay more. Yeah, he doesn’t care if they are in a higher bracket, he doesn’t pay what he owes already. And because he is willing to stand up next to Obama and whine about how he feels he should pay more, he gets away without paying what he already owes.

        • Fire Coach K

          86% of $18 billion? If “people connected to the administration itself or to others in the party” is your standard, then what Haliburton and Blackwater made in Iraq makes 86% of $18 billion look like chicken crap.

          (Just to be clear, I don’t have a problem with what Haliburton and Blackwater made; my point is that “people connected to the administration itself or to others in the party” is a pretty big glass house as GOP talking points go.)

          • genann59

             If you note, that 86% of $18 billion is only speaking of one program dealt with by this administration. This administration is corrupt on every level, the energy sector was merely one department involved in the corruption.
            And, even if there was corruption in the Bush administration, and there is no doubt in every administration, this administration takes corruption to a level said to not have been seen in DC prior to this time.  this administration is corruption on steroids, as if they need to grab everything they can, while they can, cause they intend to ruin the economy, so they are plundering right and left while there is anything left to plunder.
            I do not think anyone is claiming that any administration is lily white in innocence dealing with making their friends and buddies wealthier, but I feel pretty good that they can point out the level of corruption in this administration with a degree of confidence that this group is the absolute worst we have ever had. Like people say, poor ole Carter can no longer feel secure he is the worst president we have ever had, he has been far surpassed.

          • Fire Coach K

            You don’t strike me as a student of history, but if you make an accusation like “this administration takes corruption to a level said to not have been seen in DC prior to this time,” you really should have some facts to back that up. You’ve presented virtually nothing in that regard thus far; you’re just blindly hurling mud because you so desperately want what you’re saying to be true.

          • genann59

             I have noticed your id now trolling just about all the posts on goldberg.com, with ridiculous remarks demanding others prove whatever they have to say without proving a thing of which you say. You are just another troll, apparently the goldberg newsletter and columns are your assignment to troll. You mean nothing to me, I have to prove nothing to you.
            I hope that everyone else has realized you are just the troll who keeps showing up. You might change your id but you are nothing but a pest, kinda like a cockroach they is hard to get rid of. So bug off, cockroach troll.
            That seems to be the method of you Obama team trolls, to not give any facts, but to insist that everyone else provide a list of facts to back up everything they say. We see through you and your tactics. Again, cockroach, bug off.

          • Fire Coach K

            I’m presenting facts. You’re the one spewing nonsensical attacks, evidently because the facts are very, very uncomfortable for you.

          • genann59

             You have no idea how I feel about anything, you do not know me, so you are making assumptions about me, and you know what they say about those who make assumptions.  You are making my day, making an ass of yourself. Keep it up, and just keep drinking the koolaide. I doubt by now anyone on here is taking a word you say seriously.

          • Jeffreydan

              A defender of the guy who promised “change” pointing to President Bush. Time to set my watch.      

          • Fire Coach K

            gennan59 made a claim about history. I had to go alllllll the way back to … uh oh … four years ago to show that the claim was dubious at best. But I know, you can’t stand to hear anything that doesn’t confirm your preconceived notions.

          • genann59

             Another good laugh, Fire Coach. You didn’t show anything but a good joke, you.

          • Fire Coach K

            Your lack of reading comprehension isn’t my problem.

  • UpLateAgain

    Progressivism makes everyone more equal.  Of course the only way to do that is to make them all equally poor.

    • Missy123

      Or to maybe make all of them equally WORK!

      • UpLateAgain

        I’m sure you do your best work when someone comes along and tells you they are going to kick the shit out of you if you don’t do what they say…. right? That’s what it has always boiled down-to, and why every ‘collectivist’ economy eventually fails while providing the majority of their citizens with a life of misery.

  • Pasekfred

    If they don’t think a country benefits from having wealthy people, they should visit Haiti and get a taste of what their life would be like.

    • Fire Coach K

      I’m not sure what your point is; there certainly are wealthy people in Haiti. But obviously, there is tremendous disparity. The top 1% of Haitians possess nearly half the country’s wealth, while 55% of the country lives on less than $1.25 per day.

      In the U.S., the top 1% controls 40% of the nation’s wealth (up from 33% about 25 years ago).

      But I know, the right wing doesn’t feel that our rapidly growing income disparity and wealth disparity pose any sort of concern for the U.S. … nothing to see here, let’s just have more tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy because those have worked out so gloriously.

      • Paul Courtney

        If you really believe those stats tell the story of Haiti’s economy and ours, you probably won’t get the point.  If you really believe the right wing blah blah any sort of concern, you haven’t read very much right wing stuff for at least last 5-6 yrs.  And if you really believe anyone on the right is promoting “more tax cuts for the ultra wealthy”, you’ve paid no attention at all to the right wing, but why bother when you can make up whatever suits you? 

        • Fire Coach K

          Excuse me? Are you seriously claiming that no one on the right is advocating more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans?

          http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/08/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-mitt-romneys-tax-plan-gives-mill/

          The Tax Policy Center found that under Romney’s proposal, people with $1 million or more in annual cash income will receive an average tax cut of $250,535. Those in the millionaire category will receive an 11.8 percent increase in after-tax income, easily the highest of any income group. Collectively, the tax savings for millionaires would amount to nearly one-third of all the tax benefits that result from Romney’s plan.

          • Jeffreydan

              Governor Romney is advocating more tax cuts for ONLY wealthy people? If you earn, say, $65,000 per year, Romney’s plan excludes you outright?    

          • Fire Coach K

            I’m floored by how ignorant you are about your own candidate’s tax plan. The Tax Policy Center said Romney’s plan would raise taxes on about 11 percent of tax filers (or those too poor to file and pay taxes) by an average of about $900 in 2015. With 165 million filers in the U.S., that’s about 18 million people.

            Yes, Romney said he would cut marginal tax rates for everyone. But Romney’s tax plan also allows for the expiration of tax cuts enacted in the economic stimulus package, including:The American Opportunity Tax Credit, which raises the maximum education tax credit from $1,800 to $2,500 and it makes the credit partially refundable so low-income people who don’t pay any taxes would still benefit.

            The stimulus bill also increased the Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income working families from 40 percent to 45 percent. An extension enacted in 2010 increased the maximum credit for families with three or more children from $5,236 to $5,891 in 2011.

            The child credit, a tax benefit to offset the cost of raising a child, is a partially refundable credit of up to $1,000 per child. Recent legislation lowered the threshold for qualifying, so that working families with earnings above $3,000 qualify for at least a partial credit.

            These tax cuts provide substantial cuts for low-income taxpayers. And since Romney’s plan would allow them to expire, that’s who would see a tax INCREASE under his proposal, while the top ONE-TENTH OF ONE PERCENT would get an average tax cut of $725,716. That accounts for 19.4 percent of all the tax cuts’ benefits.

            Why isn’t Grover Norquist shrieking about this? I thought allowing a tax break to expire effectively amounted to a tax increase? Oh, nevermind. These tax breaks benefit someone other than the elites, so they don’t count.

          • Jeffreydan

              I understand. You were implying that Governor Romney was targeting only rich people for the cuts, when reality his plan targets all taxpayers.
              And now you’re advocating for people to continue getting de facto welfare (amt of taxes paid ends up a smaller # than credits/cuts, etc.)  

              As long as you’re still going to whine about tax cuts being disproportionally better for rich people, look online for a neat item using ten men eating at a restaurant. It’s on several sites, even Snopes, and it just might be the best education you’ll get on the subject. 

              Addressing your pathological jealousy of successful people will have to be left to a therapist, though.     

          • Fire Coach K

            I implied no such thing. I simply corrected someone who was delusional enough to believe that no one on the right is pushing for more tax cuts for the rich. In fact, your presidential candidate is doing exactly that, to the tune of $250K for his country club cronies. Meanwhile, he wants to raise taxes on 18 million low-income Americans. And in the process, he would add $3 trillion to our deficits over the next 10 years, while President Obama’s plan would cut $2 trillion. Those are the cold, hard facts that you won’t get via Faux News or viral emails.
             
            Which reminds me, your little restaurant parable is one of the most idiotic viral emails I’ve ever read (and that includes the one that claims President Obama is literally the Antichrist). For one thing, it assumes that all 10 men had the same meal (i.e., the same income). In reality, the top 10% possess 93% of America’s wealth. Let me type that again slowly, so that you can understand it: 93 PERCENT.
             
            So the first four guys would have shared a saltine, and the 10th would have had an all-you-can-eat buffet, then packed up a few truckloads of lobster tails and filet mignon as leftovers. But you evidently want to split the bill 10 ways equally.
             
            It also assumes that each meal was mutually independent. In reality, the 10th guy didn’t become wildly wealthy in a vacuum. He needed the labor of the first four guys, and the purchasing power of the fifth through ninth guys (the middle class).
             
            It also assumes that all 10 guys made equal use of the restaurant (America’s resources). The 10th guy gets a legal system to back up his contracts; police and fire and military protection for his buildings; a reliable system of unemployment insurance so that he can fire the first nine guys more flippantly; public roads to ship his goods; all manner of tarif protection, subsidies, etc.; and on and on.
             
            It also implies that the first four guys got a free ride. This is misleading to the point of dishonesty. Again, when factoring in ALL taxes, those guys (some of whom are students or elderly) probably paid about 16 percent of their meager incomes.
             
            Last but not least, because a right-wing viral email wouldn’t be complete without an outright lie, this particular one usually purports to have been written by a professor (i.e., Thomas Davies at the University of South Dakota or David Kamerschen at the University of Georgia). Both men say they had nothing to do with writing it, nor do they know who did write it.

      • Missy123

        Would you rather they increase the taxes for us?

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/PPL2AXPXJMWPEJWFN34MPC5RNY terry

    THERES PLENTY OF THE  STUPID  OUT THERE JUST WATCH   JAYWALKING   ON THE JAY LENO SHOW.

    THEY SAY YOU CANT FIX STUPID,  BUT A 2X4 WILL GET THEIR ATTENTION.

  • Brian H

    Bernie;
    Check out this posting on ‘Climate, Etc.’ about Haidt on the difference between conservatives and liberals:
    http://judithcurry.com/2012/04/19/the-righteous-mind/

    In a nutshell, we have liberals taped, but they’re shooting in the dark, and missing badly.

  • rider237

    it’s unfortunate that they used the word “class”.  class implies that it is a static state into which you are born..

    wealthy isn’t an class.  it’s an achievement.  poverty isn’t a sentence.  it’s motivation to achieve.

  • rider237

    i’m not sure i would agree that they are universally ignorant, but they are racist.  when you vote for someone because of the color of their skin rather than the policies put forward, that is racism.

    and we do have some evidence of ignorance on issues from those that were interviewed.  they did not know anything about the  man, his voting record, or his plans….yet they voted for him because he was black.

    • Fire Coach K

      Uh-huh. Surely no Republicans will vote for Mittens because he’s white, right?

      Well, maybe JohnHD will … but absolutely no one else.

      • rider237

        i can’t say that no republicans will vote for him because he’s white.  i don’t know all republicans.
          i do know democrats who wouldn’t vote for obama because he is black.  i also know blacks who only voted for him because he’s black.  if your choice of candidate is based solely on race, isn’t that racist?  can you tell me that there are not blacks who vote for him just because he’s black?

        back OT:  do you have a problem with rich people?

        • Fire Coach K

          I think we can safely assume that race will place a large role in how many, many people vote. I have no idea which candidate will benefit more. This is why I find it odd that you single out blacks who vote for Obama, while conveniently ignoring the whites who will vote for Romney because he is white.

          • rider237

            probably because we have testimony from blacks that they voted for obama  because he’s black.  obama also benefited from a large, white, liberal guilt, vote.  he certainly would not have been elected by only blacks.

            i can share with you my personal knowledge of two whites who did not vote for obama because he’s black.  both of those people were democrats.  for one, it was the first time in her long life that she had not voted.

            what i believe is that the race issue is way overblown.  if obama loses this election it will be because he has lost the faith of the people.  many of those people voted for him the last time and will not again.  a lot of liberals will want to blame the loss on race, but while race may impact on the margins, it will not be the reason he is not re-elected….and really, one election based on race is enough, don’t you think?

          • Richard McCargar

            Fair question. Why single out those blacks who voted based upon race.  The reason? Ninety-six percent of all blacks who voted in the last presidential election, voted for Obama.

            “Fully 96 percent of black voters supported Obama and constituted 13 percent of the electorate”

            Obama “won 43 percent of white voters”

            Those numbers can be verified at an article titled: “Exit polls: How Obama won” from politico.

            Ninety-six percent of all black voters voted for Obama, while forty-three percent of whites voted for Obama. That says it all.

          • Fire Coach K

            Does it say it all?

            John Kerry won 88% of the black vote in 2004, and Al Gore got 90% of the black vote in 2000. Therefore, Obama picked up an additional 6%-8% of the black vote, which as you noted accounted for 13 percent of the total electorate of about 130 million. Thus, we can estimate that Obama picked up an extra 1,014,000 – 1,352,000 votes by virtue of being black.

            In 2008, 74 percent of the electorate was white, so we’re talking about a pool of voters that is much, much larger (96.2 million whites vs. 16.9 million blacks).To get an extra 1 million to 1.35 million votes out of the pool of 96.2 million white voters, you’d only have to move that needle by 1.04% – 1.4%. And I think that way, way more whites will vote for Romney primarily because he’s white than will vote for Obama primarily because he’s black (i.e., “liberal guilt”). So if anyone benefits from outright racism in 2012, it will be Romney.

          • Fire Coach K

            By the way, I would describe racists as being stupid. I realize that many Republicans would not agree with that contention, as evidenced by the astounding amount of racist vitriol directed at President Obama from the right.
             
            Regardless, as I just showed, Romeny stands to gain far more than Obama from the racist (i.e., stupid) vote.
             
            Therefore, Bernie’s statement that “without the ‘stupid vote’ Mitt Romney would win in a landslide” — which was asinine on its face — has now officially been blown out of the water.

          • Jeffreydan

              The race card has been thrown around indiscriminately by liberals ever since BO became a candidate. I have yet to see any non-liberal pol or pundit say anything about BO as bad as the treatment liberals give blacks on the other side. It would’ve been nice if at least one liberal had taken exception when a white democrat marveled at a black man being clean and articulate, and another one made the “negro dialect” comment.
              I’m curious what the “astounding amount of racist vitriol” is you are talking about. I’ve seen fringe kooks who post comments on conservative sites’ columns, but prominent conservatives’ bigotry tends to exist only in the minds of cry-wolf democrats.    

              A fair argument can be made that all bigots are idiots, but not that all idiots are bigots as you suggested. (Impressive leap on your part, declaring that you officially blew Bernie’s statement out of the water.) Sorry to shorten that pedestal of yours, but “stupid” and “racist” are not synonyms.

              If you leave out people stupid enough to believe BO is a good leader with a good record, Governor Romney would indeed win in a landslide.       

          • Fire Coach K

            Prominent conservatives have certainly pushed the birther agenda, which is wildly racist. Glenn Beck accused the president of having a “deep-seated hatred for white people and white culture.” Rush Limbaugh had an ongoing segment on his show called “Barack The Magic Negro” and also referred to the President of the United States as a “halfrican,” “uppity” and an “African colonial despot.” Don’t even get me started on the Fred Davis/Joe Ricketts attack plan that probably would have been implemented had it not come to light.

            And that’s not even counting the work of the fringe kooks,whose support is so appreciated by the GOP:

            http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/obama-racist-latest.jpg

            http://antzinpantz.com/kns/images/obama%20plane.jpg

            http://www.racismreview.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/watermelon_white_house.jpg

          • Jeffreydan

              Where are the examples of bigotry in prominent conservatives?
              Beck: you seem to not see the difference between a racist statement and an accusation that someone else is racist.
              Rush: the phrase “Magic Negro” was created by an L.A. Times writer. Rush was mocking HIM. In fact, if you were to look at the big picture, with that open mind liberals claim to have in abundance, you’d see Rush’s “racism” for what it really is: a wise-ass baiting and mocking you. Next time read the entire story, in context.
              There’s nothing racist in the Davis/Ricketts plan. There’s no racism in bringing up his association with that jerk Wright.

            You’re crying wolf. Give it up.   

          • Richard McCargar

            Your numbers in no way refute my contention. They voted almost unanimously last time, and for a man with absolutely no experience running anything.  Hell, I voted for him, and won’t this time.

            You seem to want to ignore that Obama received many votes because people wanted to vote for the first black president, not because he was supremely qualified.

          • RonKean

            Fire  –  You can’t say that.  You don’t know people.  There’s much that Obama’s done that people can disagree with.  It’s time to give somebody else a chance.

  • JohnHD

    You sure hit the nail on the head Bernie. But I think your percentages are to little. perhaps if you are refering to Democrate as a whole this might be near the truth. But there are a number of a racial group (unmentioned) that are almost universally ignorant. And the percentage is at least 85% totaly ignorant.

    • Fire Coach K

      WOW!

      But, you know, Republicans aren’t racist or anything. I don’t know where people get that idea.

      • JohnHD

        Why is it racism to state a fact.

        • Fire Coach K

          If it’s not racist and it’s totally factual, why not specify which racial group you’re referring to — using your real name, of course?

          • Nancye

            It looks to me as though his REAL name is John – duh!!!

          • Fire Coach K

            His real name is JohnHD? That must look funny on his mail and on his credit cards.

          • JohnHD

            I’ll let the vidios showing a reporter asking questions of Blacks during the election state the facts. But there are also a whole bunch of other races that were ignorant or we would have elected an amateur for President.

      • ph16

        So just because one person comes up with a racist remark and you slander an entire group of people, wow that’s being fair, and open minded. I’m glad liberals hate stereotypes.

        • Fire Coach K

          Yeah, he’s the ONE racist Republican. Glad we finally found him!

          By the way, slander is verbal; libel is written.

          • ph16

            My bad, but anyway I hope you get my point. Not all Republicans are racist.

  • Fire Coach K

    Soooo your contention is that the Republicans — who have been quite vocal about their belief that education is for “snobs,” and that the President is a Kenyan-born socialist Moooooslum, and many of whom to this day think Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 and had WMD — are not the beneficiaries of the “stupid vote?” You can’t have it both ways. You cannot say that, on the one hand, Democrats are over-educated elitists. Oh, but on the other hand, they’re stupid.

    Maybe you’d have an ounce of credibility here if the Republican base didn’t adamantly believe every single viral email that lands in their in-boxes, not to mention every nonsensical comment spewed by talk radio blowhards. But unfortunately, they adamantly believe those things. Too bad they don’t believe in, say, science (or education in general).

    • http://twitter.com/Tzor Christopher Beattie

      Perhaps you would have an ounce of credibility if you didn’t blindly believe everything that the liberal MSM tells you about what they think “Republicans” believe, because you only make yourself foolish by such nonsense accusations.  – And for the record, higher education doesn’t always prevent you from being stupid, especially when the education is in a degree that has no practical application in the real world or any practical means of actually validating itself in the real world.

      • Fire Coach K

        Is there anything — any single thing in the whole wide world — that you right-wing crybabies don’t blame on the mean ol’ media?

        It wasn’t the media who cheered Rick Santorum for calling President Obama a “snob” for daring to suggest that some form of education after high school is a good thing; it was Republicans.

        It wasn’t the media who cheered Michelle Bachmann for saying the First Lady was advocating a “nanny state” when she (gasp!) endorsed breastfeeding; it was Republicans.

        It wasn’t the media who have been shrieking for four years that Obama was born in Kenya, all evidence to the contrary; it was Republicans.

        It wasn’t the media who started and spread dozens upon dozens of viral emails containing outright falsehoods about the President, including that he is literally — LITERALLY — the Antichrist; it was Republicans.

        It wasn’t the media who opened a creationism museum whose exhibits show cavemen riding dinosaurs; it was Republicans.

        Whining about the media won’t do anything to change the perception that the Republican base is stupid. Instead, demand that your fellow Republicans stop acting so overtly stupid. Bothering to learn the fundamental rules of spelling and grammar would be a good place to start (your vs. you’re, plural vs. possessive and so on).

        • Brian_Bayless

          On this board, questioning any conservative stance is usually met with responses like “looney liberal” or a “Marxist Socialist.”

          • ph16

            Not saying that all liberals deserve that title, but unfortunately many of the liberals who come on here deserve that title epsecially one that comes to mind. Those who frequent here often will know who I mean.

        • rider237

          liberals are so much fun.  i spend a fair amount of time playing with you guys on your sites.  on there, on any given day, there will be whining about talk radio, nasty republicans wanting poor people to starve, fox news…with many spellings (speaking of grammar) and how it’s RUINING the country!!, etc. 

          the majority of the media is left leaning.
          http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
          to point out that fact is not whining. 

          the rest of your post is pretty much the usual liberal…whining, and not worth the time. 

        • Jeffreydan

            I’ll criticize the media as long as they keep up the false narratives. They should just report the news, whether it reflects poorly on the left or the right, whether it fits their ideology or not. Liberals whine all day long about how unfair things are, yet don’t seem concerned with fairness when most of the news consumed by the public isn’t presented with it.

            There are enough morons on the right to provide material for any late-night comedian’s entire monologue, no question, but don’t kid yourself that the left’s morons get as much coverage or scrutiny.

            BTW, until you learn that “racist” and “stupid” don’t have the same definition, you shouldn’t be lecturing people on writing intelligently.          

          • Brian_Bayless

            People need to learn that MSNBC and Fox News are the leaders in television opinion news. Watching those two channels is not a way to get factual news items.

            In America, some  people do not want to think for themselves. They want to identify with either the Republican or Democratic Party and tote the prty line. They use the two above mentioned networks to fuel their voting decisions.

            If I had my way, there would be more parties or a no party system. What we hae now is two parties not working together and if they try, it seems like that person will lose come election time as their opponent will run hate ads,which really influence voters.

          • ph16

            Oh I would read Bernie Goldberg’s book Bias if I were you, you’d be surprised by a lot of things. I know I was and I think you’ll understand the concepts more and what everyone here’s talking about. 

          • Brian_Bayless

            Fair enough. I will give it a shot. Although, the media landscape has changed drastically since it was written so I wonder how well it holds up today.

            Haven’t read Mr. Golberg’s books but I love his work on HBO Sports and is investigative journalism pieces on CBS were excellent.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DGT5LFXDWHPKRWLSI2WPBXIGXE Wil

          But Coach, Bernie keeps telling us, it’s the liberal media. Is he wrong?

    • RonKean

      Talk about nonsensical comments.  You win that one.  

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DGT5LFXDWHPKRWLSI2WPBXIGXE Wil

        Ron, You people just cannot handle facts! And remember, everything went out of control at 12:00 noon on Jan. 20,
        2009. Until that precise moment everything was just fine in Bernie’s
        right-wingnut world…
         

        • RonKean

          There you go again.  Wil, I know more than you do.  I’m right and you’re wrong.  There’s nothing much else to say.

        • ph16

          Oh trust me Wil, we know it was out of control spending with the non-conservative Bush adminstration, but Obama did nothing to help reduce the defict. He only wants to spend more and more money.

      • 1LonesomeDove1

        Unemployment went from 5.7 to 5.0 under 8 years of Bush.
        After the bi-partisan stimulus program, it went from 5.0 to 9.4.
        After unemployment benefits ran out, it went from 9.4 to 8.1 because the record of people looking for jobs dropped when their benefits ran out and they were no longer being reported.

        The budget went from $3.4 trillion billion to $4.9 trillion under Bush. Under Obama it went from $4.9 trillion to $6.3 trillion

        Under Obama there will be $3.73 trillion — total spending this year. With $46 trillion — total spending over the next decade.

        When President Bush took office on January 20, 2001, the national average gas price was $1.46 per gallon. Six and a half years later, on August 27, 2007, the national average gas price had jumped to $2.76

        A gallon of gasoline in the U.S. rose from $1.83 on Jan. 19, 2009, a day before Obama took office, to $2.83 on April 19, 2010, the day before the oil spill, EIA historical data shows.

        What Will posted is called Wil’s scewering of the facts, because he’s a lying regressive party hack.

        • Brian_Bayless

          In regards to Bush, the man decided to rebuild Iraq while our country was declining. Please explain to me the logic behind that and cutting taxes while increasing military spending. That helped the country get into debt. If you want to go ahead and point out Obama’s flaws, go right ahead but lets not go ahead praise Bush for his work on the economy and the budget.

          • 1LonesomeDove1

            And Michelle Obama has racked up $10,000,000 worth of vacation time on the taxpayer’s back while while our country is going through a bad economy.

            Cutting taxes encourages people to spend more. When taxes are high, consumers tighten their belts, or do you spend more money as your expenditures increase?

            Anyway, I never praised Bush on his work on the economy, and the economy is the sole responsibility of congress under the US Constitution.
            I don’t know to what extent Bush rebuilt Iraq, but I was working during that time period, and I didn’t see the economy as that bad.
            The price of gas that Will quoted is just plain false.

            However, I did get laid off right after the bi-partisan stimulus deal, and both party’s were involved in that.

            Anyway, all presidents, democrat and republican, have rebuilt countries with whom we have had war, so pointing only at Bush is hypocritical.

            Bush is not, and never was a conservative.
            He’s a moderate.
            Republicans in congress are not a majority conservative, and that’s why conservatives are angry with them. Too many reps are liberal, but liberalism still seems to find its primary home in the democrat party.

            You guys believe that republican = conservative, and it does not.

            I have never been totally happy with the way republicans and Bush have done things, but I also don’t like political games played by each party and their constituents; one always ignoring it’s own faults while pointing only at the faults of the other.

            My belief has always been that the democrats “tax” and spend, while the republicans “borrow” and spend, but they BOTH spend, and WE pay.

            As for defense? Here’s my opinion on that:

            Whereas science advances domestically, it also advances militarily, and all countries want that advancement. It just happens that the US has advanced better.
            If the US had not advanced further in the area of defense, it would soon fall prey to those dictatorial nations that ultimately would have; primarily Russia and China.
            Those nations would also absorb smaller, less advanced nations over time, resulting in a world of dictatorships.

            The notion that a world of aggressive, freedom hating governments would simply ignore the resources and wealth of a neutral, peace loving vulnerable US, is purely ridiculous, and if we did not protect smaller, less militarily advanced nations of the world, then soon we would be alone to defend ourselves against a world of dictatorships.
            We would lose.

            This is a logic that the regressive mind cannot grasp.
            They would not have us advance militarily, or even just keep up militarily, but want us to “reduce” militarily, as can be seen today with the cutting of defense.
            The government with a “liberal” philosophy would reduce the motto “Speak softly, and carry a big stick”,to ………just speak softly.

            Unless, of course, it’s campaign time.

          • Brian_Bayless

            “You guys believe that republican = conservative, and it does not.”

            Since you replied to me, I guess that I am part of “You Guys.” If you area hinting that I am a Democrat or a Liberal, then you are wrong. I am an Independent. On this board, there is a lot of Democrat=Liberal and Obama=socialist, which is also false.

            Yes, Bush himself said he wasnt an economist and it showed.

            Also, on this board, there are too many posters who look at the actions of all Republicans with rose-colored glasses. Then again, it should be expected since this site features conservative news.

          • 1LonesomeDove1

            “Since you replied to me, I guess that I am part of “You Guys.”

            Brilliant deduction.

            “I am an Independent.”

            I don’t care what you say you are. Independent doesn’t mean you’re not a liberal, so don’t blow smoke at me.

            “On this board, there is a lot of Democrat=Liberal and Obama=socialist, which is also false.”

            Democrat doesn’t always equal liberal, but Obama is a socialist.
            If you don’t know that, you never will.

            “Yes, Bush himself said he wasnt an economist and it showed.”

            Doesn’t matter. Congress controls the economy by power of the Constitution, and there were too many liberal republicans in congress under the moderate Bush.

            “Also, on this board, there are too many posters who look at the actions of all Republicans with rose-colored glasses. Then again, it should be expected since this site features conservative news.”

            And here again, you speak of conservative and republican as though they’re the same.
            They are not!
            I’m not a Bloomberg poster. I post on Human Events, and I posted here from my dashboard, so I don’t know what you have over here, but if you’re any example, then you have far too many who confuse “ideology” with “party”.

          • 1LonesomeDove1

             http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/obama-democrat-socialists-e1337910360714.jpg

          • Brian_Bayless

            Oh please, this does not mean he is a socialist. He participated in a town meeting forum that was sponsored by the University of Chicago that featured Democratic socialists. He is a politician and would speak anywhere to garner votes or try to obtain a base. A republican at a tea party rally would do the same thing and I would not think that he would be a member of them either.

            He has not been a socialist during his presidency. Its insane that people think this. He has not been a good president, ignoring the economy and failing to deliver on his promise to change the healthcare

          • 1LonesomeDove1

            “He is a politician and would speak anywhere to garner votes or try to obtain a base.”

            And what do you suppose he spoke to them on? The evils of socialism?

            LOL!!!!!!!!

            You libs are so freaking brain dead.

    • JohnHD

      For your information Saddam Hussein did have WMB. In fact he used them on his own people. They used to have a literacy test to qualify for citizenship. They should have the same for qualifications to vote. I know this sounds strict. But how in hell can you vote yea or nay if you don’t even know what you are voting for?

    • RonKean

      You should  go away now.  Your opinion isn’t worth anything.

  • DoraVera2

    Not only do most Americans want to be rich, they are absolutely obsessed by the glories of being super wealthy. Hence the fascination with Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, million dollar rooms on HG Channel, designer clothing, celebrity gossip, etc. So how are they convinced by the left to flirt dangerously with socialism? They just don’t think through what socialism actually means, which is ultimately a reduction in the number of the rich into a small, select group of political party officials who live the high life while everybody else gets stuck far below in mediocre-ville. Just ask the immigrants from former Soviet countries. They don’t romanticize socialism at all.

  • Dan_Thinks

    Ironic how that 46% number pretty much matches the % of those not paying any tax’s.
    Hell I only have a GED under my belt and I can see reality much better than these Liberals. I think there’s a lot of resentment and envy going on.

    • Fire Coach K

      “Any tax’s?” Really? Jesus. I’m shocked that you only have a GED.

      When you blather about “those not paying any tax’s,” you do realize that you’re only referring to federal income taxes, right? These folks do pay payroll taxes, state taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, property taxes and on and on and on. In fact, even the bottom fifth of all households in the U.S. still manage to pay about 16 percent of their incomes in taxes.

      Not that you care about anything that gets in the way of your “they don’t pay any tax’s durrrrrr” talking point.

      • rider237

        and then they get it back because they don’t earn much, and get earned income credit as a bonus. 
        +, if they have kids in school, are getting food stamps, heating assistance, housing assistance, state medical assistance, etc. they are taking out far more than they will ever put in.
        that gives them an interest in keeping the welfare state alive and well.  wouldn’t want to lose our “stuff”. 

      • JCSahyan

        You prefer “don’t pay any federal income taxes”? OK, that works. They DON’T PAY ANY FEDERAL INCOME TAXES, for God’s sake, and then they scream about how *others* aren’t paying their “fair share”. Scam is too kind a word for it.

        • Fire Coach K

          A significant chunk of those people are students or the elderly, so one wouldn’t really expect them to pay federal income taxes. Or at least I don’t expect some grandmother on a fixed income to pay a lot of federal income taxes; maybe you do have that expectation.

          Regardless, I suppose you missed the point about them paying 16 percent of their incomes in taxes. I know Mittens paid 13.9% of his adjusted gross income to the feds; I don’t know about his state taxes, property taxes and so on. But I assure you, the taxes on things he consumed (sales tax, gasoline tax, etc.) aren’t even a blip on his radar. He probably dropped more in his seat cushions than he spent on gasoline taxes, and God bless him for it. We should all be so wealthy.

          Unfortunately, we are not all so wealthy, and those same taxes that are almost meaningless to him are a really big deal to the people who you are deriding as scammers. I’m not sure why you can’t grasp that.

          • JCSahyan

            OK, so, as a great many conservatives have argued, let’s go to a national consumption tax, so Romney will have to pay his “fair share” on whatever he spends…just as Captain Crackpipe and his rich friends insist they want.

          • Fire Coach K

            If a great many conservatives have argued for the national consumption tax, their goal is evidently to turn America into an oligarchy (or more of one than it already is, anyway). Not that this will stop them from claiming that the GOP is fighting for the average American (which they clearly are not; look at how the Bush tax cuts have prompted the massive redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the top 1%).

          • Jeffreydan

              How exactly did President Bush’s tax cuts massively redistribute wealth like you said?  

          • Fire Coach K

            Those ridiculous tax cuts — which did little if anything to create jobs, and which added $1.8 trillion to the national debt — went a long way toward helping the top 1% control 40 percent of the nation’s wealth. Twenty five years ago, they controlled just 33%. That is wealth redistribution, that is class warfare and, in the long run, that degree of disparity is bad for America … unless, as I said, your goal is to turn us into an oligarchy. I’m not blaming this entirely on the Bush tax cuts. Lowering rates on capital gains and a lax enforcement of antitrust laws (particularly in the financial sector) have done more damage. But the Bush tax cuts most certainly were a gift to the wealthiest of the wealthy, and those glorious “job creators” haven’t done squat to help anyone but themselves to greater and greater shares of the pie.

          • Jeffreydan

              That doesn’t back up your claim, that the MC’s money made it to the pockets of the rich.

              People in general kept more of their own money as a result of the tax cut, not just rich people. The fact that my paycheck was larger after the cut took effect seems to contradict your claim that some of my pay was given to someone else. 
              
              If you’d rather rich people were excluded from the tax cut, you have a pretty small opinion about equal rights for all citizens.      

  • doublee64

    Democrats in general think to finanace the US all you have to do is borrow or print, whats the big deal “we don’t need no stinkin rich folks” . 

    • Fire Coach K

      All you have to do is borrow? Like we did for Bush’s two unfunded wars? Or like we did for his Medicare Part D prescription drug gift to Big Pharma? Or like we did for the Bush tax cuts, which added about $2 trillion to the national debt? But, you know, those “job creators” sure took those tax breaks and created a ton of jobs, didn’t they? Oh, wait — no, they didn’t.

      • chas615

        Yeah right. So Bush was an idiot for borrowing too much. So what do the Dems do? They borrow twice as much at least. You are brilliant Mr blue state dork !

        • ph16

          Good point chas, basically what I think many democrats forget that Obama has increased the national debt by the same amount in 3 years that it took 8 eight years for Bush to do. I basically have a gut feeling that Democrats do not care and do not plan to do anything about the national debt despite what they might tell you.

          • Fire Coach K

            And many Republicans intentionally conflate “Obama’s spending” with “Bush’s policies that we are still paying for to this day.” Do you think we magically stopped paying for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the instant that fake cowboy sashayed out of the Oval Office? Same for Medicare Part D and the Bush tax cuts, which have added $1.8 trillion to the debt and never should have been extended.

            In point of fact, the things that one might consider “Obama’s spending” are a drop in the bucket when compared to what Bush did to us. But I fully understand that this doesn’t mesh with the GOP narrative that Obama is some wild-spending Mooooslum socialist.

            http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//12-16-09bud-rev6-28-10-f1.jpg

            http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/CBPPpublicdebt.jpg

          • Brian_Bayless

            How some Republicans cannot admit that Bush’s increased military spending combined with decreasing taxes grew the debt boggles my mind.

            He started a war and decided to rebuild Iraq? Who in their right mind thinks that is a good idea? It was terrible for this country and we are still paying for it today.

            Obama isnt great but he is not a socialist or radical left-wing President some make him out to be. He extended the Bush tax cuts and continues to spend a lot on the military. Yes, that is right out of the Marxist playbook airght.

      • Brian H

        The debt began to surge when Dems took control of Congress, and stopped passing budgets.  They seem to like that continuous rollover of the 2009 budget, because they haven’t passed one since, and the debt is rising at multiples of any precedent (in $ or % terms). 

        Rs borrow to enhance productivity and production. 
        Ds borrow instead of production.  And think it can continue indefinitely.

        Stein’s Law: “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop. ”

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DGT5LFXDWHPKRWLSI2WPBXIGXE Wil

          The debt began to surge when Bush ran up the debt for no reason, during a time when it was unnecessary,
          to pay for a war of choice in a desperate hunt for WMD which didn’t exist. He
          expanded medicare the most in decades by increasing prescription drug benefits
          by giving the money to the DRUG COMPANIES and forbidding government agencies
          from requiring competitive bidding. He took a budget surplus and cut taxes which
          turned it into a screaming deficit, all the while promising that it would
          “trickle down”, which it never did.
           

  • Bruce A.

    Good article Bernie.  You did omit the words lazy vote.

  • Wcobb

    Obama sure seems to like “hanging out’ with the rich crowd @Clooney’s house. How would he finance his campaign without them?

  • Drew Page

    Polls such as the Gallup poll you cite in your article would be a lot more meaningful, at least to me, if it would have included a question, “How much money does a person have to make annually, before you consider that person rich?”  and, “What would you think if “the rich” were defined as those with family incomes of $5,000 or more?”  Can’t happen?  Think again.   Mr. Obama  has talked a lot about those earning one million dollars or more per year as “the rich”.  Yet his tax increases were aimed at those with annual family incomes of $250,000 or more ($200,000 + for a single person).    That’s a 500% difference in income for a single person.  

    A lot of folks may think that anyone with a family income of $250,000 or more is “rich” and therefore deserving of an increase in federal income taxes.    But how much more of a tax increase?   Mr. Obama does not define “fair share” as a percentage of income, so it can be whatever he wants it to be.  Let’s say, for sake of argument, that he believes an additional 5% of a “rich” person’s income would constitute their “fair share”.    The percentage of families with annual incomes of $250,000 or more is very small and even an income tax increase of an additional 5% on these people wouldn’t put a dent in the national debt or balancing the budget (assuming one will ever be submitted and approved).     I wonder what these same folks, who nod enthusiastically in agreement with Mr. Obama’s plan to tax “the rich” their “fair share”  would think when Mr. Obama redefines “the rich” as those with family incomes of $50,000 or more per year and/or redefines “fair share” to be an additional 10% or 15% over their current tax rates.

    • Drew Page

      Correction to my second suggested question to be included in the Gallup poll.  It should read, “What would you think if  “the rich” were defined as those with family incomes of $50,000 or more per year?” 

  • Mary

    Where do these idiots think the jobs come from, you will never get a job from a poor man!  Keep the welfare and other entitlement offices open so the idiots will be too busy to vote! They have to get the free stuff you know!! they can’t miss that.

    • ron1443

      problem is, they do vote.

    • Bernie

      Mary,

      Idiots is the perfect description.

      Bernie

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DGT5LFXDWHPKRWLSI2WPBXIGXE Wil

        Bernie, I wish every one had a eight minute gig once a week on a major TV
        Show, agreeing with the host for a living. You keep forgetting, most people have
        to labor hard for a living, for a lot less money!

        • cmacrider

          Willie:  So why don’t you write a few best selling books and you’ll get a gig just like Bernie has???

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DGT5LFXDWHPKRWLSI2WPBXIGXE Wil

            The idiots that bought Bernie’s books, also voted for GW Bush and we all know
            how that worked out!

          • ph16

            Better than the idiots like you that voted for Obama and we can see how that’s working out before our very eyes.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DGT5LFXDWHPKRWLSI2WPBXIGXE Wil

            The sad fact is, you really believe that. The country is rebounding after the disastrous  Bush/Cheney reign!

          • ph16

            We haven’t rebounded much. Honestly the Bush/Obama adminstrations combined have spelt disaster for this country. Honestly Wil, I wish Joseph McCarthy was alive to out you and your fellow left wingers.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DGT5LFXDWHPKRWLSI2WPBXIGXE Wil

            If you liked Bush, you will love Romney!

          • StanW

            We did, and we will.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DGT5LFXDWHPKRWLSI2WPBXIGXE Wil

      The only jobs one gets from a rich man is menial low wage jobs. like a
      domestic servant or landscaper. 

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DGT5LFXDWHPKRWLSI2WPBXIGXE Wil

      The only jobs one gets from a rich man is menial low wage jobs. like a
      domestic servant or landscaper. 

      • Jeffreydan

          So the highest earners are employed by poor people. Thanks for the entertainment, Willie.  

        • Brian_Bayless

          Cutting taxes on the rich does not mean automatic job creation. Lets stop that myth. It can also mean you get more money and not create jobs.

          • Jeffreydan

              Raising taxes on the rich doesn’t mean an improved economy. Let’s stop that myth. It means democrats will just keep wasting money as always, and will demand even more of rich people’s money later on.

          • Brian_Bayless

            You cant spend a ton on a war and cut taxes if you want the budget balanced. No one wants it but we need to get money somehow. Everyone is going to have to pay for that decision.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DGT5LFXDWHPKRWLSI2WPBXIGXE Wil

            This is what happened under Bush? We cut taxes on the rich and doubled
            military spending. (Off budget) Started  two wars.  And don’t forget collapsing
            the economy, forcing people onto unemployment and food stamps. That is why we
            have a deficit. We have a deficit because of tax cuts for the rich, huge
            military budget increases and the consequences of deregulating corporations.
            This is what President Obama has had to deal with since he entered office.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DGT5LFXDWHPKRWLSI2WPBXIGXE Wil

          No, their usually employed by corporations. You idiot!

  • ron1443

    About 46% work work for the government and/or are on the government teet.

    • Fire Coach K

      By “on the government teet (sic),” do you mean folks in the red states, which overwhelmingly get more BACK from the federal government than they contribute to it? Because I live in a blue state, which funds the red states’ agricultural subsidies and so on.

      • Brian_Bayless

        Red states are traditionally the poorest, so how is voting Republican helping them?

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DGT5LFXDWHPKRWLSI2WPBXIGXE Wil

          Isn’t it amazing how the wealthy get the less fortunate  folks to vote
          against their best interests.
          The efficacy of the right-wing noise machine is really a sight to
          behold.

          • Brian_Bayless

            Can someone also explain to me how increased taxes on the rich will further gurt the country? The tax rates on them in the 50’s and 60’s were much higher than they are now.

            Decreasing taxes will turn this country into Greece, unfortunately.

          • cmacrider

            If you have to ask that question …. do you think your actually qualified to vote in November ????????

          • Brian_Bayless

            I bet you think corporations are people too. Look, we got into a ton of debt spending a ton on a war that non one wanted, and we cut taxes in doing so. Explain to me Mr. Insult how we should get ourselves out of debt?

          • ph16

            We could stop the spending which neither the Bush or Obama adminstrations have had the guts to do.

          • 1LonesomeDove1

            Yes. The democrat billionaires for example.

          • DanB_Tiffin

            Right Wil, a crossing guard in Florida returned $1800 she saw hanging from an ATM. That certainly was not in her best interests. That is called honesty, a human trait which a liberal thief would never comprehend.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DGT5LFXDWHPKRWLSI2WPBXIGXE Wil

            We all can comprehend you’re an a-hole!

          • cmacrider

            Willie:  The ultimate Leftist rebuttal …. the ad hominem attack.  You’re intellectual prowess is a thing of beauty.

          • Brian_Bayless

            Is the ultimate rightist rebuttal stating that liberals do not have an honesty trait, like the poster above him stated?

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DGT5LFXDWHPKRWLSI2WPBXIGXE Wil

            Thank you, but I have been called a lot worse!

  • Vinbick44

    The 46 % is probably lower than the REAL percentage of stupid “D” people in our great nation.  Many more just did not understand the question asked.  

  • Kathie Ampela

    The 46% of Democrats represent the divide in the party. Centrists vs. Progressives. Even if Obama loses in November and Romney eeks out a tiny victory, the Socialist ideas will continue. The war of ideas will continue for years. I was once a Democrat but I was never a Progressive.

  • http://twitter.com/kevinkmac Kevin McDonald

    Maybe we can figure a way to have a five hour special of American Idol on TV on election day.

    • Bernie

      Great idea, Kevin.  Seriously.

      Bernie

    • Roadmaster

       Hehehehe!!!  That IS a good idea – make it a marathon with Survivor, Biggest Loser, The Great Race, The Bachelor and American Idol.  Should cover the whole spectrum of the 46%, though it’s probably pretty narrow.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DGT5LFXDWHPKRWLSI2WPBXIGXE Wil

      Better yet, how about playing Triumph of the Will,
      a  film made by Leni Riefenstahl over
      and over on election day. That would keep the Republicans home.

  • Pekstrom

    As for the 46% – Further proof that there more horse’s asses than there are horses!

  • http://twitter.com/davekoffer Dave Koffer

    Good article, Bernie!

  • Paul Courtney

    Bernie:  Quite a lineup last night.  And Morris, Dobbs and Miller seemed OK being a “b” guest (yeah, I know, let Morris believe HE was the “a” guest).  And you’re being too hard on these guys.  In fact, calling all those “D” voters stupid is, in many cases, being disrespectful…of the dead!  “Absentee” indeed.

  • Rick Johnson

    Sadly, many of the 46% are not stupid. They just refuse to educate themselves, or likely quit learning after they’ve finished school. Have non-political conversations with them and it’s amazing how intelligent some of them are. With many it’s only after the discussion turns to economics that they make your case.