published Thursday, September 29th, 2011

Chris Christie

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

108
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
nucanuck said...

Chris Christie is a tough customer and not afraid to make difficult decisions. I doubt that I would like his decisions, but I grudgingly admire his style. Obama is blessed with brilliance, but brilliance without leadership is, well, just brilliance. That makes me sad.

September 29, 2011 at 12:18 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Typical Bennett. This guy needs some new shtick.

September 29, 2011 at 1:04 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

WHO'S NEXT?

But first, BRP whined, Typical Bennett. This guy needs some new shtick.

Really? You're a digital stalker who carps and cries and howls at the moon about how unfortunate you are. Oh the agony of having to read this cartoon. Poor, poor, pitiful you.

If anybody needs a new shtick it's you, mole hill.

Anyway, I think Christie will NOT run because he has too much to lose. He's wanted to be governor of New Jersey for a long time and if he enters the Presidential race there is no going back. It's tough to defeat a sitting president, even an unpopular one.

Like many of his newly elected fellow republic governors, his local polling numbers are not great. Shortly after taking office he turned down billions in federal mass transit funding, cut taxes for corporations, and attacked teacher unions with layoffs and pay cuts. He said overpaid union workers were responsible for the state running a deficit!

But his chance to become the republican nominee for President is a moot point. Last April he was severely criticized by conservatives when he appointed judge Sohail Mohammed, a muslim-American, to the state bench.

He was boisterous in defending the appointment and criticized republicans who vilified the move. He called fears that Mohammed might bring Sharia Law into his rulings "Crazy!"

There is no denying that Christie is charismatic and a born leader, but the republican machine won't tolerate much criticism from a lowly republican governor.

The real question is: WHO'S NEXT?

September 29, 2011 at 2:59 a.m.

I'm up early today and I thought I'd pop in here. Bad move. More of the same. What a cheap, juvenile, and purely partisan cartoon. Oh, well, what did I expect.

Ill-tempered and arrogant? Sounds like our current president to me!

Nucanuck, I'm still waiting for an example of Obama's brilliance!? It's often mentioned on here, yet all I see is a partisan, often angry and stubborn idealogue. Lately in his speeches he comes across like a cranky dictator. I don't see any problem solving skills or a grasp of reality. If spending money we don't have and trashing anyone who doesn't agree with him is brilliance, I guess then he is brilliant. Pushing socialism or some kind of big brother like government is not a new idea. It seems to suit him really well though. Very passive agressive man, he is.

He's not brilliant or a leader.

September 29, 2011 at 4:09 a.m.

Now that my second cup of coffee has kicked in I think I'll post again. How is the "Stimulus" an example of brilliance? How is Solyndra? Both are examples of huge waste. Bad stewardship of tax dollars.

How is the Obamacare health insurance mandate a sign of brilliance? It's not, it's just a tool to gain more control over our lives, and many of you on here know it, and you like it.

Being a socialist doesn't make him brilliant. It seems that many on here believe being a believer in a big, overbearing government is a sign of brilliance, and those who believe in independence are stupid. I don't think so!!

September 29, 2011 at 4:24 a.m.

Who pays this guy, the DNC?

September 29, 2011 at 4:45 a.m.

Who's next? Clay is going down the list: Bachman, Cain, Romney, Paul, Pawlenty, Perry, Christie, and Palin over and over. I say Rubio is next.

September 29, 2011 at 4:54 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

My NJ sister didn't bother to vote for Mr Christie, but she likes what he's doing.

Christie once told a hostile audience, Earlier politicians promised you more than NJ can deliver. Am I worse than they because I tell you the truth? (Liberals and RINOs tend to promise more than they have arranged to pay for. The Tea Party looks for realism.)

He says he's not running. He'll look bad if he runs. The GOP establishment wants him to run. That's not in his favor in my book.

Since fear can cause hate, I suspect Mr Bennett fears Mr Christie and other Republicans as a threat to his liberal (unworkable, unconstitutional, unBiblical) ideals? Just guessing.

September 29, 2011 at 4:55 a.m.
limric said...

Chris Christie is being used as a foil to force the Republicans on the fence to start supporting Perry after his terrible debate performances in which he demonstrated that he needs to become even more radical and more in lockstep with today’s Republican party, the hatred they stand for, and the policies they support in order to move their plutocratic agenda into the mainstream.

That agenda, being pushed by shareholders of the Fed, international financiers, the MIC, big oil and using the Koch brothers as their standard bearers; Extreme privatization, regulatory ‘reform’, consolidation of a corporate media, destruction of unions, minimization of education, intellectuals, science and teaching in lieu of worship of the military, the end of Social Security and Medicare, elimination of the middle class - and evangelical Christian doctrine as official policy. You won't recognize the United States after they are done…unless you’re familiar with the works of George Orwell.

The revolution will be televised

September 29, 2011 at 6:41 a.m.
patriot1 said...

That little chain smoker in the White House is a great leader....but it's those darn followers that just won't cooperate, it's their fault.

September 29, 2011 at 6:47 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

Great cartoon, Clay. Christie is perfect for the Republicans until the hateful base discovers one bit of compassion on his part, then they will flush him like they did Perry. Until then, he's their Great White Hope.

September 29, 2011 at 6:50 a.m.
jimbob said...

limric,I have to agree with you. I wonder how many people who post on here have ever read The Animal Farm?

September 29, 2011 at 6:51 a.m.
anniebelle said...

An old Cherokee is teaching his grandson about life. "A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy. "It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil - he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego." He continued, "The other is good - he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside you - and inside every other person, too."

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?"

The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."

September 29, 2011 at 7:18 a.m.

There'll be a revolution for sure, it'll be the people demanding their constitutional rights and giving a collective finger to the paper pushers who never leave and who secretly make many of our laws and regulations.

September 29, 2011 at 7:20 a.m.
ArnoldZiffel said...

Anniebelle that's rich! I guess all the old hippies end up on forums like this. You lefties are a conspiratorial nuts! You're obsessed with the Koch Brothers, your new boogie men. You're a joke. What about Soros?

September 29, 2011 at 7:26 a.m.
patriot1 said...

jimbob...good analogy witb "Animal Farm" lot's of sheep on here repeating the worn out liberal, progressive line....How about Bennett as what was that pig's name, Squealer?

September 29, 2011 at 7:26 a.m.
davisss13 said...

Good cartoon. The GOP presidential candidate has to be an arrogant bully because they have declared all-out war on anyone who dares oppose them. A moderate or sane individual couldn't do it.

September 29, 2011 at 7:45 a.m.
MTJohn said...

nucanuck said...Chris Christie is a tough customer and not afraid to make difficult decisions. I doubt that I would like his decisions, but I grudgingly admire his style. Obama is blessed with brilliance, but brilliance without leadership is, well, just brilliance. That makes me sad.

A President can only lead in a direction in which the electorate is willing to follow. President Obama's failure as a leader could well be a reflection of our failure as followers.

It is too easy to follow a charismatic "leader", especially one who panders to our selfishness. It is more difficult to follow the person who questions whether that is the direction we should go. We'll opt for the Pied Piper every time and that will be our undoing. That should make all of us sad...but it won't.

September 29, 2011 at 7:58 a.m.
MTJohn said...

AndrewLohr said...Since fear can cause hate, I suspect Mr Bennett fears Mr Christie and other Republicans as a threat to his liberal (unworkable, unconstitutional, unBiblical) ideals?

Andrew - what is workable and constitutional about the conservative ideals? And, please explain how you conclude that ideals firmly rooted in greed and promoted with dishonesty can be considered Biblical.

September 29, 2011 at 8:06 a.m.
ArnoldZiffel said...

"followers" MTJohn??????? How ridiculous! His message is being rejected because it sucks!! He comes in and tries to jam his socilism down our throats. Your dillusional, man!! The man is in it for himself, how do you not see that? Give it up, admit you were fooled. Wow!! Talk about a pied piper! "Hope" "change" "move forard" Suckers!!

September 29, 2011 at 9:35 a.m.
whatsnottaken said...

Obviously Clay's puppeteers in the tax-and-spend party sent word down that Christie is the new target to bash. They must be worried about Clay's 20 or so readers making an impact on the election. Draw on Clay, your going to swing the election. He He He.

September 29, 2011 at 9:44 a.m.

Obama? Brilliant? Here are a few quotes from your "genius".

“We’re the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad.”

"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed." --on a Kansas tornado that killed 12 people

"The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries." --Tampa, Fla., Jan. 28, 2010

"UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It's the Post Office that's always having problems." –attempting to make the case for government-run healthcare, while simultaneously undercutting his own argument, Portsmouth, N.H., Aug. 11, 2009

"It was also interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There's a lot of -- I don't know what the term is in Austrian, wheeling and dealing." --confusing German for "Austrian," a language which does not exist, Strasbourg, France, April 6, 2009

"No, no. I have been practicing...I bowled a 129. It's like -- it was like Special Olympics, or something." --making an off-hand joke during an appearance on "The Tonight Show", March 19, 2009 (Obama later called the head of the Special Olympics to apologize)

"What I was suggesting -- you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith..." --in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, who jumped in to correct Obama by saying "your Christian faith," which Obama quickly clarified

"I'm here with the Girardo family here in St. Louis." --speaking via satellite to the Democratic National Convention, while in Kansas City, Missouri, Aug. 25, 2008

"Let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel's. It will be a strong friend of Israel's under a McCain...administration. It will be a strong friend of Israel's under an Obama administration. So that policy is not going to change." --Amman, Jordan, July 22, 2008

"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong."

"I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go." --at a campaign event in Beaverton, Oregon

What intelligence! I'm inspired.

September 29, 2011 at 10:05 a.m.
carlB said...

There seems as if there is a "pattern" occurring on the political front.
The Republicans and other anti Obama people want to keep "bashing" the President and the people who respect his abilities to get this Republic stablilized from the Mess it was in. While at the same time expecting the voters to accept what they put out to be the "whole truth and nothing but the truth" without questioning or pointing out any disagreements aganist their "bullying" to "sway" the voters over to their political and ideaologies. It is not going to work because of the increased awareness against what the anti Obama people are trying to do.

September 29, 2011 at 10:06 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

anniebelle said... "The one you feed."

Yes, we need to starve the beast. This is why tea party supporters are so dissatisfied with these continuing resolutions that do nothing to defund the Socialist agenda.

What we should be feeding is the free market. Obama is trying to starve it, even strangle it.

I am sure anniebelle thinks socialism is a great thing and is impatiently waiting for her societal nirvana! She wants to feed the government gorilla. Some people refuse to learn from history and insist on repeating the same mistakes over and over again! You cannot reason with this crowd. They are like an impetuous child, they have to learn the hard way. Unfortunately they insist on trying to drag smarter citizens along for the ride.

September 29, 2011 at 10:18 a.m.
MTJohn said...

Arnold - you reject the president because he is trying to "jam his socialism down our throats". Have you bothered to fact check that conclusion or just accepted it as truth because you happen to think that Perry and Christie are charismatic and that Bachmann and Palin are "hawt"?

I reject the Tea Party message because it is based in half-truth and because it encourages us to think selfishly, without regard for the long-term best interests of all Americans. The Tea Party is advocating a path that leads to third world status. That probably is not be the intent of the majority of Tea Party members. But, when the Tea Party has achieved success, most of its members will get screwed right along with the rest of us.

September 29, 2011 at 10:24 a.m.

MTJohn, We are already headed down the path that leads to third-world status. Your comments reveal a marked lack of knowledge or understanding of the current US and world economies. Your comments also reveal a lack of attention to the political party you are supporting. I would like you to answer a couple of questions.

The tea party is for smaller government. How does that compare to most third-world countries?

Obama has twice expressed his desire to circumvent congress and the democratic governor of NC. has expressed an interest in suspending elections. How does that compare to third world political ideals?

The tea party ideals and goals are the only way this country won't end up a third world crap hole. Prove me wrong with facts. Don't spout your bleeding heart emotional crap. Whining, crying and begging won't hold the wolves at bay. It only invites them to circle around for the sheeple meal to follow.

September 29, 2011 at 10:40 a.m.
MTJohn said...

FlyingPurpleSheepleEater said...We are already headed down the path that leads to third-world status. Your comments reveal a marked lack of knowledge or understanding of the current US and world economies.

Really? My comments mark a clear understanding of the choice that we made when, in 1980, we chose to follow the Pied Piper of Profligacy. We have been trending toward being the third world country with the largest nuclear arsenal ever since. The tea party is for smaller government. How does that compare to most third-world countries?

Obama has twice expressed his desire to circumvent congress and the democratic governor of NC. has expressed an interest in suspending elections. How does that compare to third world political ideals?

The tea party ideals and goals are the only way this country won't end up a third world crap hole. Prove me wrong with facts. Don't spout your bleeding heart emotional crap. Whining, crying and begging won't hold the wolves at bay. It only invites them to circle around for the sheeple meal to follow.

FlyingPurpleSheepleEater said...Obama has twice expressed his desire to circumvent congress and the democratic governor of NC. has expressed an interest in suspending elections. How does that compare to third world political ideals?

President Obama has worked hard to work with Congress and to seek solutions based on common ground. Read Gov. Perdue's comment in its context. She advocated giving Congress the space need to make difficult decisions. She did not advocate doing away with elections or doing away with Congress. But, I guess it is easier for you to believe the spin.

FlyingPurpleSheepleEater said...The tea party ideals and goals are the only way this country won't end up a third world crap hole.

For the sake of this response, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and agree that the Tea Party ideals and goals are the only way out of our current mess. My point is that, while the Tea Party may be successful in achieving its near term political objectives, it will never achieve the ideals advocated by the majority of its members because the politicians whom you elect will continue to work for the moneyed interests who are funding their campaigns and not for the foot soldiers who are working to get them elected. The wolves whom you suggest must be held at bay are the real force behind the Tea Party movement and they do not give a rip about you.

September 29, 2011 at 11:12 a.m.
JustOneWoman said...

Thanks Clay! You do tell it like it is.
It is so sad that some of the posters here just feel that they can down their fellow humans by calling them names and being bullies because they dissagree. People who write "liberul" or "repugs" are showing they are being brainwashed and used by media and liars. Why in the world would you want a word that says "liberty loving" to be a bad word? Unless of course, you don't want any liberty lovers in your reality. And why would anyone want to think of our Representative government as thugs? There is an attempt at trying to change this country through hate and advertising. Come on people, you guys are smarter than this. BTW...blondebutnotdumb, the mandate on the healthcare act was a republican contribution. Look it up.

September 29, 2011 at 11:38 a.m.

WHO'S NEXT?, blackwater, will defeat Obama. In fact, I read yesterday that the candidate called 'anyone' is ahead of Obama in the national polls. And to me 'anyone' means, well, anyone.

I hope Christie waits until 2016 to run. I've got a feeling that President Romney will not run for re-election because his MO is to get-in, fix things, then get-out.

President Christie will remain in office until 2025.

WHO'S NEXT? I say anyone.

September 29, 2011 at 11:39 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Once upon a time, there was a greedy little girl named Tealocks. One day she went for a walk down Main Street. Pretty soon, she came upon a white house, and decided instantly she was entitled to have it. She knocked on the door and, when no one answered, she crawled in through the kitchen window. 

At the table in the kitchen, there were three bowls of porridge. Tealocks spotted the porridge right away and decided instantly that she deserved a bowl. She tasted the porridge from the first bowl.

"This porridge is too hot!" she screamed.

So, she tasted the porridge from the second bowl.

"This porridge is too cold," she cried.

So, she tasted the last bowl of porridge.

"Ahhh, this porridge tastes just right," she said blissfully as she slurped it all up.

After pigging out on the porridge, Tealocks decided she was feeling a little pooped. So, she walked into the living room where she saw three chairs. Tealocks sat in the first chair to rest her tiny feet.

"This chair is too big!" she screeched.

So she plopped down in the second chair.

"This chair is too big, too!" she whined.

So she tried the last and smallest chair.

"Ahhh, this chair feels just right," she sighed. But just as she settled down into the chair to rest her tiny feet, it broke into pieces!

To be continued . . . . . . . . . . . . . or maybe not.

September 29, 2011 at 11:46 a.m.
kitdoc said...

Question of the day: Are sandyonsignal and Clay Bentit sleeping together? Hmmmm...

September 29, 2011 at 11:55 a.m.
MTJohn said...

A better question for the day: Why can't conservatives disagree without being disagreeable?

September 29, 2011 at 12:05 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Kitdoc asked: "Are sandyonsignal and Clay Bentit sleeping together? Hmmmm..."

You’re throwing your life away peeping through windows, Kitdoc-Tom. Indeed, show a little manly courage for a change, and just ask Mr. Bennett’s wife and children. I bet they’ll tell you what you want to know. . . . and maybe even where to go.

September 29, 2011 at 12:28 p.m.
kitdoc said...

doesn't take peeping in a window to know liberals are all in bed together mountainlard.

September 29, 2011 at 12:38 p.m.
kitdoc said...

MTJohn said: "Why can't conservatives disagree without being disagreeable?" I bet the minority liberal population in the Chattanooga area would be very disagreeable too if the TFP had the nonbiased approach they claim to have and added a conservative toonist that launched constant personal attacks against Obama and his minions.

September 29, 2011 at 12:59 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Kitdoc said: "doesn't take peeping in a window to know liberals are all in bed together, mountainlard."

My goodness, Kitdoc-Tom. . . Guess this means you don't want to do the manly thing and change your peeping ways. . . . Well, I tried. . . (Sigh)

September 29, 2011 at 1:11 p.m.
acerigger said...

Please, Gov. Christie, run for president! I so want to talk about how, as you put it, you never even set foot in the Trenton state house until you were elected -- even though you were the NJ statehouse lobbyist for the Securities Industry Association, the Wall Street trade association, under Bernie Madoff.

Let's talk about what you achieved, since one of your primary lobbying projects on behalf of Wall Street was to win an exemption for securities fraud from New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act. Straight shooter! Woo hoo!

Easy enough for just about anyone to remember: Lobbyist Chris Christie worked to remove securities fraud from a consumer fraud act on behalf of an organization run by Bernie Madoff.

And I haven't even gotten into how he and his brother bought him the U.S. Attorney's office. (Susie Madrak, Crooks and Liars.com)

September 29, 2011 at 1:15 p.m.

MTJohn, You didn't present any facts in your arguments. In fact, you ignored quite a few. The governor suggested suspending elections. I didn't say she wanted to get rid of elections or congress. Do you really think what she suggested is so much better? You stated she just proposed a way for them to get the space needed to make difficult decisions. How do elections interfere with that?

Oh.. I get it. If they had to worry about being re-elected, they might not make the "tough" decisions? If they make their decisions based upon the desires of the people they represent, how will that jeopardize their chances for election? It won't. But, voting with their constituency isn't really the problem. It's the fact that they want to vote against them. Thank you for explaining that.

You didn't address Obama's stated desire to circumvent congress. Why? Do you think he should be king or a dictator of some sort? That is the kind of power he is hinting at with his statements. How is that different from the kind of government most third-world countries have?

The fact that you have bought into the conspiracy that there is some big bad entity governing the tea party means you haven't done your research on it. You have never attended a tea party event or talked to any local tea partiers about their organization or you would know, they are driven by local citizens who want to retain their freedom, pursue happiness and enjoy their lives. You would also find they want the exact same thing for you.

I agree 100% about politicians. I am always confused by people who argue that a lack of experience in politics is somehow a bad thing for candidates for elected office. The best people in my life whom I have the greatest respect for are not politicians and I think they would be a great deal more qualified to represent me in washington than any number of trained liars and sycophants.

The most telling evidence I have that the Tea Party is on the right track is that both of the political parties of the day have turned against them and are working together to discredit them. Such bipartisanship without lobbyists or back room deals tells me all I need to know.

September 29, 2011 at 1:28 p.m.
kitdoc said...

mountainlard, don't be bitter just because you live on twinkies, alone, in a house with 20 cats and have no life... sad, very sad.

September 29, 2011 at 1:32 p.m.

I agree with L4F. He is definitely a RINO.

September 29, 2011 at 2:17 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Kitdoc said: "Mountainlard,don't be bitter just because you live on twinkies, alone, in a house with 20 cats and have no life... sad, very sad."

Oh, dear me. . . What mean eyes and big teeth you have, Kitdoc-Tom.

September 29, 2011 at 2:18 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Acerigger said: "Please, Gov. Christie, run for president!"

I doubt Christie will be running, Acerigger. Did you hear some of the things he said in his speech at the Reagan Library? The Atlantic has quotes and discusses it a bit:

Speeches delivered at the Reagan Library must praise President Reagan, zing Barack Obama, and assert the greatness of the United States. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie hit all those notes Tuesday night. But he also made four key assertions that are now heretical within the Republican Party:

1) "Compromise is core to politics, a necessary characteristic of good leadership, and the only way to solve problems."

2) "For American exceptionalism to truly deliver hope and a sterling example to the rest of the world, it must be demonstrated, not just asserted. . . Today, our role and ability to affect change has been diminished because of our own problems and our inability to effectively deal with them."

3) “Americans should care what foreigners think of us. The world is watching when our politics is mired in dysfunctional infighting and stubborn refusal to compromise, he noted.”

4) "We certainly cannot force others to adopt our principles through coercion," he said. "Local realities count; we cannot have forced makeovers of other societies in our image. . .”

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/09/the-heresies-of-chris-christie/245818/

September 29, 2011 at 2:41 p.m.
adolphochs said...

Any chance Todd Foster will take Bennett with him.

September 29, 2011 at 2:43 p.m.
mymy said...

HOW TO START EACH DAY WITH A POSITIVE OUTLOOK:

  1. Open a new file in your computer.
  2. Name it 'Barack Obama.'
  3. Send it to the Recycle Bin.
  4. Empty the Recycle Bin.
  5. Your PC will ask you: "Do you really want to get rid of "Barack Obama'?"
  6. Firmly click 'Yes.'
  7. Feel better?

GOOD! - Tomorrow we'll do Nancy Pelosi.

September 29, 2011 at 3:02 p.m.
MickeyRat said...

mymy,

Your "HOW TO START EACH DAY WITH A POSITIVE OUTLOOK" is pretty damn funny. Old, but funny nevertheless. Thanks for splashing a bucket of humor down deadpan alley. :-)

September 29, 2011 at 3:16 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

mymy said... "HOW TO START EACH DAY WITH A POSITIVE OUTLOOK"

That is precious. Thank you for making my visit worthwhile!

September 29, 2011 at 3:43 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Well, I see one of the dirty Koch polluters is saying Christie is his kind of guy:

“On the morning of June 26, Chris Christie, New Jersey's flamboyant, tough-talking Republican governor . . . jetted out to Colorado, delivered a keynote speech at Charles and David Koch's ultra-exclusive seminar at the Ritz-Carlton resort near Vail, and returned home the same night, all without breathing a word about his adventure to his constituents. . . .

With security extraordinary on the seminar's opening night—audio speakers around the periphery of the outdoor dining pavilion blasted out static to thwart eavesdroppers—David Koch introduced Gov. Christie as "my kind of guy." . .

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/09/audio-chris-christie-koch-brothers-seminar

September 29, 2011 at 4:01 p.m.
sandyonsignal said...

Interesting, Mountain Laurel,

Of course, the Republican Presidential candidates are just a bunch of plebes for the Koch brothers. Christie is another Walker clone, but on a grander scale.

September 29, 2011 at 5:35 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Maybe Foster's replacement will have enough sense to get rid of The Wart!

September 29, 2011 at 6:15 p.m.
fairmon said...

Cain can. He could but won't use the slogan Cain against Unable.Too bad the republicans are afraid of him and are encouraging him to drop out. Heck, he may not play their game the way they want it played. They would ditch Bachmann if they weren't concerned about getting labeled anti-feminist or whatever women label those that don't cater to them. Cain and Romney are the only two viable candidates. Texas loves Perry and should keep him. Newt Gingrich is the most knowledgeable and most capable but too much baggage even for those that forgive Wiener, and the S.C. governor.

A republican controlled congress with Gingrich as speaker and Bill Clinton was the last to balance the budget and they could do it again. Hillary please run.

IF Obama truly cared about the country he would announce something like "I will not seek nor will I accept the nomination to run for POTUS a second term". "I will devote all my energy, every waking moment, to assuring the country is safe and that people able to work have an opportunity to work and those able but fail to utilize that opportunity will no longer live off the labor of those that do". "Workfare not welfare will be the agenda my last year in office".

September 29, 2011 at 6:42 p.m.
fairmon said...

The country needs more people like the Kock brothers and none like George Soros.

September 29, 2011 at 6:45 p.m.
fairmon said...

We need a leader with the gonads to issue an executive order banning unionization of public workers and assign an independent group capable of conducting a compensation survey then adjust public employees to an amount in the top 10% of those doing like work.

Another group of excellent non-partisan consultants could review every government position for value, duplication, effective use of work time and work flow efficiency.

We need a leader that will recruit competent and capable scientist in each field to review all regulations and delete, modify and retain or add those that truly protect peoples health and safety and the environment. Too many are duplicated. It is crazy to have a federal EPA, a state EPA and in many cases a local EPA that duplicates and replicates federal regulations without being additive. The tax payer foots the bill for all whether they benefit or not.

We need a leader that would abolish all Czar positions which are unelected positions of significant power and influence subject to special interest influence. Spending for a position that is needed should be approved by congress and assigned to the appropriate department. Congress and the administration abdicate their responsibility by empowering unelected positions and committees.

We need a commander, POTUS, that will appoint a competent independent team as watch dogs of military spending and contracts. Too much congress, contractor and special interest chuminess in the industrial military complex is expensive.

I echo Maxine Waters sentiments when I use her phrase for the tea groups and say all current office holders can just go straight to hell. but, like her I am not trying to be inciteful or confrontational.

September 29, 2011 at 7:12 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Sandyonsignal said: “Of course, the Republican Presidential candidates are just a bunch of plebes for the Koch brothers. Christie is another Walker clone, but on a grander scale.”

As a precautionary measure, I tossed my cantaloupes in the garbage earlier today, and I don’t dare repeat in public the adjectives that came to mind for the Republicans at the time – must confess it was much worse that “a bunch of plebes,” Sandyonsignal.

This latest tainted food outbreak has caused 72 illnesses – including up to 16 deaths – in 18 states, and, yet, the Republicans continue their assault on the government agencies working to keep the public safe. If nothing else, you would think the Republicans would be concerned for the health and safety of their own families, but maybe the Republicans don't shop in public markets and don’t have to worry about things like this:

WASHINGTON — Federal health officials said Wednesday more illnesses and possibly more deaths may be linked to an outbreak of listeria in cantaloupe in coming weeks.

So far, the outbreak has caused at least 72 illnesses – including up to 16 deaths – in 18 states, making it the deadliest food outbreak in the United States in more than a decade.

The heads of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration said consumers who have cantaloupes produced by Jensen Farms in Colorado should throw them out. If they are not sure where the fruit is from, they shouldn't eat it.

Neither the government nor Jensen Farms has supplied a list of retailers who may have sold the fruit. Officials say consumers should ask retailers about the origins of their cantaloupe. If they still aren't sure, they should get rid of it. . .

Frieden and FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said that illnesses are expected for weeks to come because the incubation period for listeria can be a month or even longer. That means that someone who ate contaminated cantaloupe last week may not get sick until next month. Jensen Farms last shipped cantaloupes on Sept. 10. The shelf life is about two weeks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/27/cantaloupe-listeria-outbreak-deadliest_n_984234.html

September 29, 2011 at 7:15 p.m.
fairmon said...

mntl....

You are right. Those darn repulcicans can't even grow cantelopes. You know both parties condone subsidizing ethanol which fouls the engine, pollutes worse and reduces fuel efficiency not to mention destroying small engines. But, if we are burning it we can't eat it, can you make ethanol out of cantelopes? Do you think the operators of Jensen Farms support Obama and the pubs screwed up their cantelopes on purpose? What reg did Jensen violate, I haven't kept up with it.

September 29, 2011 at 8:55 p.m.
ArnoldZiffel said...

MTJohn, I don't give a hoot about charisma!! I want someone who respects the Constitution and the freedoms it guarantees. The "man" we have in there does not. You have some nerve saying we want someone who's charismatic and "hawt" when you clowns fell head over heals over BO! Women swooned every time he opened his mouth and you leftists thought you had the perfect lefty guy in place. You fell for stupid catch phrases and slogans. Suckers! You lefties want a demagogue, I want a president with a work ethic, who respects the Constitution and is a good steward of our money. BO bombs on all of that. I just read that BO said America has gotten soft! This from a guy who's never worked a day in his life. This is his response to people's concerns? Mr. Tough guy!

September 30, 2011 at 8:28 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Quote of the day,

"But liberals enjoy engaging in wild social experiments with other people's lives, safety and money in order to feel better about themselves"

Ann Coulter

September 30, 2011 at 9:41 a.m.
acerigger said...

brp,can you give us some examples of these "wild social experiments ",or does this flamethrowers comments just sound right to you?

September 30, 2011 at 10:15 a.m.
MTJohn said...

ArnoldZiffel said...You fell for stupid catch phrases and slogans. Suckers! You lefties want a demagogue, I want a president with a work ethic, who respects the Constitution and is a good steward of our money.

Arnold - the conservative bubble chamber is very adept at defining its greatest weaknesses and then ascribing those to their political adversaries. None of the the current slate of R candidates is doing anything other than speaking in catch phrases and slogans. Each is pandering to be the demagogue of the Tea Party movement. None has done anything to demonstrate respect for the Constitution, a desire to be a good steward of our government (not just our money), or a desire to serve the interests of anyone other than the wealthiest Americans. If you were in that top tier, you would delegate the responsibility for posting your pap on this board to one of your minions. So, I doubt that any of those candidates really cares about you. So, who is the real sucker?

September 30, 2011 at 10:20 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Harp3339 said: “What reg did Jensen violate, I haven't kept up with it.”

From what I’ve read, the specific contamination source at Jensen Farms hasn’t been determined at this point, but I guess government agencies will be looking for the contamination in the usual places like potential animal intrusion, water quality, growing practices, harvesting practices, the facility, the storing process, and the packing process.

Harp3339 said: “Those darn repulcicans can't even grow cantelopes . . . can you make ethanol out of cantelopes? Do you think the operators of Jensen Farms support Obama and the pubs screwed up their cantelopes on purpose?

Sorry, Harp3339, but food safety is an important issue, and I don’t think it’s appropriate to make jokes when people are getting seriously ill and dying from things like food contamination – know what I mean? Say what you will about Obama, but he is trying to protect the public, which is a lot more than the Republicans and the Speaker of the House are doing:

“Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), a longtime hawk on food safety issues, once again blasted Republicans for seeking cuts to federal food safety programs, this time singling out Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) whose own district is currently dealing with an E. coli outbreak. 
 . .

"This latest recall should serve as a wake-up call for Speaker Boehner, and all Republicans, that food safety is an issue that affects all Americans, and we must take action," said DeLauro, in a statement issued Tuesday. "The safety of American consumers should be a priority, and I urge my Republican colleagues to recognize the seriousness of the issue and ensure that the USDA and FDA have the support they need to protect our food supply. It is literally a matter of life and death."



DeLauro pointed to the Fiscal Year 2012 appropriations bill the House passed in June that would cut food safety funding at both USDA and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, by 3.4 percent and 10 percent, respectively. 

The proposed cut to FDA's budget has come under intense criticism as the agency is working to meet the new responsibilities laid out in the Food Safety Modernization Act President Obama signed into law in January. The Congressional Budget Office estimated implementing FSMA would cost $1.4 billion over five years.”

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/09/delauro-hits-beohner-gop-on-food-safety-funding/

September 30, 2011 at 10:29 a.m.
ldsknack said...

we have career politicians that use their influence to reward those that help them get elected with lucrative government contracts, grants, and low cost loans. they receive inside information that helps them turn their $1M savings account turn into $10M in four years on a $170k annual salary. they spend our money without regard for our needs or our future.

if we truly want change then we must pull together to remove these career politicians from office and elect responsible persons that will put term limits in congress. We need a congress that will remove the recurring entitlement programs that were designed to keep one of these career politicians in office. these elected officials perpetuate the growth of our debt and it will not change unless we remove them all from office.

someone put a party together that will save the constitution and run the country with the original intent, of the greatest document ever written, as the center piece of our agenda. it is not time to point fingers because both the dems and the reps are to blame. we all are to blame because we elect the lesser of two evils.

work together to save the US

September 30, 2011 at 11:09 a.m.
ArnoldZiffel said...

Blah, blah, blah, MTJohn. I don't want someone to "care about me" I just want the freedom that our Constitution guarantees me. You know nothing about the Tea Party. I don't even belong to the Tea Party. There's only one demagogue around these days, his name is Barack Hussein Obama. His purpose is turn this country into some kind of bureauocratic-socialist state. The fact is the voters are spitting it out like poison. You're a sucker for thinking he was anything special. Look how corrupt he is.

September 30, 2011 at 12:02 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

BigRidgePatriot said: "But liberals enjoy engaging in wild social experiments with other people's lives, safety and money in order to feel better about themselves. [A. Coulter]"

It amazes me as to how you come up with this mindless crap day after day, BRP. Clearly, there are a wide range of serious real life issues out there that urgently need to be addressed, but you continue to focus all of your energy on these weird off the wall things that a weirdo like Ann Coulter puts out there for you. For heavens sake, BRP, get a grip. Do something positive.

What about this food safety issue? What about ground water issues and cancer causing air pollutants? And what about some of the recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings? Do you really agree with self-serving politicians like Mitt Romney that “corporations are people” too? Has it ever occurred to you what a corporate takeover of this country means in the big picture?

1) Doctors Lose, Pharmaceutical Companies Win: In Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., the Court Uses the First Amendment to Revive the Lochner Era

2) Patients and Medical Consumers Lose, Drug Manufacturers Win: Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing and Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC

3) Consumers Lose, Large Corporations with Adhesion Contracts Win: AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion

4) Millions of Low-Wage Women Workers Lose, Wal-Mart Wins: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes

5) Injured Workers Lose, Foreign Multi-National Corporations Win: J. McIntyre Machinery, LTD. V. Nicastro

6) Shareholders and Investors Lose, Corporate Executives and CEOs Win: Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders

7) Corporate and Citizen Whistleblowers Lose, Corporate Wrongdoers Win: Schindler Elevator Corporation v. United States

8) Citizens Lose, The Citizens United Era and the Growing Invincibility of Corporate Power in Court

http://www.pfaw.org/media-center/publications/the-citizens-united-era-how-the-supreme-court-continues-to-put-business-fi

September 30, 2011 at 12:22 p.m.

Surveying the place.

Hhmmmmmm. Go to Walmart on 153 or by the mall and rally the "low-wage women workers there to your cause. They'll laugh at you. Pompous lib. Do you sit up in your mountain, lady, on your enormous posterior and look down at the rest of us like some kind of a God. Stick a sock in it. Liberalism has been exposed. Let's move forward.

September 30, 2011 at 1:34 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

OXYMORONIC

Drive by whined, Liberalism has been exposed. Let's move forward.

Yeah, who needs clean water and clean air? Who needs a working wage?

Conservatism is obviously the way you think we should go. How much more evidence do you need that your trickle down crap is a scam? The rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

It's not that the rich just want to get richer. The seem to want it all, every last penny.

Greed is not good. The Bible had a lot to say about that, but do we really need anyone to tell us what is right and what is wrong?

I guess you do, but I guess you wouldn't know truth if it ran you over. Oh wait.

It already has.

September 30, 2011 at 1:57 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

DriveByPostPirate said: "Go to Walmart on 153 or by the mall and rally the "low-wage women workers there to your cause. They'll laugh at you. Pompous lib."

My cause? It was women working at Walmart that filed the lawsuit, DBPP. Do what you like, but if you plan to continue to run your mouth at full speed, I suggest you do the decent thing and talk to these women personally and see what they have to say – of course, this might be difficult since the lawsuit was filed by one-and-a-half million females who worked for Wal-Mart. How many work at the WalMart store on Hwy 153?

"Dismantling of the class action mechanism—not just for consumers but for workers—was a commanding theme of the Term. In a decision that has attracted widespread notice and condemnation, the pro-corporate majority reassembled in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. ___ (2011), under Justice Scalia’s leadership. By a 5-4 vote, the conservatives destroyed a class certification in a lawsuit by one-and-a-half million women plaintiffs contending that they had suffered sex discrimination as employees of Wal-Mart under a system of standardless pay and promotion decisions delegated to mostly male local management teams all over the country."

http://www.pfaw.org/media-center/publications/the-citizens-united-era-how-the-supreme-court-continues-to-put-business-fi#millions

September 30, 2011 at 3:05 p.m.

OH, it's just terrible isn't it! Like I said go talk to the women who work at Walmart on 153. Don't they count? They have jobs and they're happy to have them in this Obama depression. Stop hating Walmart, it's such a waste of time. Be glad they provide that many jobs. Do you get up in the morning foaming at the mouth thinking about corporations? SEEK HELP, PLEASE!

Tell you what, you probably have no problem with good ol' willy in the White House getting bj's from monica, do you? You don't mind him being boss. I bet you every dime in the bank that if a boss at a Wallmart had a female employee give him bj's you'd be all over it. TAKING ADVANTAGE OF HIS POSITION TO MISTREAT WOMEN! SEXIST PIG!

Poor babies, so discriminated againstL They can go work somewhere else if they don't like it. This isn't 1910. Get over yourselves.

September 30, 2011 at 4:24 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

mountainlaurel said... "It amazes me as to how you come up with this mindless crap day after day"

You know mountainlaurel, from where I sit on my Libertarian mountain I often think the same about you. I just write it off to perspective and realize we are never going to turn each other.

I must say, however, that I have great respect for you and your ability to remain civil in this environment. Your posts are among the very few from the left side of this crowd that I bother to read any more. Hats off to you!

(P.S. Ann is right!)

September 30, 2011 at 4:51 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

DriveByPostPirate said: “OH, it's just terrible isn't it . Like I said go talk to the women who work at Walmart on 153. Don't they count? . . . . . Poor babies, so discriminated againstL They can go work somewhere else if they don't like it.”

It’s the conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court who obviously lack respect for the women, DBPP. And in view of the decision, I doubt the female employees at the Walmart on Hwy 153 would be treated any better if there should ever be a need for them to file a similar grievance:

“By a 5-4 vote, the conservatives destroyed a class certification in a lawsuit by one-and-a-half million women plaintiffs contending that they had suffered sex discrimination as employees of Wal-Mart under a system of standardless pay and promotion decisions delegated to mostly male local management teams all over the country.

But Justice Scalia insisted . . . “their claim must depend upon a common contention—for example, the assertion of discriminatory bias on the part of the same supervisor.” . . . This extraordinary holding is a sharpened dagger pointed at the heart of class action relief in employment lawsuits, which form precisely to make common complaints that cut across individual offices and departments.” . . .

Writing for the four (partial) dissenters, Justice Ginsburg mobilized a series of striking facts to refute Justice Scalia’s sweeping and sinister suggestion that there were not sufficient common issues to justify class action certification in this and similar cases: women occupy 70% of the hourly jobs in Wal-Mart stores but only 33% of management employees; the higher one looks on the corporate ladder, the fewer women appear; and women are paid less than men in every region.

Justice Ginsburg also took the time to review some of the actual evidence produced in discovery, such as expert statistical findings establishing an “inference of discrimination,” statements by Wal-Mart managers like “men are here to make a career and women aren’t,” and a finding by a committee of women Wal-Mart executives that “stereotypes limit the opportunities offered to women.” Insisting that a corporate “system of delegated discretion” is indeed “a practice actionable under Title VII when it produces discriminatory outcomes,”

Justice Ginsburg took Justice Scalia to task for conflating the threshold class action certification criterion of a “common question” with the separate issue of incidental monetary relief, thus making class action lawsuits by employees (or consumers) to stop the discriminatory treatment far more difficult to get off the ground."

http://www.pfaw.org/media-center/publications/the-citizens-united-era-how-the-supreme-court-continues-to-put-business-fi#millions

September 30, 2011 at 4:57 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Hey mountainlaurel,

Did you ever answer my challenge to the notion that the rich & corporations pay enough in taxes to pay for 100% of the infrastructure in this country? Let me add to that some. I bet the rich also pay enough to pay for every service they receive and probably enough to pay for our military including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The rich & corporations also directly provide the rest of the infrastructure that is not provided by government. Airlines, telephone, many utilities, shipping lines, some bus lines, transportation services, gas stations, internet, oil and natural gas pipelines come to mind. It is probably safe to say that MOST of our infrastructure is provided by the rich and corporations. By golly! That is probably what made this country so darn exceptional!

If you look at it that way it is kind of hard to swallow the idea that the rich are somehow taking unfair advantage of services and infrastructure on the backs of the middle class. That idea sounds a bit like crap to me!

September 30, 2011 at 5:10 p.m.
dude_abides said...

DriveByButtPirate... let me just say what a breath of fresh air you are. I've never heard any of the opinions you expressed around here before. Your keen insight is much needed, as you can see from reading the posts of all the other middle school C students. Say, what is your opinion on the death of Al-Awlaki, and by extension, Bin Laden, etc.? As if we couldn't script that ahead of time.

September 30, 2011 at 5:20 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

BigRidgePatriot said: Did you ever answer my challenge to the notion that the rich & corporations pay enough in taxes to pay for 100% of the infrastructure in this country?

As I recall, BRP, it was you who made the claim that “the rich and corporations pay more than enough to fund the infrastructure and services they utilize on a daily basis,” and I asked you to prove it to us. It could be that you have been keeping personal records on who is paying for what in regard to our infrastructure and how frequently "the rich and corporations" are utilizing our infrastructure on a daily basis, but I seriously doubt it - and I still do. I also recall reminded you of the crumbling condition of our infrastructure:

"The United States is falling dramatically behind much of the world in rebuilding and expanding an overloaded and deteriorating transportation network it needs to remain competitive in the global marketplace, according to a new study by the Urban Land Institute. . .

“Infrastructure should be part of the larger conversation about ‘what do you want government to do and how do you want to pay for it?’ ” said Jay Zukerman of Ernst & Young, which conducted the institute’s study.

The report lends global perspective to an issue addressed last fall by a panel of 80 experts led by former transportation secretaries Norman Y. Mineta and Samuel K. Skinner. That group concluded that as much as $262 billion a year must be spent on U.S. highways, rail networks and air transportation systems.

Congress has failed to approve the two major bills that allow for long-term funding and planning for aviation and transportation. The Federal Aviation Administration has been operating under a funding bill that expired in 2007 and has been extended 18 times. The surface transportation act, which provides the balance of federal transportation funding, expired in 2009 and has been extended seven times.

As Congress debates how much should be spent and where to find the money, China has a plan to spend $1 trillion on high-speed rail, highways and other infrastructure in five years. India is nearing the end of a $500 billion investment phase that has seen major highway improvements, and plans to double that amount by 2017. Brazil plans to spend $900 billion on energy and transportation projects by 2014.

The United States, the institute report concludes, needs to invest $2 trillion to rebuild roads, bridges, water lines, sewage systems and dams that are reaching the end of their planned life cycles.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/study-2-trillion-needed-for-us-infrastructure/2011/05/16/AFyppB5G_print.html

September 30, 2011 at 6:27 p.m.
patriot1 said...

China, India, et al, are investing in their future....we are investing in our past (social security, medicare, etc)

September 30, 2011 at 7:48 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Patriot1 said: "China, India, et al, are investing in their future....we are investing in our past (social security, medicare, etc)"

Huh? We pay Social Security taxes for our future – our future retirement, Patriot1. It’s been that way for about 75 years and it has proven to be a successful program.

September 30, 2011 at 8:32 p.m.
fairmon said...

mntl challenged BRP to prove the wealthy paid equal to the benefit they derive from our infrastructure and posted..........

Infrastructure should be part of the larger conversation about ‘what do you want government to do and how do you want to pay for it?’ ” said Jay Zukerman of Ernst & Young. This is a true statement. Many post support and insist the government do so much the wealthy don't have enough to cover the cost. What happens when there are no longer any wealthy people? It is a no brainer when wondering if the wealthy do their share toward infrastructure when you consider 49% pay no taxes with a good number of those getting refunds significantly more than they paid. The wealthy probably don't get an infrastructure consistent with their contribution to the treasury. Insisting they should pay more taxes is one thing but suggesting they would be paying more to do anything other than support those that can't support themselves is ludicrous. The fact is everyone will have to pay more and the longer we wait the more it will be and the pain greater.

September 30, 2011 at 8:32 p.m.
fairmon said...

mntl said...

Huh? We pay Social Security taxes for our future – our future retirement, Patriot1. It’s been that way for about 75 years and it has proven to be a successful program.

This statement proves that you do not understand the social security system. The terms and conditions have changed over the time frame you say proves it works. Look at what you pay in and how much you will receive based on the actuarial tables. The average recipient will draw several times more than they and their employer paid in. Those working now are supporting those drawing and those to draw in the future will be supported by those working. The problem is that in about 20 years the demographics show there will only be three workers per person drawing social security. The current system and program will no longer work as currently designed.

Medicare is a totally different story...it is receiving about half, plus or minus some, the revenue needed from premiums plus worker and employee taxes to pay all the claims. Medicare, not social security thus far, is one cause of having to borrow 42 cents of every dollar spent.

September 30, 2011 at 8:44 p.m.
stanleyyelnats said...

he is a centrist and hasn't got a chance. tBaggers will not support any American with an ounce of decency.

September 30, 2011 at 9:03 p.m.
fairmon said...

extract from mntl post quoted.... This latest recall should serve as a wake-up call for Speaker Boehner, and all Republicans, that food safety is an issue that affects all Americans, and we must take action," said DeLauro (D) She is suggesting 1.4 billion additional spending. Why not take the money spent on farm subsidies and move it to the FDA. It sounds like they are going to personally inspect every shipment.

The immediate conclusion by many politicians is that it always takes more money and more people to be more effective. Those few wanting to reduce spending also fail to insist on reduced spending and improved performance opposite the purpose of the operation. Of course most politicians are lawyers and couldn't manage a business if their life depended on it. The only experience lawyers have is gaining revenue from the needs and misery of others. Compare the government hierarchy to that of the better run businesses and the action they have taken to become more efficient and effective. It is not good business to hire people and pay them extremely well because of their politics. This practice seldom results in the right people in key positions which reduces the effectiveness of those capable and willing at the real working level.

September 30, 2011 at 9:05 p.m.

I've had to work with a few bosses who insisted that people work with less and less, that we continue running leaner and leaner.

Those bosses often got their savings at the cost of worker productivity and job satisfaction. A few times this ultimately lead to the boss being forced to recognize that their way of doing things on the cheap cost more in the end.

And I actually see a lot of politicians who do try to make hay over government waste and excessiveness, it's a good platform to run on. It's not a few, it's a lot. But of course, they can't fix the problem, or else they'll have nothing to stir up the voters with.

Also, while you may argue the better run businesses don't run on such politics, that doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of businesses which are as full of such behavior as any government. I'd say they are much more common really. Of course, that would mean that they're not better run, but then a better run government wouldn't do things the way you complain about either.

September 30, 2011 at 9:22 p.m.
fairmon said...

mntl extracts from article or source...

China has a plan to spend $1 trillion on high-speed rail, highways and other infrastructure in five years. India is nearing the end of a $500 billion investment phase that has seen major highway improvements, and plans to double that amount by 2017. Brazil plans to spend $900 billion on energy and transportation projects by 2014.

They plan to do that without borrowing money. Guess where their money is coming from. Keep on buying those imports. Each time one of the people in those countries move into what is considered the "middle class" or move up the food chain of wealth an American moves down. There is only so much wealth in the world and how it is distributed depends on who is creating wealth. You can only create wealth 4 ways. Manufacturing, mining, farming, fishing. All other activities are services that move the wealth around. Some services are essential, some are nice to have while others are strictly superfluous. Wealth is created when you transform things to something of greater value. Printing more money does not increase wealth.

September 30, 2011 at 10:10 p.m.

Only so much wealth in the world? I don't think that's what you really meant to say, as that would be in conflict with your later words about creating wealth.

September 30, 2011 at 10:27 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Harp3339 said: "This statement proves that you do not understand the social security system. The terms and conditions have changed over the time frame you say proves it works. . . The problem is that in about 20 years the demographics show there will only be three workers per person drawing social security. The current system and program will no longer work as currently designed.

You’re omitting several important facts about this issue, Harp3339. If the Social Security payroll tax rate stays at the current rate and there are no changes, the system will be paying full benefits through1938; and after this, the Social Security system would be paying approximately 80 percent – again if there are no changes.

If the Social Security payroll tax rate (6.2 employee & 6.2 employer) was increased or if we raised the Social Security cap, recipients would continue receiving full benefits for another 75 years. Personally, I think we should consider raising the Social Security cap:

“Many workers do not know that any annual wages above $106,800 are not taxed by Social Security. In other words, a worker who makes twice the Social Security wage cap – $213,600 per year – pays Social Security tax on only half of his or her earnings, and one who makes just over a million dollars per year pays the tax on only about a tenth."

"Raising the Social Security cap – which would make some or all earnings above $106,800 subject to the Social Security tax – has gotten some attention as a way to help alleviate Social Security’s long-term budget shortfall. U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders plans to introduce legislation to keep the current cap at $106,800, but to also apply the Social Security payroll tax to earnings over $250,000."

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/whos-above-the-social-security-payroll-tax-cap

September 30, 2011 at 11:37 p.m.

Through 1938?

That's a chuckle.

September 30, 2011 at 11:45 p.m.
fairmon said...

mntl responded....

“Many workers do not know that any annual wages above $106,800 are not taxed by Social Security.

I knew that but also know using the current system raising the cap will result in those paying more receiving a larger monthly amount and will be of no significant net help with the issue in the future. Unless, you are suggesting raising the cap on the amount taxed then penalizing those same people again with a cap on the amount that can be received. Did you know anyone with an income over $85,000 per year pays a proportionally higher medicare premium than the standard amount?

mntl also said... You’re omitting several important facts about this issue, Harp3339. If the Social Security payroll tax rate stays at the current rate and there are no changes, the system will be paying full benefits through1938; and after this, the Social Security system would be paying approximately 80 percent – again if there are no changes.

I don't see where I failed to make that point when I said the current system will not work in about 20 years. A reduction to only 80% of the current amount means it won't work as now designed. A reduction to 80% assumes unemployment will be reduced to 5-6% and GDP growth of 3.5-4% with is 2X the current rate. Life expectancy at the inception of social security was around 62, it is now 82 so people are drawing social security much longer. The fixes that would work are to raise the eligibility age and/or increase the tax rate. Unless once again you want to spread the wealth and means test those applying and reduce their benefit based on their assets and/or income from other sources.

The right thing to do is phase out the antique known as social security which politicians have screwed up with various unfunded liberalizations. Change nothing for those 50 and older. Change the system to require employees to save a minimum of 8% with an employer match that is invested in an interest bearing U.S. treasuries fund that belongs to the employee with withdrawals prohibited until age 65 at which time an insured annuity fund is purchased which will pay monthly more than social security now pays. This retirement security fund is in addition to a voluntary non taxable ROTH or 401K with matching employer funds. These options were not available when social security was established. The assets belong to the individual and become part of his/her estate.

by the way did you happen to see that crowd calling themselves liberals protesting on Wall street today? Those are the kind of ignorant disgusting people I resent supporting. One brillian particpant said he was protesting becuse our democracy had turned into a country of capitalism. Another said he was there because he was born to be there.

October 1, 2011 at 1 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Harp3339 said: “I don't see where I failed to make that point when I said the current system will not work in about 20 years.”

I suppose that I felt that you were being less than straightforward by not mentioning the 80% that would still be available after the 20 years at the 100% rate, Harp3339. By not doing so, I felt you were indirectly suggesting that in 20 years Social Security wouldn’t have any more money, which, of course, is simply not factual. Indeed, the available 80% after the 20 years is very important in any realistic discussion about our current Social Security System.

It seems to me that there are too many people being less than straightforward about the facts when it comes to Social Security. Senator Rubio, for example, has claimed the Social Security is bankrupt, which of course, is a blatant lie. As economist Dean Baker recently pointed out, how can Senator Rubio claim a system is bankrupt when the system could easily provide him with a benefit of $41,439 a year if he retires at age 67 in 2038 and $33,151 (both in 2011 dollars) every year from then on for the rest of his life?

Harp3339 said: “A reduction to only 80% of the current amount means it won't work as now designed.”

Do you invest in a new car simply because you need a tune-up, Harp3339? The Social Security payroll tax rate has been adjusted a number of times throughout its 77-year history to reflect demographic changes, and I think you probably know this. The point is that with a minimal rate adjustment to reflect the future demographics the system could continue paying at 100% for another 75 years. Why dismantle a system that has proven to be successful when all you really need is a rate adjustment to reflect the new demographics?

Harp3339 said: “The right thing to do is phase out the antique known as social security which politicians have screwed up with various unfunded liberalizations.”

Again, there is nothing wrong with the actual Social Security system, and the administrative costs of handling the system are minimal, Harp3339. The only problem it faces is unscrupulous politicians who are trying to privatize it to benefit the financial investment sector who are eager to make hefty profits from the handling fees. Why would anyone want to pay high handling fees if they did not have to do so, Harp339? And you can bet if the greedy financial industry got their hands on the system, the handling fee costs would go up year after year and the poor recipient would be forced to pick-up the tab year and year.

October 1, 2011 at 12:47 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Happywithnewbulbs said: "Through 1938? That's a chuckle.

Yes, it is humorous, hwnb. I suspect the error relates to a fascinating genealogy project that I’ve been working on for the past few months. One of my relatives inherited boxes and boxes of old diaries, letters, legal documents, photographs, news clippings, and even a partially completed novel that belonged to various members of our family. Some of the letters date back to 1832. Anyway, I’ve been madly reading and helping her sort out these things and I suspect the experience is beginning to take its toll on my mind.

October 1, 2011 at 2:44 p.m.

why ifn smert peeples are so smert den mrO-bammya shud bee doin reel gud by now NO? Den mrCristi shud be doing gud n savin $$$ fur hisn new Jerzy NO? butt mrO is spendin n spendin n spendin N now wes gottin porer n porer n porer. Jes ax us all foks in tha por nayborehuds ok? Butt mrO n Mich ar shor takn lotts n lotts uv vakayshuns n shopin tripps huhh? Meen Meen peeples! Theys tellin us por foks wut to do awl tha tim n lekshurin us awl days lonnng! Meen meen hippycritts!

hey yall, ifn mrCristi yells bloodi merder at tha dum yunyoon boyz an greeedi gubbermint wurkers butt sayvs ther stayt frum thet ole banckruppci why wuts yur beeef. now now hoos tha mo-ron?

October 2, 2011 at 10:17 p.m.
fairmon said...

mntl said.... Again, there is nothing wrong with the actual Social Security system, and the administrative costs of handling the system are minimal, Harp3339. The only problem it faces is unscrupulous politicians who are trying to privatize it to benefit the financial investment sector who are eager to make hefty profits from the handling fees. Why would anyone want to pay high handling fees if they did not have to do so, Harp339? And you can bet if the greedy financial industry got their hands on the system, the handling fee costs would go up year after year and the poor recipient would be forced to pick-up the tab year and year.

That again demonstrates a lack of information regarding investing. U.S. treasury bonds can be bought direct with no fee which could be part of the system established by congress. The major difference is that the individual has the money in their name which is earning interest on the money loaned the government, which bonds represent, instead of in the general fund which has a deficit of over 14 trillion. This prevents congress from enabling people to receive social security that is not supported by their contribution.

Congress could allow those contributing to put their U.S. treasury bonds in a ROTH which means no future taxes on earnings or withdrawals since the money put in the ROTH was after tax dollars. It also results in the participant receiving a higher when there is inflation.

October 3, 2011 at 5:09 a.m.
fairmon said...

mntl said..... Do you invest in a new car simply because you need a tune-up, Harp3339? The Social Security payroll tax rate has been adjusted a number of times throughout its 77-year history to reflect demographic changes, and I think you probably know this. The point is that with a minimal rate adjustment to reflect the future demographics the system could continue paying at 100% for another 75 years. Why dismantle a system that has proven to be successful when all you really need is a rate adjustment to reflect the new demographics?

No, I don't buy a new car when all that is needed is a tune up but after a few tune ups and other maintenance becomes more frequent, the dependability of the vehicle is less and there are other signs of wear and tear I buy a new car. Each time the new car is much better than the one I had was when it was new. I certainly am not still trying to depend on a 1938 model although some have been refurbished and still run as well as they did new. There is little progress when people say the status quo is not great but O.K. so don't try to improve or make it better. Many options were not available on older cars nor were ROTH's, IRAs, 401Ks, tax exempt health care savings accounts, treasury bonds funds, annuities and other safe options were not available at the inception of SS.

October 3, 2011 at 5:27 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Harp3339 said: “No, I don't buy a new car when all that is needed is a tune up. . . . I certainly am not still trying to depend on a 1938 model . . . Many options were not available on older cars nor were ROTH's, IRAs, 401Ks, tax exempt health care savings accounts, treasury bonds funds, annuities and other safe options were not available at the inception of SS.”

Believe you’re either being disingenuous or just not thinking, Harp3339. The purpose of Social Security Insurance is to have a system that guarantees some financial security for every American during their retirement years - it’s a safety net that helps to keep retirees out of poverty. It provides an annual income for a person from the time they retire to the time a person dies. To date, the system has been working well in meeting this goal. I read that between1960 and 2008, Social Security helped cut the poverty rate among seniors by more than two-thirds.

While any of the options you list would be a good addition to Social Security Insurance none of the options that you’ve listed can guarantee the same level of security for every American - and our current system does this. The most obvious problem with annuities, ROTHs, IRAs 40IKs, treasury bonds etc. is simply that there is no guarantee that the money will be there from the time that a person retires to the time that a person dies. The bottom line is the money invested in any of the options you propose could disappear at any time - for a variety of reasons.

What if the person with the 401K invested their money in the stock market and lost big? Surely, even you can understand the negative impact this kind of investment scenario would have on an individual’s retirement income. And what if the retiree decides to cash in their annuities or ROTHs or IRA’s or treasury notes and to spend the money on medical bills or emergency house repairs? How will they survive through the remaining years of their retirement without an annual income? Do we just add bankrupt retirees to the social welfare system?

Get my point, Harp3339? All of the options you mentioned present some kind of potential risk, which is not the case with our current Social Security Insurance System. You can’t lose your Social Security Income through bad investments, and you can’t cash in your Social Security Income to take a cruise or to pay off your debts. It’s set up solely to guarantee that everyone has an annual income from the time that a person retires to the time that a person dies. When you think about the big picture, it seems to me that everyone benefits from this kind system.

October 3, 2011 at 1:46 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.