Excuse me Ms. Phillips,
where is your evidence that Ms. Wilhelm has done any of the things you find so offensive? The whole thrust of your post is that anyone who holds an opinion other than yours must be a criminal. How ALINSKY of you. You are a proved character assasin if you do not apologise to her immediately.

Jane wher did you come up with the figure ----> If a lazy person collects 4100.00 a year from handouts (free healthcare free cell phones,free rent,free food, free utility bills,) only come to 4100.00 per year ???????

where do you come up with hese "facts" but when you lie on your income taxes ,
collect more than triple that amount in fake deductions,
fake home business,
when someone like you does it from a 1/2 million dollar home,
granite counter topped kitchen

JANE IS PLAYING CLASS WARFARE

Ms. Phillips,

I find it disturbing that you think that the author or anyone who pays only what they owe is somehow cheating the system. Our natural state is to not pay any taxes. Let's start there instead of where your head is, which is that "the rich" should pay most of their earned income to other people via the government.

Jane: I am appalled at your nastiness. I am appalled at your personalized attack on the author. Your liberal compassion for humanity is a fraud. No one who spews such personal vitriol at someone with whom they disagree can claim a benevolent heart. Your screed just screams envy, hate and sheer meanness. And like a typical 'progressive' you accuse the author of a felony. She should sue you for libel or slander...

I applaud the author for addressing a mentality and a system which is corrupting the socio-cultural values Which made this nation great. I don't have granite counter tops nor a 1/2 million dollar home. The genuinely needy must be assisted. No one objects to that. But to be encouraged (Julia) to lead a life that is dependent on government largesse from cradle to grave is to throw that person into a life owned by a bureaucracy.

Jane, you need to look at the DSM V for an understanding of 'borderline personality disorder'. That is the mirror you need to avail yourself of.

Jane, he calls EVERYONE Alinsky or McCarthy...so don't feel offended. Really.

Yes Jane P., and John M.,
when the shoe fits.......

jane did you even read the link before posting it (you proved Kathleens case)

if you would have read down past the first few lines, you would have seen this ,

"While few American cities or towns outsource policing, one specific lifesaving service – ambulances – are widely outsourced in the US, for the most part both successfully and cost-effectively."

and since the incident you are pointing out is the same as bank tellers getting fired for trying to prevent a robbery this guy was even offered his job back but refused

Guy Incognito?

Honestly

OK Patch, You're up.

P.S. I received government assistance from City of Kent for job retraining, completed my classes and was immediately hired to a full-time job.

Well said, Fred. I just hope Kathleen some day does not need any assistance, as she might end up hating herself.

Fred...you are an honorable man and NO one would object to your receiving assistance under the circumstances you describe.

Fred, kudos. I can't say I have never been in similar circumstance and it took a lot of work but our family was able to work through it in under 2-years. I think it's a lot easier for people who have been through it to empathize with the people who are entrenched in American poverty. Truly a humbling experience.

According to the testimony before House Ways and Means committee in an "average" year, about one half of the AFDC caseload leaves the welfare rolls. Majority of families who leave do so in a short period of time. About half leave within a year. This number jumps to 90% within 5-years.

Federal spending on true "welfare" is about 5.5%-6.4% of the federal budget (http://www.ourdime.us/102/budgetinfo/how-much-do-we-spend-on-welfare/). What percentage of the federal budget is being spent on war? It seems odd to me that America has the money to enter wars but when Americans cry for programs to help the people here... Well, those are the first ones that need cut because it's only for the "lazy". Clearly that statistics seem to show that a vast majority of people are using the program for what it is designed to do.

steve rosen there is nothing lower on the patch than a spelling nazi

Mr. Rosen,
does that mean typing classes are going to be paid for by President Obama as well as my utility bills?

Well put Mr. Rosen!

Hey Steve ....if the shoe fits ......... http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spelling%20nazi

James Thomas, I did get publicly funded typing classes. I took typing in Jr. High School, a taxpayer funded school that received local, state and federal tax dollars. We all rely on government help, that's my point. To pick on the poor and the weakest is shameful.

Steve taking typing in a public Jr High is not the same as getting free government cell phones,
tax dollars should be used for police,fire,schools and the running of our government and infrastructure,NOT as I said free phones ,food stamps (question about school breakfast,lunch,dinner programs) if they provide 3 meals a day for kids of the poor claiming its the only meals these kids get, then why the need for extra food stamps

What does public schools have to do with Government Entitlements ???? thats like saying air is brought to you by E-check

No Steve ....actually I only linked it because the 1st definition fits the way you are acting, perfectly

tom m,
kudos!

Well done Tom

Jean Williams, cell phones for the poor were the brainchild of the cellphone industry and they got it done via lobbyists and campaign donations. I do not subsidize it as I use a prepaid phone from Virgin Mobile, the only tax I pay for my phone is local sales tax. The tax for the free phones is on carriers that do not provide prepaid service.

What is the problem with an unemployed or undereducated citizen or resident taking a typing course at a tax payer funded program? Learning new skills to improve a person's job skills is an essential part of raising one's stature and enhancing your chance to find a job.

We need to provide food stamps to the poor. Your point about school lunches and breakfasts (I am not aware of dinner programs) is interesting, but children are not in school everyday and certainly not all year.

If we want real reform of our government, we need true campaign finance reform and campaign spending limits. It is astounding our politicians spend as much time as they do fund raising and that money can come from anywhere in the world. I find it difficult to believe that is the representation the authors of the Constitution envisioned.

then everybody in america over 250k or under 250k equally should be given free food stamps,free housing, free heap, free healthcare, free phones ,free pell grants.
if everyone in america wants to be treated as equals than the door must swing both ways

Mr. Murphy - You seem to be falling victim to a gross mentality that is prolific throughout conservatism nowadays which is that the rich should be jealous of the poor. While we can certainly agree that there are problems with the system, I suspect that you wouldn't enjoy walking in the shoes of the impoverished (living in a bad neighborhood, eating fast food for "going out", or not being able to pay for incidentals when the need arises).

Thanks for exposing these people as the completely out of touch morons that they are. I just found this website, so I'm not quite sure yet if it is just a right-wing nutbag circlejerk but I've seen little to refute it.

Mr. Rosen,
Ask some of you supporters like "Real Guy" to walk in ours.

From the content of your comments Mr. Thomas, I can only assume that I couldn't afford your shoes.

Mr. "Guy",
you could if you worked at it as hard as I do. By the way, I'm one of those filthy rich, one per cent, public librarians.

James-
Looks like Troy McClure/Tom Tucker is back with a new alias.

Mr. Thomas - Why would you support policies that seem to run contradictory to not only your own self-interest, but also the interest of your fellow man?

lyn - I can only assume you are referring to someone else that was rabble rousing. Regardless, I can assure you that I am not them. I only make the point because I would prefer my comments be judged on their own merits and not rolled up into whatever this other person may have said (whether I agree with them or not).

lyn,
you mean Troy McClure/Tom Tucker/Thomas James/Real Guy/?

James-
Thems the Ones!!

A comment has been deleted for violating our terms of use. Profanity and masked profanity are not permitted on our site. Let's keep it clean, folks.

Ms. Ruiz Patten,
How is it that the "masked profanity" that I CUT AND PASTED from "Real Guy's" post was deleted but the original comment is still there in all its gory (not a misspelling). That is either very shoddy editing or downright Censorship. "Have you no Shame?"

And I rest My case.
Real Guy

9:37 am on Thursday, July 12, 2012

Thanks for exposing these people as the completely out of touch morons that they are. I just found this website, so I'm not quite sure yet if it is just a right-wing nutbag circlejerk but I've seen little to refute it.

Still There!

The Original Comment is Still There.

I await an answer Ms. Ruiz Patton

Hi James Thomas,

Thanks for getting active on Avon-Avon Lake Patch. We encourage each of our neighbors to join the conversation, share their thoughts, and speak up. However, the following comment cannot be published on the site because it conflicts with our Terms of Use.
Your recent contribution:
"Mr."Guy", How can I not support policies that I believe are the right thing to do despite the fact that they are against my narrow "self-interest"? To paraphrase a book title of a few years ago "There's Nothing Wrong With Kansas". As for my fellow man, I believe you and I hold diametrically opposed ideas on the subject on what is best for them so we can leave that argument because neither of us will change. While you may not be Tom Tucker, your categorizing posters on this site as "a right-wing nutbag circlejerk" is definitely "Tuckeresque"."

You’re more than welcome to add a new comment and submit it anytime to Avon-Avon Lake Patch. Just refer to the Patch Terms of Use below.

.

Conservative Patch Posters Beware!!!
Truth is no Defense on Patch!

Ms. Ruiz Patton,
as of 3:20 the original posting is still there. Will there be a resolution to this issue?

While my comment was certainly inflammatory, I don't think that it was profane at all. That also goes for Mr. Thomas' comment, if his original comment was indeed what he later posted. At any rate, go ahead and put me down in the anti-censorship crowd and please accept my apology for my temper getting the better of me in my original post. Name calling is not helpful or conducive to the debate.

Not to pander to the false right/left dichotomy, but it does seem that there is a lot of representation by politically conservative (for whatever meaning that still has) people on this board. I think that this site is a good opportunity for people in this community to have a fair back and forth, but fairness (in both reporting and moderation) is necessary for that to happen.

james ......Susan Ruiz Patton cannot help herself ,her one sided censorship is a product of the once great plain dealer (and look whats that become)

By the way, Mr. Thomas - I suspect that our beliefs are not that far away from each other. I certainly don't want to see people left to rely on a system that is designed for people that have fallen through the cracks of society. Again, though there is exploitation and gaming of the system by some, in large part, these systems are necessary should people like you or I fall on hard times. I work with homeless people every day and by and large, they are not scumbags leaching off the system. They are by and large mentally ill people (many of them veterans) that have made mistakes or had a run of bad luck.

The people that identify as following a conservative ideology need to realize their hypocrisy when calling for social programs to be cut but not holding other areas of waste (defense, particularly) accountable. Especially when those social programs are the only thing (indirectly) keeping them from being mugged or robbed by desperate people with no other options.

corporate welfare WAAAAAAAAAA
you lost your point right here---->they were able to work some kind of job. In the case of the person with seizures, they suggested he revisit the fast food positions he held as a teenager
WHICH YOU FOLLOWED UP WITH ---->crap wages
AND----->a hundred dollars more a month in income results in a hundred dollars less in food assistance.
bottom line you support free handouts without having to work those jobs that pay "crap wages" because then you get less free stuff

I was so stunned by that intellectual and mature response that I almost rethought my stance on these issues.

Well played, Jessica! Bravo!!

jim you are incorrect Obammama has ignored congress, refused budgets "While the President can submit his ideas for a budget" WHAT BUDGET ..congress has passed a budget every year and they all still sit in the senate
you would think after 4 years obammama would have said to harry reid (mormon) Hey Harry Where is my budget

James, your facts are wrong, as the government shuts down without a passed budget or at least a "continuing resolution" to keep things open. This fiscal year budget passed both houses, after much wrangling, and is in effect currently. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget)

Also, the term "Congress" includes the House of Representatives AND the Senate. If a bill stagnates in this particular Senate, it is most likely due to abuse of the filibuster by the minority party.

And, please, what does Mr. Reid's religious preference have to do with anything?

Wrong. The privately owned Federal Reserve Bank controls the purse strings.

Wikipedia actually is a source, and it cites its own sources as well. It looks to me like Obama certainly has submitted budgets. Here's the most recent one: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/ If Congress can't get its (OUR) house in order to pass one, that's a different issue.

Debbie the the President's 2012 budget was rejected by a vote of 97-0 in the Senate

After Obama submitted his fiscal year 2013 budget proposal on Feb. 13, 2012, the House put it up for a floor vote.

The result: 414-0 against.

here debbie http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/democrat-controlled-senate-unanimously-rejects-president-obamas-2013-budget-voting-99-0-against-it/question-2662501/

Yes, James, but YOU said, "Obammama has ignored congress, refused budgets..." and I am simply pointing out that President Obama did no such thing.

Ms. Schinker,
you are correct, he has not "ignored Congress". He's just been rejected by 414-0 and 97-0 votes. I would say the efforts he has made have been ineffective and amateurish.

thumbs up james thomas

Given that your link includes the word "opinion, I'll stick to Wikipedia, which states: "The actual appropriations for Fiscal Year 2012 were enacted as three appropriations bills in November and December 2011, in accordance with the United States budget process." Budgets and appropriations are very similar, but appropriations carry the force of law, while a "budget" is just a guideline.

And, really, you don't know me from Adam West, so please refrain from personal insults (i.e., my reading skills). Stick to arguing facts. Thanks.

In this Washington Post article, the section called, "The Facts" lays out the process pretty well. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/jack-lews-misleading-claim-about-the-senates-failure-to-pass-a-budget-resolution/2012/02/12/gIQAs11z8Q_blog.html It also contains links to this basic policy primer which is pretty solid as well: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=155 James - thanks for admitting that what you said was wrong. As for his efforts being "amateurish" - I should hope so. There's no such thing as a professional President of the United States! As Mike Rasor said recently, "A leader does whatever is right, irrespective of political ramifications. A politician does whatever is popular, irrespective of what's right." Obviously, the President MUST be a politician to get elected, but it's clear what people want is a leader who will stand on his convictions. As despite the fact that you disagree with him, please remember that President Obama WAS elected by a majority of us here in the US.

Ms. Schinker,
you might be confusing your James' here, granted there are a few of us posting here (it's a good, strong name). I supported your view but I think I will leave President Obama's success rate in passing budgets as the arbiter of his amateur status.

Debbie, I ask again do you even read your links before posting them ????? your last link from fact check stated the story was false, and I will state again the last budget (2013) was voted down in the senate 97-0 not 50 or 60 as the story explained, let me try to explain to you in simple words zero senators voted for the budget, which has nothing to do with senate gridlock

James Thomas - my apologies for confusing you with James Murphy. But again, let's remember that no President can pass anything. That's not the role of the executive branch!

James Murphy - yes, I read the links before I post them. I think YOU are the one who needs the "simple words" since you're obviously missing the point (over and over). I'm not going to waste more time trying to explain anything you.

Debbie Nobody knows what on earth you are talking about, your links are useless, and nobody needs a lesson how the government is supposed to work, and james has made his point correctly many times <you are wrong debbie> go back to playing with your barbies

James Murphy, you are continuing to confuse a budget resolution with an appropriations bill, so please just stop it. A 97-0 vote on a budget means nothing, other than each side trying to play to politics. The appropriations bills are where the rubber meets the road. Budget bills are mostly symbolic.

Kim L, it is clear that lessons in civics is exactly what is needed, as so many of the posters here seem to lack basic knowledge of the rituals, processes and function of our government, and your personal attacks on other posters (Barbies? Really?) belie your reluctance to argue facts over hyperbole. Please stop it.

Jim nobody is talking about a appropriations bill,(not one person) this has been about the budget which the latest one was voted down 97-0 so quit trying to twist the subject

Oh and Jim, actually many of the posters here HAVE basic knowledge of the rituals, processes and function of our government, and know they are not being followed

Attention James Thomas and "Tom M" -- the 2 competitors for the Biggest Republican Moron award on Patch -- we've saved two seats open for you so you can learn how the 3 branches of government work.

And this time, try NOT to have your heads up your backsides like you've had the earlier parts of your lives, ignorant wingnuts.

jack how is that partisan ???? James provided links of house and senate votes of 414-0 and 97-0 that is about as non-partisan of a vote as you can get

Meet Jack, aka Jack Kelly, aka Troy McClure, aka Tom Tucker, aka Thomas James, aka et al.
Patch, this individual has been kicked off numerous times and needs this incarnation to disapear as well.
...

Tom - Just because it's a unanimous vote, doesn't mean it's non-partisan. These days, the partisanship seems to be between the haves and have-nots... take a guess at which side Congress represents.

Oh, James.
Please stop with your desperation. Typical tactic when people like you are unable to answer what's put in front of you. You assume everyone is one person.
You act like you're 12. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
You're probably elderly with the mentality of a 12-year-old. Now, go wipe the drool from your mouth, fool.

"Tom M" still doesn't get it.
Are you and James T trying to one-up in each other in the Biggest Republican Moron In the Room contest?
It appears so, and that we'll have to flip a coin between you to for the Biggest Moron award. We'll arrange to have the ghost of Andrew Breitbart award to it you. The second runner-up can give it a reach-around.

Jack why is he a moron ???? because he posted something that was actually true, or because you cannot counter it with any supporting facts

4. Meanwhile, rates for those in the middle dropped to a 30-year low of 11.1 percent in 2009, down from the 19.2 percent peak rate of 1981. That’s for the middle one-fifth of all households, those with incomes between $34,900 and $50,100 for singles, or between $69,800 and $100,200 for a family of four.

5. As we’ve noted before, the nation’s current string of trillion-dollar deficits results from historically high spending and historically low revenues. We noted in our June 4 article that President Obama’s spending levels are near the highest level since World War II, measured as a percentage of the nation’s gross domestic product. And we also noted that tax receipts were the lowest since 1950, as a percentage of GDP.

SS and Medicare are not really entitlement programs. Look at your paycheck. You pay into that separately.

lyn yes they are if they are on them at 18 years old till death

Jean-
Good point.

But, you could argue it might "average out" with those who pay in and die before ever collecting also. And, if they are collecting because of someone else paying in, then that has already been deposited by another. But, I haven't tapped into that yet to know all the ins and outs, so you may know more than me.
But, I will not begrudge a DESERVING person in need of the funds. I do believe there are some in this country, of all ages, who the government should be there for - as much as I am against most entitlement program programs. But, I think most programs are abused.

Paul very well said

Paul, some people have no shame or pride. My family thought it was disgraceful to take handouts, especially if you were able bodied. I fear that the culture has changed so much that we may be in the minority.

The culture of being a democrat.

Bill,
laugh all you want on the way to national bankruptcy.

Bill
" that little Child Tax Credit" that you said " was put in place by Republican President GWB", has been around since 1998 (Clinton). See Form 8812.
The amounts have increased over the years. In fact, Obama's Stimulus Act of 2009 made it much easier to qualify for the refundable additional child tax credit.

Bill-
Lets go with your example.
Actually, after a quick calculation, if I'm not too rushed, that family of 5 making $30,000 will have -0- taxable income after standard deduction and exemptions - so no tax.
BUT, they will get a $3000 child tax credit - which means they will get $3000 free money back from the government for being poor and having kids.

Bill you are awarded 2 points for the childish name calling.

Oh...Bill, if that were the only worry...bankruptcy! LOL!

Bill,
technically you are correct, the US can print all the little green pieces of paper with numbers on them that say they have value that they want. Whether anyone else accepts them as having a value, that is what can be lost. There is no difference between bankruptcy and a worthless currency.

Bill,
the Republic of Greece can't go bankrupt either.

I thought Bush wasn't conservative enough. I thought he had a spending problem and when he teamed up with Ted Kennedy, I knew we were in trouble.

You want me to look up recessions? Look at the great depression and how much longer it was prolonged by FDR.

So when you find yourself in more debt than you can possibly pay off, what do you do? Cut back on your expenses or double down?

You also get an extra bonus point for the additionally childish ploy of "yeah, will little Timmy did it first and he didn't get in trouble." Bush certainly spent money like a drunken sailor, Obama has spent more, what does that tell you? One extra point for blaming Bush. That is two points total on your latest post.

And by the way, I wish Obama was a zero term president, the country would be better off.

Bill - Very well said. All my Republican friends were very quiet during the Bush years as the deficits were skyrocketing. I remember a reporter asking Dick Cheney about the deficit, and his answer was something like "deficits don't matter". Yea, they only matter when there is a Democratic president!

Can any of you Tea Partiers on here please explain to me what they think would have happened if Obama came into office in Jan. of 2008 and started slashing spending left and right? No stimulus, no auto bailouts, no unemployment extension, massive layoffs of federal and local government workers, all in the name of cutting spending. Remember that the private sector was in serious peril, and loans for businesses were almost unheard of. Do you think the economy would have been better off??? That unemployment would be lower than what it is today?? Of course not! During these times, the government is the only entity that can try to spur growth, which is why spending had to increase. Once things get better, then we need to seriously tighten our belts. I can only imagine hearing from these same conservatives if Obama did those things and as a result we would have 18% unemployment. I don't think they would be praising him for cutting our deficit while we ended up in a depression!

By the way, "MZ", I don't have any points yet...I'm waiting...

Repeating my post elsewhere:
National Debt:
1/20/1993 - $4,188,092,107,183.60
1/20/1994 - $4,500,676,535,249.79
1/20/1995 - $4,796,537,934,595.60
1/19/1996 - $4,988,397,941,589.45
1/17/1997 - $5,309,774,506,681.99
1/20/1998 - $5,495,525,658,807.45
1/20/1999 - $5,623,807,213,463.02
1/20/2000 - $5,706,174,969,873.86
1/19/2001 - $5,727,776,738,304.64
1/18/2002 - $5,922,321,839,074.39
1/17/2003 - $6,388,587,973,011.41
1/20/2004 - $7,006,834,072,435.49
1/20/2005 - $7,613,215,612,328.37
1/20/2006 - $8,175,743,292,992.87
1/19/2007 - $8,675,085,083,537.48
1/18/2008 - $9,188,640,287,930.39
1/20/2009 - $10,626,877,048,913.08
1/20/2010 - $12,327,380,804,696.82
1/20/2011 - $14,056,313,474,932.58
1/20/2012 - $15,236,271,879,792.78
8/23/2012 - $15,976,519,029,144.14

Clinton - 1/20/1993 to 1/20/2001
Bush - 1/20/2001 to 1/20/2009
Obama - 1/20/2009 to now

As per above, in no year did the national debt go down or did Clinton leave Bush with a surplus that Bush turned into a deficit. Clinton did not have any surplus years, as you can see - the debt went up each year. He came close. I'm not defending what Bush did. But look at what Obama has done in less than half the time.

+ $1.54 trillion Clinton- 8 years
+ $4.9 trillion Bush- 8 years
+ $5.35 trillion Obama -3 years, 7 months

Lyn-
I'm not sure why you brought up your table again. I don't think anyone is saying the nation debt went down under Clinton (although it did slow). What IS true is that the YEARLY budget went from deficits to yearly surpluses during the Clinton years. After Bush's first year in office, the surplus was turned into a deficit, and has been so every since.

I thought it was relevant.
But you are wrong.
There was no surplus.
Look at the table. The debt continued to climb. Do you know what the debt is composed of?
What people like to say was his surplus was offset by the borrowings from SS -making the debt go up - so there actually was a deficit. Borrowings from SS is part of the national debt. If you don't understand, go to the US Treasury site.
No Clinton surplus was turned into a deficit under Bush. It is in black and white. You can see the numbers increase each year.

Lyn-

I am trying to explain to you that you are just talking about the national debt. I am talking about the year to year budget, which would show a deficit if the government takes in less money than it spends, and a surplus if the government takes in more money than it spends for that given fiscal year. Please check out this link, as it proves my point:
http://factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

Dan-
I have been following what you were saying - I do know the difference.
I don't think YOU quite understand. If you look at the difference from one year to the next in the national debt, you can see if that year was a surplus or a deficit. And in every year I listed there was an increase - so no year had a surplus. You must remember that the national debt is made up of borrowings from intragovernmental holdings as well. Even though some like to say that Clinton had a surplus, actually there was not a surplus in ANY year because of borrowings from SS, which caused the debt to go up every year he was in office. However, he did a better job than most.

This is how the national debt breaks down as of August 23:

11,197,966,497,649.15 Debt Held by the Public
4,778,552,531,494.99 Intragovernmental Holdings
15,976,519,029,144.14 Total Public Debt Outstanding

Borrowing from SS are very much a part of the debt. You just can't look at the the annual difference in line 1 - you need to look at the annual difference in the total debt to see if each year the debt went up or down. Both lines 1 and 2 make up the national debt. You cannot pick and choose which line you want to use to prove a point. It is the TOTAL that matters. When you get the annual difference, you must consider borrowings (line 2) and offset them with the so-called surplus or deficit (line 1).

Lyn-

OK, I understand what you are trying to say. However, when you click on the factcheck.org link that I provided, it shows a chart from the CBO which does show a yearly surplus under certain years of the Clinton Administration. The factcheck page also addresses your SS borrowing issue as well. What is your argument with the factcheck site?

You are saying that if there was a surplus, why didn't the national debt go down during the Clinton years. I think that is a good question, but perhaps the interest on the debt is so great, that it offset whatever advantages the yearly budget surplus provided. However, I still don't think you can dispute the fact that there was a yearly budget surplus during Clinton's second term.

Lyn-
After doing some research on the internet, I realized where you are getting your information from. There are a few right-wing websites out there disclaiming the "Clinton Surplus". Apparently there is an argument going on about what to include as "debt", like you mentioned with SS borrowing. When one of these bloggers e-mailed factcheck.org challenging their claim of the Clinton surplus, this was the editor's response:

"Nevertheless, the governmentd took in more money than it spent for four straight years. That's a surplus. The gross debt is another matter. You are correct that IOUs are piling up in the Social Security Trust Fund to fund future spending, and those chickens are coming home to roost in the not very distant future. If you recall, the Clinton folks wanted to set the surpluses aside in a "lockbox" to somehow cover that. But that didn't happen. Brooks Jackson Director, FactCheck.org"

Dan-
If there was a true surplus, you would see a decrease in the national debt from one year to the next.

If I earn 50,000 and borrow 10,000 and I spend 54,000 - do I have a 6,000 surplus? Not really when you know that you have to pay back that 10,000. You actually have a deficit. Every year the government borrows from SS and it is a real debt. That is why it is a component of the national debt.

Dan-
Actually, I'm getting my info from the U.S. Department of the Treasury site:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

I prefer to look at facts and figures rather than sites with an agenda that interpret info and put their own slant on it. But, I'll look at those that you mentioned out of curiosity.

Bill when people can get on Social Security and Medicare without paying into them .......they become "entitlements"

Damn those poor and disabled people. How dare they take our money.

And NOBODY can get Medicare unless they are 65 years old. I would venture to say that the vast majority of 65 year old people have certainly paid into it.

So let me get this straight, Obama isn't a big spender, it is all Bush's fault, conservatives are potty names and lemmings, and any body who disagrees with Bill must only watch Fox news. Is that about right?

Oh wait, I forgot one, we need to raise taxes on the rich and the debt, the deficit, and all of our fiscal problems will vanish, and everyone will get their own magical unicorn to fly around on. Magical unicorns are very green and don't burn fossil fuels.

So... because I don't agree with you I am a lemming? My favorite part of discussing politics with liberals is the basic understanding that, if I disagree wit a lib, I am 1) an idiot or 2) a fascist or 3) both. Did I get this right Bill? I want to check in with you because obviously I am not smart enough to make my own decisions.If I was smart I would obviously be in complete agreement with you.

Sean, you also only watch Fox news. You forgot that one.

But...but....but...was SS or Medicare mentioned in the body of the work? Maybe you saw something I didn't? LOL! And, as to letting the tax cuts on the rich expire and saving $1 trillion over 10 years...well, at that rate, paying for 80 days out of 3650 days, leaving 3570 days to wing it by borrowing it or leaving IOU's in the SS 'lock box'. Sounds like a real plan! LOL!

And, who do you blame for this?
The government, which is responsible for writing the tax code, or the person following the tax code and not paying more than they have to? Do you expect people to voluntarily pay more? Do you donate more every April 15th to help reduce the national debt?

In your example, if its a single person with only $50,000 wages for income (no interest, dividend,...) and no IRA contribution deduction, or other, and they use the standard deduction:
50,000 AGI
(5,800) standard deduction
(3,700) exemption

$40,500 taxable income

$6256 tax
this is 12.5% of $50,000
And this is with no other deductions.

Who makes $20 mil that is paying less than 12.5% in income taxes?

"A person collecting government welfare of any kind should be randomly drug tested." - Me

"A person collecting government welfare of any kind shouldn't have a big screen TV, satellite dishes, alcohol, etc..." - Me

"If one wishes to engage in sexual activities, they should have to pay for the results themselves." - Me

"I should not have to provide for you what you can provide for yourself." - Me

This was fun. Let's do it again real soon.

MZ-
"I agree" - Me2

"A person collecting food stamps should not be overweight" - Me2

I don't expect people to hide their money overseas, so they do not have to pay taxes on it. That is cheating the country, and should be regarded as treason! Right, Mr. Romney?

I don't expect any member of a trade union to ever do a job under the table, "so they do not have to pay taxes on it. That is cheating the country, and should be regarded as treason!" Right, Mr. McMillan?

And how do you know they hide their money overseas?
There are places on your tax returns to indicate if you have funds in foreign places,.. and if that is how you know, then that has been disclosed - right? So, what is hidden?

John-
But, I am one who does think the wealthier should pay a little more than they do now - why not? However, they should not have to carry the rest of the country.

MZ-
Try to put politics aside for one second. Are you seriously ok with someone making $20 million a year and paying only 11% in taxes, while someone making $200,000 a year pays 35%?

Where are you people getting your numbers?
If its a SINGLE person (joint would be less), and not EVEN considering any deductions, including standard or itemizing, and exemptions - the tax is $50,897 on taxable income of $200,000.
That's 25% -NOT 35%.
And who is paying 11% on $20 mil?
Again, I agree the wealthier should pay more. But, I also think using $250,000 is too high. Compared to most people, that is wealthy. Start raising the rates at $100,000.
Also, get rid of that SS ceiling of $106,800 and reinstate that additional 2% they reduced the last 2 years - how about saving SS that way?

Dan, I am all for a simplified tax code and a flat tax. It sounds like we agree. The tax code is insane and I pay a ton to lawyers and accountants to make sure I don't get myself in trouble. There has got to be a better way.

Can we agree on a massive reform to the tax code, to across the board spending cuts, and to a balance budget amendment?

Lyn-

I thought that the top income tax rate was currently 35%, and I also assumed that if you're making $200K, that you would be paying that top rate. I'm not a tax lawyer or accountant, but it seems like you are, so I will defer to what you have stated as far as the rates go for someone making $200K. I got the 11% on $20 million from Mitt Romney himself, which as we know he doesn't pay an income tax, but pays on earned income, which is taxed at such a low rate.

Lyn, I actually agree with you. I think we do need to start raising taxes on people above $100K, not because I want to punish higher earners, but because it is a necessity to save us from collapse. However, I am a believer in the Simpson/Bowles deficit reduction plan, which includes raising revenue, AND some tough cuts in spending throughout the budget. I have heard from non-partisan economic experts, and they all seem to say we can fix our budget problems very easily. They just include raising taxes, and huge spending cuts. The problem is that Republicans refuse to raise any taxes, and the Democrats refuse to tackle the big social programs which are so popular. We cannot fix our fiscal issues just by cutting spending, nor can we fix them by just raising taxes on the wealthy. It has to be done together.

MZ, yes, I agree, we need a simplified tax code for sure!

Dan-
Yes, 35% is the top TIER. But, taxable income is taxed on tiered levels, and therefore that is how they come up with the percentages you hear in the news and how using your example it came up to 25%. And, for those with UNEARNED, passive income, they do get a big tax break that brings their total tax down to a low percent. But I think Romneys was 13-14% - still too low in my opinion. But, that is the tax code - he, as well as others, do nothing wrong by following it and you can bet that they probably are audited almost every year at those income levels.
You and I also get those tax breaks on dividend income. One thought behind that is that those are distributions from corporations that have already paid taxes on the profits and those are payments back to the investors and to tax them for those distributions would be like double taxation. Kind of like the evils of the inheritance tax.
There are some republicans like Lindsey Graham who are considering breaking the Norquist pledge and raising taxes.
But, letting the 2001/2003 bush tax changes/reductions expire to me doesn't really seem to be raising taxes. Since those were meant to expire in 2010, how is that raising taxes? The only problem there, most Americans will see an increase in there taxes of $2000-$4000.

It is cheaper to buy and prepare food than it is to go to McDonalds. A bag of buns, a few pounds of ground meat, and a sack of potatoes can make many more burger and fries than you could with the same amount of money at McDonalds. Tap water is almost free when compared to soda. It is however easier to just run to the local fast food joint, especially if you aren't the one footing the bill.

Is it possible that these poor decisions that lead to obesity have more to do with taking the easy way than with how much money they have? Could this also be an indication of why they are poor in the first place? Would it be better if food stamps could only be used on raw foods? Would it be better if there were still food stamps and not EB cards?

Now THAT is ridiculous. No one is making people eat off the dollar menu at MacDonalds. You can eat nutritiously on less money, if you want and try.
But, yes, I was having fun with my last few comments - but I think most would agree they are true. Unfortunately, people do become lazy with their lifestyle and needs - and maybe as a result of giving up and not caring. But that should not be the fault of society.

John is right about the poor having less access to nutritious foods. Obesity is not limited to class. There is so much crap in our foods these days (Food, Inc. is available on Netflix to learn more). With this drought I suspect raw food costs will rise even more. First off, to pretend that food stamps for a family are enough to feed them is ridiculous, same with cash assistance. The max tax assistance for a family of 2 is $368 in the state of Ohio, that seems livable (scoff).

And I'm sorry if this comes across as offensive, but I think it's disgusting that people think people in poverty should live miserable lives because it's somehow their fault they're impoverished and because they're taking "your" money, you have the right to tell them what they can and can't do with it. No time to relax, no big screen TV.. Really?! As if it's not bad enough they're living the life they are, but now they should have no amenities. These attitudes add to the stigma of those in need.

I'm not going to deny that some people are lazy and content having very little. As a general whole it's not people being lazy, it's people needing help when they are down (as I stated in a previous comment).

As far as drug tests for welfare recipients: give me a break. Florida spent way more money to do the testing and guess what, turns out only 2-5% failed (or refused). Tax payer dollars wasted. But I'm also an advocate for no drug testing for employment either- different debate entirely.

In this case, I'm talking about being lazy with food preparation and making the effort to find out what is better to eat and how to prepare. As I said, maybe a condition by some of hopelessness and giving up. Or not caring. Please reread my comment and you may see I was not meaning to be offensive, at least in that comment.

john your comment takes for granted that the poor are actually poor, I would guess that 30-40% are actually poor but the rest are abusers of the system, there are more people working under the table that are on food stamps that you want to admit.
Be honest John you know its true

You are going based on what people spend their money on - not what they could spend their money on.
If you have some facts to back up what you say, provide the study. But not a study of the poors spending habits - but of what nutritional food costs vs. bad food costs.
Common sense even tells you that preparing yourself costs less than buying a meal for a family of 5 off the dollar menu. If each buys a burger, fries and drink - thats $15. Are you telling me that a nutritious meal can't be made at home for that? It can for much less. Even spaghetti and sauce is a few bucks. Try a pack of hot dogs and buns. I'm not even talking nutrition now. Throw in a salad and veggies. Have you ever been in a grocery store?

John, I at no point said everyone on food stamps was lazy. I asked serious questions. Could obesity be a lack of self discipline? Is it a bad decision to eat off the dollar menu everyday or not? I it impossible to eat off the dollar menu and not be obese? Can you balance the poor diet with additional aerobic activities to minimize the impact?

Elyse, there are many people that do without cable or a big screen TV in order to make ends meet and to not have to take handouts. My question for you is do you put your money where your mouth is or are you all talk? Are you helping people or just idealistic and want the nanny state to take care of everything?

John and Elyse, you might be surprised to know what I do with my free time, how much I personally reach out and help those less fortunate with my time and money. I have great sympathy for those who have come upon bad fortune so long as they are willing to help themselves. I do however have little sympathy for the takers.

MZ, no I'm not just an idealist, nor do I advocate for a "nanny state". I'm advocate of bottom-up governance, placing more power in the hands of localities and state through a more direct democratic practice which calls for proportioned representation (not a single-member district elected based on a plurality of votes). Additionally, I'm not all talk.

Lyn, I understand what you are saying now. Why don't people just opt to cook? There's a culture to poverty that little understand (and it's hard to understand if you can't imagine yourself in their shoes). It's a different lifestyle. If you're looking for studies, I highly recommend Jack L. Roach, a sociologist who studies the culture of poverty (you can google his name and read various previews). William Julius Wilson does a lot of race studies, but also addresses the issue of poverty.

There is another great book called "Gang Leader for a Day" which is an ethnographic study of a Chicago gang. It offers a different perspective on deep poverty and gang relations. I highly recommend this book to anyone just looking for a different perspective. Additionally, the show The Wire is quite sociologically accurate and addresses crime and poverty, task force budgets, etc.

James- You're assumptions are way off. Testimony before the House Ways and Means committee state in an "average" year, about one-half of the AFDC caseload leaves the welfare rolls; 70% in two; and 90% within 5.

Agreed, Phyllis. It's important that people can exchange information opposed to tearing people down.

On a more sad note: this also means that the World Bank will step in and place "austerity" measures on the United States. This is essentially the same type of thing that banks do to individuals who cannot make payments on a house; foreclosure. The World Bank will take control of our nation's resources.