Red Dead

Could you place the body over here please?? Thank you ... Nurse! My instruments please ... Thank you. Could someone hand me my digital recorder please and start the camera ... Thank you.

I am ready to begin my postmortem examination now .....

Date - October 12th
Time - 11:30 am
Victim - Mr. Cincinnati Redleg
Time of Death - 4:59 pm on October 11th, 2012
Proximate Cause of Death - Choking

Starting with the head ... Maj. Gen. Dusty Custer ... commanding his fourth or fifth collapse in October ... the players have changed ... the teams have changed ... only one constant ... Dusty Baker as manager. The ligature marks around the neck have fiber from wristbands nearby and what looks like a toothpick poke ... yes ... it's definitely all the signature marks of a Dusty Baker play-off choke job. Bad luck or bad decisions is the only question left to determine how much of the culpability is contained in Baker's hands. Johnny Be Good going down with a strained oblique .. bad luck. Trotting Drew Stubbs out to centerfield every game in the series and the majority of the season ... bad decision. Preferring Scott Rolen to Smokin' Todd Frazier ever since Vottomatic returned to the line-up ... bad decision. Playing Agent Maxwell Smart on the Game 4 starter ... bad decision. Leaving Mike Leake in after the Giants scored a run in the 5th inning of Game 4 ... bad decision. Virtually every move in Game 5 ... bad decision. Leaving Mental Mat Latos in after 2 runs had scored and two more runners had reached base in the 5th inning of Game 5 ... bad decision. Calling not 1 but 2 hit and runs/steals in the bottom of the 5th inning with runners on 1st and 2nd - no outs - Hanigan at the plate which ended up as a strikeout/caught stealing double play ... bad decision.

Analysis: Dusty Custer manages a baseball game about as well as our government manages debt ... go check out the figures. For all of his New Age, SoCal cool vibe in his personal life, his baseball thinking is absolutely Victorian. On-base percentage .. doesn't matter to old Dusty .. just clogs up the bases .. which explains why Drew Stubbs and his .213 batting average and .277 on-base percentage was able to accumulate 586 plate appearances while Free Chris Heisey and his .265 batting average and .315 on-base percentage sat and watched the entire NLCS from the dugout. Baker's Victorian Age baseball thinking resulted in Ryan Hanigan  seeing his name appear in the 8th spot of the batting order until mid-September despite having one of the highest on-base percentages on the team. Catchers hit 8th and stop asking, thank you very much. Baker, an octogenarian himself, felt Scott Rolen deserved to play ahead of Smokin' Todd Frazier in September and October because he is Scott Rolen - he's been there before and earned the right to play in the post-season even if Smokin' Todd was better all-around (and should be ROY) than Rolen. Rolen repaid Dusty's misplaced faith with two errors - including a boot which lead to SF's winning run in game 3 - and a strikeout to end the Reds' season and Rolen's career. But much more importantly when Baker was required to think outside the box and manage each game like it was do or die, he missed many more times than he hit. His only great decision in the series was to throw Sudden Sam LeCure in immediate relief of an injured Johnny Be Good in game 1 before turning to Mental Mat for four innings. Game 4 and 5 gave Baker ample opportunities to reverse his Nero-like reputation and make the correct pitching change when things were going badly ... he failed. He kept Chapman, Broxton and Marshall in the pen until the Reds were down 6-3 .. why not go to Chapman in the 4th in an attempt to keep it a manageable 2-0 deficit. Any loyal readers think Posey goes yard off the Missle?? Yeah .. neither do I. Baker has yet to grasp the nature of playoff managing after 3000+ games, do any loyal readers expect his thinking to change in the future?? Yeah .. neither do I. So the Reds will continue doing what they have done .. winning in spite of Baker and failing when single game management becomes a huge factor in winning.

Now turning my attention to the arms .... with the exception of two innings ... the 5th inning of game 4 and 5 ... the arms looked great. 4 runs through the first 3 games of the series usually means 3 wins ... the relief corp - with the exception of Arredondo - also looked strong. Not much to see here ...

Analysis: The Reds pitchers have been the engine of the team all season. You can't really blame Mike Leake for being Mike Leake ... he was never expected to pitch in the NLDS and was then guarded like Col. Sander's secret recipe before his start in game 4. Sudden Sam LeCure was probably the Reds star arm of the series, with Mr. Arroyo and David Dewitt Bailey, Jr. trailing close behind. The top four of the rotation are set like Mt. Rushmore - Johnny Be Good, Dr. Bronson/Mr. Arroyo, Mental Mat Latos and David Dewitt Bailey, Jr. are carved in stone. The 5th spot has more intrigue than James Bond ... is it Mike Leake? Convert the Missile to an every 5th day launch schedule? Can Tony Cingrani step from the shadows and emerge as the last starter? Any way you look at it the Reds can't expect every starter to make every start during the regular season again. Baker's starters have never held up through two consecutive seasons (see Wood, Kerry and Prior, Mark and Volquez, Edison), not to mention Johnny Be Good and David Dewitt are very familiar with the DL. The Reds will need six or maybe seven pitchers to make it though 2013 and seem to be well positioned. The questions in the 'pen target the Missile ... what will his role be? He's had to be serviced the last two summers due to wing soreness ... can he hold up for a full season in either starting or relief roles? Broxton and Marshall are back for sure ... do the Reds re-sign the Phantom Ryan Madson?? Sudden Sam LeCure and JJ Hoover are sure things in middle relief. Of the twelve pitching spots up for discussion, nine (Cueto, Arroyo, Latos, Bailey, Chapman, Broxton, Marshall, LeCure, Hoover) are already spoken for. Three seats are left on the bus for a combination of Leake, Simon, Arredondo, Bray, Masset, Cingrani, Ondrusek, Redmond, Villarreal and possibly Madson.

Moving to the bats and gloves ... lots of maple splinters surround the ligature marks on the throat ... some from Canada ... some from Texas ... a closer examination of the splinters shows the initials RISP listed up the side ... some bats look to have disappeared during the series ... the gloves show some E5 and E6 sprinkled in at key inopportune times ... It appears to be the 2nd most likely cause for the ligature marks ...

Analysis: The bats have been troubling all season ... here are the averages of the starters for the season: .337, .281, .275, .274, .252, .246, .245, .213 (I can't count Smokin' Todd Frazier's .273 here because Dusty Custer doesn't see him as a starter). The team average is .251 .. not very imposing. Not to mention the Reds have struggled to hit with Runners In Scoring Position (RISP) all season. Vottomatic was anything but (I'll hold my analysis of his playoff choke this season because of his injury, but he didn't perform all that well in 2010 either), Rolen bat was back at molasses speed, Cozart did little and Jay Bruce was Jay Bruce. BTW .. Bruce is like the ultimate tease who then complains about not getting the proper attention. Hey Jay ... win some games in the play-offs and then bash the fans. The crowd was electric for Game 3 .. sorry you got your tail feathers ruffled while you were getting bashed in Game 4 ... go win the game and the fans will cheer!! Strike out in the bottom of the 9th with two runners on .. they won't. The Reds offense was also handicapped by Dusty Custer's insistence on playing Drew Stubbs and Scott Rolen. Smokin' Todd Frazier was top 5 on the team in every major offensive category, and got one start after Rolen booted a ball in game 3 (he also committed fewer errors than Scott Rolen for the season so please, save the Rolen in for defense argument for 2008). Payroll is going to lock the Reds out of many free agent acquisitions this off-season. Currently the team has $71million committed to 11 players. Ludwick has a mutual option, Latos-Leake-Bailey-Stubbs are arbitration eligible ... you're looking at $18million or more to bring back those 5 guys .. and you still need 9 more players!!! The team you saw in the NLDS is very similar to the team you will see in April 2013 .. maybe Rolen retires and is replaced by Frazier and please God Stubbs is moved for anybody somebody. Barring some major, unforeseen trade .. what you see if what you're going to get .. and that should be scary to any Reds fan out there. What I thought was Dusty's Last Stand appears to be Dusty's Next Chance ... I'm glad I'm already out of hair!!

Have a great weekend!!

Why does work always get in the way of fun??

Apologies, apologies .... been so busy teaching and prepping my new American History class (not to mention my revamped Government class) the blog has suffered ... tragic to few and welcome to many I know. I'm back today hitting on as many topics as I can as quickly as I can. After many comparisons on Bow Tie Tuesday to Mills Lane ... Let's get it on!! (not to be confused with Marvin Gaye's "Let's get it on!")



***Editorial note: If you'd like to skip the political banter, please skip to the next four paragraphs***

The Presidential Debates begin tonight in Denver and here is something you won't hear either candidate say: "We need to raise taxes and reduce spending if we want to reduce or eliminate the deficit and begin to pay off our national debt." Instead you will hear something more along these lines: "We need to stick our head deeper into the sand (or bull manure - since it is the main ingredient in all politicians words) and - Barack Obama voice - raise taxes on the wealthy or - Mitt Romney voice - it would take me too long to go through all the math but trust me it will work ... to reduce the deficit." (In an effort of full disclosure, the aforementioned quote attributed to Mitt Romney was actually the words of his VP candidate Paul Ryan when asked to explain the Romney/Ryan Budget on Meet the Press Sunday morning. Great ... a budget which takes too long to go through the math ... don't we already have a budget like that?) The fact of the matter is the current federal financial picture is ugly ... like Lyle Lovett/Steve Buscemi ugly. This fiscal year, the federal government will spend $1.1 trillion to $1.3 trillion more than the federal government takes in revenue. Republicans will point to Obama, ignoring the fact the Republican-controlled House had to approve the budget before it could move to the Senate. Obama & the Democrats will point to George Bush and the financial/economic mess he inherited four years ago. Both treat mirrors like Medusa did and refuse to look at their reflection, fearful of the ugly reflection of blame looking back at Democrats and Republicans alike. The only way to reduce our deficit/debt is to increase the revenue the federal government receives and decrease the amount of money our government spends.

I'll deal with revenue first, and people can 'read my lips' to understand new revenue streams are needed for the federal government period. But simply raising taxes to reduce the deficit doesn't do anything to combat our national debt. Heck .. maybe we should start with getting the IRS to collect all the income tax they are currently supposed to collect!! It's estimated (by the IRS no less!) American's underpaid their income tax to the tune of $345 billion in 2011 .. or almost 20% of the $1.1 trillion of income tax collected in 2011!! Those uncollected income taxes would decrease the deficit by 31%!! Maybe the IRS should do its job correctly .. you know .. hold a government agency accountable the same way the government wants to hold me accountable as a teacher. An 80% percent is what grade in school?? C??

Those uncollected $345 billion dollars won't close the deficit alone. The federal income tax rates need to be raised, heresy to many people reading. I too would prefer to keep Uncle Sam's hands off my money, but years of overspending (and tacit approval by the American voters of overspending by the repeated election of deficit spenders to office in Washington, D.C.) means all American's now have to chip in to pay the piper. I can hear the groans and screams of many of my right-wing friends now ... "Raising taxes causes job losses and cripples the economy!!" ... even if historical data doesn't support such a statement. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service said last week, "Past increases in tax rates have had no negative effect on economic growth." The CRS then backed up their statement with the following stats: when the tax rate on the highest tax bracket was 84.8% (from 1950 to 1970) the economy grew on average 3.86%. Guess those job-creators didn't mind too much?? What's that you say?? Too long ago for relevance in 2012?? Fine .. let's look at more recent stats. From 1987-1992 (Reagan-Bush 41 years), the highest tax rate was 33.3% and economic growth averaged 2.3% .. Reaganomics at its best!! From 1993-2002 (Slick Willy in the house!!), economic growth averaged 3.68% which shows the economy doesn't care what you do with cigars and interns in the Oval Office. From 2003-2007 (Bush 43 to the economic meltdown), tax rates in the highest bracket were lowered to 35% and economic growth was 2.29%. The last four years have seen the economy crash (2008 and 2009) and begin to rebound (2010 and 2011 - although 2010's rebound was due more to massive government spending than private sector recovery). The Bush 43 Era tax cuts cost the federal government $500 billion in revenue a year currently and when added to the $345 uncollected would cut the deficit by 75% each year!!! Not to mention returning the Social Security tax rate to 6.2% (from it's current 4.2%) which would add additional monies to the federal treasury. Reversing the Bush 43 Era tax cuts to capital gains and dividend income would further reduce the deficit to the point where meaningful spending cuts make a difference.

Please notice I said make spending cuts!!! Our government spends way too much on all programs - social and military - and all programs need to be cut. Want an example?? Read here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/03/us-intel-citizens-terrorists/1609919/ ... of course they can't even tell you how much federal money was spent, with estimates ranging from $300 million to $1.4 billion. All to turn up no meaning evidence of terrorist activity ... thanks Batman ... I feel safer now!! Or you could look at the algae filled reflecting pool between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial to see $34 million of your tax dollars at work ... except they didn't work and the pool must now be repaired at further cost to the federal government. The first reflecting pool, built 90 years ago with far less advanced engineering and machines, worked much better and cost much less .. about $5 million in today's dollars. Or the $12 million to fix two escalators in the Washington, D.C. subway. Or the $6.8 billion to extend the D.C. subway. And that's before I start to get into military examples, like spending $66.7 billion to design the F22 Raptor fighter which has been grounded several times and has a faulty oxygen valve (which the designers were aware of during the design/building phase) which causes hypoxia in pilots under certain conditions, leading to several crashes and deaths. While it's easy to pick on people who receive government assistance - the infamous 47% apparently!! - our government has provided for the poor, the unemployed, the disabled and the elderly for over 100 years and neither party has shown any inclination to stop those benefits.

The Reds will discover tonight who they play in the first round of baseball's playoffs. I know I have villified cussed insulted questioned Dusty Baker's managerial skills this season, but there is no doubt he has the respect of the clubhouse and the players inside. I still don't understand Stubbs as an automatic selection in centerfield, Smokin' Todd Frazier, ROY, as a bench player or two wristbands and a toothpick. What I do know is how enjoyable this season has been to watch the Reds pretty much be dominant in their division (Thank you Lastros and sCrUBS!!). Can the Reds wake the echos of Chris Sabo & Eric Davis and make this a Red October? I would say undoubtedly if Bud Selig hadn't changed horses mid-stream and decided the higher seed would play on the road for the first two games of the Divisional Series. Selig's decision ranks right up there with Gary Bettman's choice to lock out the NHL players - raise your hand if you follow the NHL or even knew it existed - but isn't surprising when you look back at his track record (a tie in the All-Star game?!?!). Forcing the higher seeded team to play the first two games on the road makes about as much sense as batting Drew Stubbs in the lead-off spot ... oh wait ... that happened! The Reds will most likely head to San Francisco to play the Giants and hope they can split the two games before returning to Cincinnati. Just like 2010, the Reds could return home down 2-0 in the best of five series ... how did that series end??? NG!!! Johnny's gotta be good in game one and Mr. Arroyo needs to keep Dr. Bronson locked away for a night ... and the Reds hop a red-eye back to Cincinnati with a 2-0 lead!!! Pessimistic Scott has been abducted!!! Let's go RedLegs!!!

The Arsenal Gunners are back on the pitch around 2:45 today taking on Olympiakos in the Champions League. The Gunners are struggling to find goals despite playing some of the slickest passing football I have seen from them in years. I think it's the uniforms ... seriously!! Since changing the teams uniform crest the Gunners have won ........ nothing! Change the uniform, change stadium, lose all your winning karma. A win today would go a long way toward getting out of the group stages of the Champions competition and into the knock-out stages so I'm hoping for the best.

Okay .. heading to a meeting .. editing and responses later .. watch the debates tonight and report back .. yes I give homework!!!

The Refpocalypse!!!

We interrupt this regularly scheduled broadcast of NFL 'Merica for the following breaking news ....... beep beep beep beep ...... beep beep beep beep ...... Reports are filtering in from the Pacific Northwest of brainless zombies clad in black and white striped shirts causing temporary insanity for football fans across the United States ...... the striped zombies pose a particular threat to bettors across the nation (evidence of targeting one category of degenerates before moving on to higher priority targets) and caused between $150-$250 million in damages with one call last night ......  outraged football fans crashed Twitter in the immediate aftermath of the Touchbackdown ....... apparently Roger Goodell is commanding this army of striped zombies with computer controlled, implanted microprocessors from China ...... BW3 shared their RRCS (remote referee control system) with Roger Goodell shortly after the Commish took a dump on the integrity of the NFL shield ...... Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

WOW!!! If last night has taught us anything, it is that drama in Seattle is not limited to Seattle Grace-Mercy Hospital and Kurt Cobain's garage. Rare indeed is the occasion when I am left speechless, but last night's debacle in Seattle left me mute for at least fifteen minutes following the conclusion of the Green Bay - Seattle Monday Night Football free-for-all. Vince McMahon himself could not have scripted a better ending to Monday Night Raw and is now furiously scribbling notes for storylines involving replacement wrestling referees and a John Cena - C.M. Punk endzone no-holds barred cage match. I have seen plenty of bad officiating in my lifetime - actually a lot of bad officiating ... I think I am the Sisyphus of bad officiating and it starts all over on November 30th this year!! - but this level of absurdity is an entirely different spectrum. It's not just the end of the MNF game, there are literally dozens of examples (Detroit-Tennessee & Cincinnati-Washington come immediately to mind) where the striped zombies made errors which either did or could have impacted the outcome of the game. No coach, player or rule is safe when the striped zombies set their sights on you, as Matt Schaub, Bill Belichick, Darius Heyward-Bey, Kyle Shanahan and the Cheesehead Nation can attest.

Maybe you are naturally inquisitive like me and you ask why are the regular NFL officials sitting at home right now instead of watching the striped zombies. According to multiple sources, the league and its officials are haggling over about $3million - which is an enormous sum of money until you learn the NFL profits approximately $1.5billion per season. Those three million disputed greenbacks represent about .2% of the NFL's profits ... pocket change. It's like me spending $150 over the course of a year ... $2 bucks a week. End the shenanigans - and Shanahans! - Roger!!! Pay the officials!!!

In the meantime, the latest AP poll has Roger Goodell 2nd in the Worst Sports Commissioner Poll out this week. Gary Bettman has locked this position up for years - think Tiger Woods in his prime dominant - and lead his league who no one watches anyway into another lockout. Quick: name ten NHL franchises without the help of Google or name twenty NHL players with the help of Google. Can't do it can you!! That's the guy Rog is trailing .. not a good sign. Players continue to head hunt opponents - see Schaub, Matt and Heyward-Bey, Darius for this week's examples - with no real fear of punishment. Player safety and concussion awareness is a running joke until a player is ejected from a game and suspended - fines mean nothing to guys making millions per year. Soccer ejects and suspends players for fouls which could lead to injury. It's time for the NFL to follow suit. Fifteen yard penalties are great until Junior Seau shoots himself in the chest so his brain can be studied for concussion damage. Replacement referees who are hesitant to make any call are definitely not going to eject a player for dangerous play ... so tell me again how concerned the league is about player safety Roger????

Interesting discussion in class today about the role of news and media in shaping public opinion. Since our media in the United States is commercially driven, what news are we really getting? What type of news generates the best ratings - which generates advertising dollars - which pays for most broadcast news? Hmmmm .... I'll take "Bad News Sells" for $300 Alex. Compare that answer to the points Gregg Easterbrook brings up in Tuesday Morning Quarterback:

Good News Ignored No. 1: Conditions in the United States are much better than anyone's election rhetoric would suggest -- international tensions and world military deaths at historic lows, all forms of pollution except greenhouse gases in decline, most disease rates declining, education levels rising, middle-class income stalled but middle-class purchasing power (considering falling real-dollar prices and smaller households) at a historic peak. Unemployment is the clear worst problem, trailed closely by poverty. Poverty, in history's richest nation, is an outrage.

This commentary contends that while all politicians talk about unemployment, most don't really care -- most of the poor don't take the time to vote, and those without college degrees don't make political donations. So why care?

The smart commentary by Stephen Carter shows that poverty is a far more serious problem than the rising opulence of the 1 percent. Aside: Carter's new novel, "The Impeachment of Abraham Lincoln," is a fascinating read. In this "what if" fiction, Lincoln survives the assassination attempt, then is faced with an impeachment coalition of bitter Confederates and Radical Republicans who are furious that he won't do more to punish the South.

Lately the poverty rate has been in the news with the national average at 15.9 percent; the rate is higher in many states. But poverty statistics do not take into account benefits such as food stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit, which mails checks to many who pay no taxes. Federal benefits have increased dramatically in the last generation. This new Brookings Institution study shows that when rising government benefits are taken into account, the poverty rate drops to only about a third what it was in 1980 -- meaning tremendous progress.

If poverty is easing and federal benefits are a main reason, why don't liberals generally, and Barack Obama specifically, roll the drums for this? Reduction of poverty is among the leading government accomplishments of the postwar era. But because liberals generally, and Barack Obama specifically, like to cry doomsday about inequality, they don't seem to want to highlight evidence that federal programs are working. After all, if federal programs are already working, why have more federal programs?

Any poor person would rather have cash income from work than increased government benefits. But as this commentary shows, claims about runaway inequality become much less worrisome when increased federal benefits are taken into account.

Now think about what happens when the Affordable Care Act goes into full force in 2014. It is not universal health insurance, which the United States needs. It is, rather, an income transfer program -- taxes on the well-off will rise so average people who currently pay for their health insurance instead will receive it free or very cheaply. That's income transfer. But because the transfer will be noncash -- average people no longer having to pay for something they now must pay for, rather than receiving higher wages -- the ObamaCare benefits will not show up in arguments about inequality.

Under the Affordable Care Act, many families will be better off by thousands of dollars annually. But leftists will make the same claims about rising inequality. Will Obama acknowledge that his own plan reduces inequality?

The answer to Easterbrook's last question is no, Obama won't acknowledge a reduction in inequality. If there is less inequality, there is a lessened need for government programs to address inequality. There is a reason Washington, D.C. has been immune to the job losses of the Great Recession. Why? Hmmmmm ... I'll take "The Government can create new government jobs at will" for $100 Alex. If there is less inequality, how will Obama rally the electorate to actually show up at the polls? Lessened inequality is good news for people in poverty and for the economy in general ... why would Fox News talk about something good? Feel good strories generate no controversy, controversy generates buzz, buzz draws viewers and viewers attract sponsorship/advertising dollars. Compare the American model of news reporting to the British/Canadian model of news reporting - the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are the most viewed news reports in both countries. Both are publicly funded and do not need to attract corporate sponsorship. Both present a much more balanced view (good and bad, not always left and right!) of the current climate in each country. In Britain and Canada, the difference between tabloid reporting and journalism is easy to spot ... In American not so much.

Enough for today ... tomorrow I'll talk the Reds and Bengals and Dusty's irregular heartbeat. Ciao!!

I'm not above stealing!!

I recognize there are a few people around this great country of ours who are smarter, more articulate and more charismatic than myself. I don't know if Bernie Sanders is any of these things, but I do know he raises important, though-provoking points when he chooses to speak before U.S. Senate. He's an INDEPENDENT (1 of 2 in the Senate) and is beholden to neither Democratic or Republican obtuse philosophy. This is one of his best speeches I have come across (although his debate with Paul Ryan over healthcare is right up there!). All of my red friends should remember who the "dependent class" was in 2008 when their jobs where at stake in "too big to fail" banking institutions. All of my blue friends should remember who was complicit in allowing deregulation of the banking, investment and insurance industries to benefit only those people in the banking, investment and insurance industries at the expense of the common man (and my $140,000 lost in AIG!!).

Without further ado, for your viewing pleasure, the junior Senator from Vermont ... Bernie Sanders:

If your workplace forbids watching YouTube, here is the direct link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Y-u0UnKZ_U&feature=player_embedded

Ruminate and we'll talk tomorrow!

One day I'll dog Obama .. Promise!

Facebook is a wonderful invention. It's not wonderful to listen to lemmings spout political philosophy they know nothing about. It is wonderful to engage in educated political debate with friends on both sides of the color wheel from time to time. Mitt Romney was nice enough to provide some foot-in-mouth disease for the media yesterday, and my friends were nice enough to debate his comments with me. Without further ado, here is our running commentary:

Hide from Timeline

Scott Kerr

Yesterday via Twitter

• Wow Mitt! Class warfare anyone??

 ·  · @CoachSTK on Twitter

• Brad Stokes and Kevin Jones like this.
• • 

    Adam Girton He said nothing but the absolute truth

    Yesterday at 7:12am via mobile ·  · 3
  • 

    Scott Kerr Then you are ignorant of the people who support Obama. The 47% of people Mitt was referring to are a very small percentage of voters and that's why he can insult them.

    Yesterday at 8:06am · 
  • 

    Christopher Roach Adam totally agree !! Romney 2012 !!

    Yesterday at 8:38am via mobile · 
  • 

    Missy Specht-Saldana Enough with the political rambling Carville! Sincerely , Mary

    Yesterday at 8:50am via mobile · 
  • 

    Scott Kerr Sorry Mary, just hard to ignore the FACT that the 47% Mitt was referring to do pay taxes to the Federal Government called Social Security (the surplus of which is deposited into the government's general fund) and Medicare, not to mention the state & local taxes (sales, property, income). Mitt also includes in this percentage the 16 million elderly (5% of the total US population) who avoid income taxes because of breaks designed solely for elderly. It's also telling that none of the people commenting here, including myself, could have afforded to attend the dinner where Mitt made his comments. Sad when people don't know they are the one's being talked about.

    Yesterday at 9:04am · 
  • 

    Oak Martin He didn't say they didn't pay taxes to the government. He specifically stated they don't pay income tax which is a fact. We all know there is a difference between that and the taxes you mention and with which the media are rebutting errr...crucifying his statement. Here are some questions folks need to be asking. Why was secretly taped and held for release since May? Is it any more uncomfortable for either side now as opposed to then? Why do we continue to challenge the perspective and background of one candidate and have yet to do so for the incumbent? Nearly every attempt to find similar or identical information or to question the ideological influences of our POTUS has been squelched since his candidacy was announced. Personally, I agree with Romney as I see evidence of it on a daily basis, some of it brazenly boasted to me. Until the last couple of years, I was part of that 47%. I'm not offended by the factual nature of the statistic or by the generalization that all who make up the statistic support Obama. I'm not a supporter of Obama and frankly never will be. There is class and racial warfare being waged in this election. It is being fanned in an effort to distract all voters from the core issues that should be discussed and addressed by the candidates. Why is no one challenging this POTUS to sequester Congress to keep us for the taxmageddon and fiscal cliff we are doomed to realize on Jan. 1, 2013? Why is no one challenging this POTUS on his inactivity with national security threats? Why is no one challenging Romney on how he would bring up the lower class and bridge the gap between those dependent upon Federal support and independent wage earners? It's all bread and circus and it's growing both wearisome and troubling. Sorry, but this media clip is much ado about nothing...truly.

    Yesterday at 11:11am ·  · 1
  • 

    Ryan Adams Just like the people clinging to their guns and religions...

    Yesterday at 11:12am via mobile · 
  • 

    Scott Kerr Just like we all know there is a difference between the 47% of American's who pay no federal income tax and the percent of American's "who are dependent on government" and "who believe they are victims" and "who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them". $50,000 a plate .... who here can splash that amount of cash on dinner with Mitt??

    Yesterday at 11:19am · 
  • 

    Scott Kerr And you're 100% correct Ryan .. the government has no more business legislating morality than I do, but don't tell the Religious Right that!!

    Yesterday at 11:20am · 
  • 

    Scott Kerr Also please remember which party passed the tax cuts which wiped out the tax liability for the largest chunk of that 47% .. hint: it wasn't the Democrats!

    Yesterday at 11:20am · 
  • 

    Ryan Adams Scott- you're joking, right? The 47 % who pay no federal income taxes are the people who won't or don't work or make so little that they get the earned income tax credit which most assuredly wasn't a republican initiative.

    Yesterday at 11:25am via mobile · 
  • 

    Oak Martin Guess who was a key force behind fanning the flame of this video thats been on youtube since May? Jimmy Carter IV. Things that make you go hmmm?

    Yesterday at 11:41am via mobile ·  · 1
  • 

    Oak Martin Scott on election day 2008 and days that follow, a common statement made directly to med by folks who fit Mitts classification was "Obama won and brothers gonna get paid." I continue to hear similar statements from similar folks. Romney is not off base with his generalization. He is merely echoing the idea attributed to Ben Franklin that "when the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

    Yesterday at 11:49am via mobile · 
  • 

    Scott Kerr Ryan you tell me which party passed legislation reducing the tax liability for people? It wasn't the tax and spend Democrats!! The unintended consequence for cutting taxes for everyone was that people making below $50,000 can commonly (through mortgage interest deductions, educational expense deductions, etc...) pay no federal income tax and about half of all households making between $50,000 & $100,000 can pay no federal income tax. You can read about how it works here: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001547-Why-No-Income-Tax.pdf If people making $50,000 are freeloaders than our country is in bigger trouble than any of us know. Oak .. you are correct. Very similar to Donald Trump and his support of birthers. There is also a big difference between folks who fit Mitt's classification saying "brothers gonna get paid" and Obama saying "brothers gonna get paid". As for Benjamin Franklin, he was correct. I'm not a huge supporter of entitlement programs, but I'm also wise enough to know there are people who benefit from these programs and go on to lead productive, income-tax paying lives who would not without government assistance. I, for one, benefited greatly from Pell Grants and government subsidized student loans to get my education and become a productive, income-tax paying member of society. I could not have borrowed from my mother and her $12,000 per year salary to go to college as Mitt believes I should have done. Using Mitt's logic, I spent my formative years as a free-loader and would never vote for a Republican. So it's curious to me that I voted Republican in 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004 (just like my mother, father, both sets of grandparents until their deaths).

    Yesterday at 12:12pm · 
  • 

    Ryan Adams Scott, you couldve done like I and alot of people I know did and joined the military and paid for college that way.

    Yesterday at 12:17pm via mobile · 
  • 

    Scott Kerr Not to denigrate your service, but you used the government's money to pay for college. So did I .. and then I repaid all of it with interest. And today I make enough money to pay federal income tax!! Mitt Romney should love me, not insult me.

    Yesterday at 12:47pm ·  · 1
  • 

    Tom Nerl Mr History Teacher: please recall Candidate Obama's April 2008 comments about the other side toting their guns. And then repeat the class warfare statement. Thank you

    19 hours ago via mobile · 
  • 

    Oak Martin I don't believe it's Romney's position and it's certainly not mine that government assistance isn't beneficial or needed. I'm not ashamed to share that my family and I benefited from subsidized housing, WIC, SSDI, and CHIP for a period of time. The difference is that I never viewed those benefits as a solution to my situation. Honestly, I took them with great reluctance, but am grateful they were available. There is abundant evidence though, that the (ab)use of these and other programs are excessively out of hand and only increasing. Add to that that only 53% of Americans pay taxes and you have very simple economic problem. At the end of the day accounting is easy...dollars in minus dollars out. It has to stop, EVERYONE has to pony up. That's Romney's point. Instead of engaging over the issue that is the elephant in the room, the liberal establishment is going to blow this hugely out of context in an effort to sustain power. On a side note, I wonder what we would hear in the donor meetings Obama has with Soros and others?? Hmmm.

    17 hours ago · 
  • 

    Scott Kerr tom .. if it was 2008 I would, but it's 2012. oak .. here is my problem with Romney's statement. he uses a number (47% even though the OMB and IRS say the number is 46% .. no difference really) which describes the percentage of American's who own no federal income tax and then extrapolates that number to say all people who pay no income tax claim victim status or expect the government to pay for all their needs. facts show a different - completely different! - picture of people who rely on the government for their needs. the U.S. Dept. of Health which administers TANF - the programs which people call welfare and you referenced above - says approximately 8% of the US population receives some assistance from TANF and 1.7% of the population receives over 50% of their income from TANF. 8% of the population is not a dependent class of people on the wealthy, and the statement makes even less sense when you consider only 1.7% of our population receive over 50% of their income from welfare. there is also a HUGE difference between 46 or 47% and 8%, but Romney doesn't differentiate between those two groups of people. the elephant in the room is government spending period, not just on entitlement programs. military spending, mandatory spending and interest on the national debt account for all the tax revenue our government collects. all discretionary spending is deficit spending, yet neither party has advocated cutting all discretionary spending nor have they even been able to make a meaningful cut to mandatory spending. and if you look at the last meaningful change to welfare legislation it came in 1996 under a republican legislature and a democratic president - imagine that .. bipartisan cooperation .. something which no longer exists. our tax code needs to be thrown out and completely rewritten, but neither party has put forth a plan to do that either. this congress, and to be fair president, have been the least productive in the modern era of US government. they are ALL to blame for the situation our country currently faces. by insulting 47% of the US population and saying "I don't care about them because they don't support me" will only serve to continue the divisiveness in Washington. many people today have thrown around ideas from the framers of the Constitution, forgetting that what set the framers apart was a willingness to compromise for the greater good. all of our leaders would be wise to remember that today.

    17 hours ago · 
  • 

    Jerry Schrock My position on this has been made very clear... bout the only thing I can add is this... If what Mitt said was so true... let's see how many time he repeats it on the record over the next month or so.

    16 hours ago ·  · 1
  • 

    Oak Martin The way the media and and you are using the 47% comment is out of context. As he acknowledged, it wasn't eloquently stated. I've listened to the audio several times. In context, he's clearly stating that he doesn't believe he should put a lot of effort or concern into attracting those 47% of voters. Rather, he sees value in focusing on the independents, moderates, undecideds who represent about 10-15% of voters...the same ones Obama focused on four years ago. Only difference is no on has Obama saying it on tape. It is truly a mountain made out of less than a molehill, but in age of soundbytes it's going to sting his campaign. On the spending, bipartisanship, all to blame points, I'm with you. This sound byte though only fans the flame of the divisiveness you mentioned.

    16 hours ago · 
  • 

    Jerry Schrock Oh, one more thing... Miguel Cabrera IS the best hitter in baseball.

    16 hours ago · 
  • 

    Scott Kerr i agree Romney eventually says he has to focus on the 5-10% of independent voters, but it's not taken out of context when he answers this question, "For the past three years, all everybody's been told is, "Don't worry. We'll take care of it." How are we gonna do it, in two months before the elections, to convince everybody you've gotta take care of yourself?" with the answer, "Well, there are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right? There are 47% who are with him. Who are dependent upon government, who believe that-- that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they're entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it. But that's-- it's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And-- and-- I mean the president starts off with 48%, 49%, 40-- or he-- he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. 47% of Americans pay no income taxes. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every-- every four years." That was his verbatim lead in to saying he needs to focus on 5-10% of the independent voters. The question was about convincing Americans they need to take care of themselves, not swaying independent voters. If he had said,"47% of American's support Obama for a variety of reasons, and I can't sway those voters", then i could buy your argument about the statement being all about value targeting. but at a $50,000, mostly white, all upper-upper-class (i'm being very generous in not calling the attendees rich) dinner he chose to use an extremely prejudicial number to lump all supporters of Obama as the group of people who pay no tax, insinuating that only the poor support Obama. it's simply not true. a soundbite is "read my lips, no new taxes" or "i did not have sexual relations with that women", not expounding on an answer by insulting Americans.

    16 hours ago · 
  • 

    Scott Kerr yes schrock .. miggy cabrera is the best hitter in baseball

    16 hours ago · 
  • 

    Oak Martin You know as well as I do it will be minimized to such in the same way "you didn't build that" has been. Yes, he was appealing to his audience. Don't all politicians do that? As I said earlier, let's hear an unauthorized taping of Obama in Hollywood or at Vegas last week or with Soros and Co.

    15 hours ago · 

Here's the rub: Romney and his red friends would have you believe there is a large class of people who are completely dependent on the federal government for their food and housing and 'whatever', that this class of people claim they are victims of the system and coincidentally pay no income tax. Red kool-aid drinkers will tell you this class of dependent people is 47% of the American population, which is really close to number of American's who have no federal income tax liability (46% according to the IRS). The problem with this red logic lies in the numbers, or lack thereof. The U.S. Department of Health - the government organization in charge of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), often called welfare - says only 8% of the U.S. population (29.9 million people) received funds from TANF in 2011, and only 1.7% of the U.S. population receive over 50% of their income from TANF. So at most one in every twelve and a half people (8 in 100) are in this dependent class, no where near the 47% number. Raise your hand - digitally of course - if you've every taken out a subsidized student load, gotten a Pell Grant or Supplemental Educational Opportunty Grant, used the Montgomery G.I. Bill (written by Sonny Montgomery, a Democrat from Mississippi BTW) to pay for your college education, received unemployment insurance or workers compensation when you were out of work or relied on food stamps to put food on the table. If you answered any of those questions with a yes - and I listed a small, small percentage of federal programs - then you are technically part of the dependent class. Yes, that includes all of you red friends!! It seems many red politicians have forgotten the basic goals laid out for the U.S. government in the Constitution, namely promoting the general welfare.

Instead all politicians ignore the basic problem with our government - spending!! Is entitlement spending a problem? Yes, and it will only grow larger and larger. Is military spending a problem? Yes, and it will only grow larger and larger. In 2008, our military - with the consent of our Congress and President - decided to spend $662million to refurbish the U.S.S. Enterprise, a nuclear aircraft carrier, to extent it's operation life until 2012 (after a two year refurbishment period, the Navy actually only will get two years of operational life from the refurbished Enterprise). This money was spent despite the FACT the U.S. Navy has ten times the number of aircraft carriers of any other navy and the FACT the United States spends more on its military than the next 22 nations COMBINED! Republican President - Democratic Congress .. who's to blame?? The United States doesn't have a tax revenue problem (despite 46% of America having no federal income tax liability), the United States has a spending problem. Instead of pointing to the dependent class as a problem, why not point the finger at the defense contractors who go wildly overbudget ($124BILLION in 2010 alone - more than the mandatory military spending cuts currently before Congress) or are delinquent in their tax payments ($3BILLION in delinquent taxes currently owed by defense contractors alone!!)??? Because criticizing military spending immediately marks you with a scarlet letter - Unpatriotic. So according to red philosophy - hold people responsible for their own well-being, but allow military contractors to behave in the most irresponsible manner possible. U.S. military spending has increased from $300Billion in 2001 to $550 Billion in 2011 ... did I miss an 86% inflation rate over the last decade? Feel free to talk entitlement cuts and dependent classes, just be prepared to hear about the military-industrial complex and the people who benefit from military contractor investments.

Both sides are to blame for the financial cliff the United States is teetering on. People who fail to acknowledge the complicity of both parties for this impending disaster are playing ostrich. Republicans and Democrats alike won't include speaking points about the the financial Freddy Krueger in our government's nightmares. No red and blue glasses for me!