After sifting through all your Palin leg humping (which, by the way, does not apply to what I was saying about contributions in exchange for votes, seeing as how Palin is thankfully not a member of either house of Congress), this little gem stood out:

“Sorry, Obama has not given us the CSpan hearings we were promised. This process has not been out in the front for all to see. If he were half of what Palin was as governor, we’d all be working together for the betterment of this country’s future.”

You should have known better than to come around that topic. First of all, Obama is not a member of Congress, so complaining about closed door meetings at this point is nothing more than cheap political theater. You people had every opportunity in the world to be productive members of this process. Instead, you chose to obstruct and delay at every step of the way. Then you threw in good old fashioned lies to sucker stupid people. Obama has tried, time and time again, to reach out, to work together for the betterment of this country’s future, but your party has done nothing but bite the hand that feeds its insincerity. And because of that, no one is particularly happy with the legislation that is moving through the conference committee. Perhaps if people on your side of the aisle gave a fuck about anybody but themselves, this could have been different…

Why do you care if someone does well enough for themselves to retire at 55? If you work hard enough, you can retire at 40. Not everyone thinks it’s a good idea to work up until the day you die.

“First, we had an entire generation of folks who worked only one job. Robert, the government themselves are acknowledging that the system is bankrupt and insolvent.”

What are you talking about? What does the government have to do with pensions from the private sector?

“You’re acting as if NAFTA’s existence played a role in the demise of the US Auto industry”

I’m acting? That’s rich. Yup, I’m merely pretending that GM opened up plants in Mexico and closed them in Detroit. NAFTA absolutely played a big role in the demise of the US auto industry in the US.

“just as the teacher’s unions are responsible for the demise of Detroit public schools and its massive dropout rates.”

That’s disingenuous at best. What of all the rest of the nation’s schools that have high graduation rates? Do unions just not exist there?

“No, I am saying that anybody can achieve that without unions that feel the need to cut massive campaign checks to liberals while folks like you pretend to care about the average American when in essence the “average Americans” are far more represented as “consumers” who work and earn in the free market as opposed to a small sector of people belonging to one union who keeps liberals in public office.”

I wish you had the capacity to appreciate irony, because while you demonize unions for donating to political campaigns (which I also oppose), you fail to see that big business that has no tolerance for unions also donates to political campaigns. It’s just that you like where one set of contributions are going, thus making you an inconsistent hypocrite.

“Obama took PLENTY from Wall Street and from unions”

I said PACs, Steve. PACs. He didn’t take money from PACs. Learn to read, would you? And let me remind you that a vast majority of his contributions came from everyday people who gave $200 or less.

“Who are you to say that corporations cannot give but the unions they have to bow to can? ”

Again, learn to read. Slow yourself down before being purely reactionary. I have already said that I don’t think unions should be allowed to donate money to politicians. The real question that should be aimed at you should be why do you think it’s okay for multinational corporations to give to republicans, but not okay for unions to give to democrats? All the inconsistency lies on your side of this argument.

“Corporations create this economy”

Well said. Unintended, I’m sure, but well said.

“Unions don’t do that!”

It’s not the goal of unions to create jobs any more than it is of corporations. Let’s not pretend that their goal is to do anything but make a profit. The only, and I mean only reason that corporations hire people is because they know that worker will make more money than it costs to employ them. Pure and simple.

“And your drivel about Billionaires after your party plays footsies with George Soros and Warren Buffet (and Al Gore) is hilarious”

What;s hilarious is that you found two that weren’t playing for your team. Two.

“Go ahead, stop billionaires from doing things! Do you really think that’s going to hurt grassroots conservatism?”

YES! How do you think the teabaggers would react if they knew that their “grassroots” movement was funded by Koch Industries, and that they were once again actively fighting against their own best interests? That’s a lot of egg on a lot of faces…

“Detroit proves it. It is the most historically liberal city (one of those most anyway) entrenched in big unions and entitlements. What else do you need?”

Facts instead of innuendo. A direct correlation between what your gripe is and the reality of the situation.

“They don’t funnel money to liberal politicians for stricter regulation on their industries. They do it to be exempt from whatever regulation of the week Nancy Pelosi is yammering about.”

Yeah? How’d that work out?

“As would be the case with Sarah Palin (my prediction for 2013), she will have mediocre approval ratings in her first year as President”

Holy shit. Oh, Steve. Do you genuinely believe that she could be elected? Oh man, you’re a true believer, aren’t you? God bless you, you poor, deluded bastard. If she were foolish enough to run, she would not make it out of the primary. That’s my prediction. That’s priceless. Oh, and you can save your little fingers from typing out the predictable response of me being “afraid” of her, cause no one’s buying it…

“It’s also why he won a Nobel Peace Prize for getting a family dog and taking a family portrait.”

Oh, jealously does not look good on you. Tell you what, if you guys manage to elect a con who isn’t a corporatist war monger, you might have a shot at getting one too…

You are so full of crap about that.

You can start rolling your eyes now because this reply is going to focus on Sarah Palin. To start, I am offering up my treasured-signed copy of Going Rogue (provided you send it back) to have you read it word-for-word. If interested, e-mail me your mailing address.

Sarah Palin is a prime example for fairness. Throughout the entire book, she references Murkowski, the Republican enemies she made when working for the AOGC and why she was forced to resign.

She also references ExxonMobil many times. ExxonMobil made a contract with the previous Governor to lease up a lot of Alaska’s land. This was an example of Republican-dirty-old-men politics, behind closed doors. (Murkowski also denied Palin a Senate seat because she had children but then later handed it to his daughter who had two children of her own).

It’s really too much to go into here. But the facts of Palin have been out there so long, how she reformed the Republican party, how she fought against them — how she acknowleged that folks wanted to see “diversity” within a party ran by “rich old white guys.”

Anyway — after being elected Governor, Palin was ecstatic to get her hands on reforming the existing AGIA bill. Part of that reforming process was answering the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Exxon Valdez spill and how the benefits for Alaskans were cut down immensely. They were cut down partly because of the existing contract with Murkowski. You can see Palin’s response to it (before she was tapped for VP) here:

She explains personal involvement in helping the people clean up back when it happened. (in the book, not the video)

But prior to this video, she had been working on reforming the old contracts so that Alaskans could start receiving their share of the resources in which they owned. The Alaskan Constitution guarantees ownership of the state’s natural resources to the citizens.

Being an avid outdoor person, she understood first-hand the value of refining energy in environmentally-responsible ways. Obviously, the steps needed by the oil companies like Exxon required more money. What did they do? They chose to sit on those leases and do nothing and pursued to refine in other countries that did not have those environmental restrictions.

If you remember, a lot of the controversy among then-Republicans and then-Democrats on a national level was whether or not to lift environmental restraints from the oil companies so that we could tap into our own resources.

Apparently then, Palin sided with the Democrats.

The big oil companies price-gauged Alaskans in an effort to cover the costs required for responsible refining domestically but still sat on those leases and watched their profit margins go up.

THAT was when she proceeded with the surcharge on oil companies. That’s when the people began receiving checks. Through legal technicalities drummed up by the previous Murkowski administration, Exxon was able to put the state and the country last, so Palin used her power to respond. Not only did they pay back money that would have belonged to Alaskans anyway if they had did the responsible thing by utilizing Alaska’s resources, Palin then moved forward with re-writing the contract and replacing the old “closed-door” legislation drafted by Murkowski.

First, she brought in TV Cameras. Then she demanded the citizens be involved in writing the legislation. Then she demanded the AGIA bill be drafted in layman’s terms so that every Alaskan would not have to hire a lawyer to interpret it. In response to all of this, ExxonMobil and its Board of Directors began sending nasty e-mails and phone calls to Palin along with public statements to the media all over the country portraying Alaska as incapable of moving forward with a plan, to which the then-Governor Palin said:

“What bothers me is that Alaska tried it Exxon’s way. The result was a contract [Murkowski's] that is not viable. It did not have the support of the public or the legislature. That’s why we need a competitive, open, and transparent process. It’s painfully obvious that ExxonMobil does not want that process. We know exactly where we’re going and have a plan to move forward. Exxon doesn’t like that plan because it puts the interests of Alaska and the nation first—and not Exxon.”

Can you imagine the hell she went through fighting off previous Republican lobbyists and other Republicans who held power for so long ALONG with the honchos at Exxon?

And other issues are detailed in the book as well where she “went Rogue” outside of her party without buying into full liberalism either. She exercised common sense.

That’s who I have been supporting!

You liberals are the ones who have demonized her as a radical, as a religious-right-winged extremist, etc. Part of the fun for me — as is the case when you and I debate — is watching liberals get worked up over her.

But I do not support someone solely because liberals hate them.

I realized the reform needed on both sides of the aisle.

You cannot say the same thing Robert about Obama with this whole Health Care debacle.

Closed door meetings, back-door deals with Ben Nelson, answering to lobbyists, drug companies not addressed, nothing of any meaning whatsoever.

Shit, do you know easy it would have been to just come out and say: “you must have health insurance now or you must pay a fine or be jailed — even if you are young and healthy and half of the 30M Americans that do not want it!”?

Sarah Palin — as with the oil industry — understands the lobbyists hold a lot of power. Health Care as a whole cannot be risked by delivering one black and white big government “solution.”

Micromanagement is needed here. Drug companies, passing legislation preventing drug companies to lobby, making sure that the fair and average is represented. Tort reform, allowing us to purchase across state lines, ridding the corruption….

I find it hard to believe that we can still hate Sarah Palin for being a partisan Republican when she hasn’t been one! I also find to hard to believe that this woman who worked so hard for her state would be recognized the way she has been.

She would have tackled health care. And she would have pissed off both Democrats and Republicans in the process.

Sorry, Obama has not given us the CSpan hearings we were promised. This process has not been out in the front for all to see. If he were half of what Palin was as governor, we’d all be working together for the betterment of this country’s future.

I am tired of you suggesting that I or Mel excuses any kind of back-door deals from campaign contributions to lobbyists when we have screamed about it over and over again.

Be fair. Because you know it isn’t true!

Then don’t rely on me. Ask any accountant, on average, if the W2 brought in by an employee of Ford or GM did not top six figures and that those accompanying employees did not face retirement at age 55.

“That argument makes no sense, because the employees paid into the pension, and assuming funds are matched dollar for dollar (which many pensions are not) and current employees are paying into their pensions, there should be no problem. There is no paying out more than taking in…”

First, we had an entire generation of folks who worked only one job. Robert, the government themselves are acknowledging that the system is bankrupt and insolvent. Employers match the 7.65 for social security and medicare. But every other employer I know matches up to 5% of the gross wage for 401K. If we stopped the travesty known as social security, I could invest my own 7.65% in my own plan. Then my employer could raise my pay the 7.65% they have to match.

“NAFTA did not earnestly attempt to address any problem.”

Yes, it did. Moreover; that wasn’t my argument in its entirety. You’re acting as if NAFTA’s existence played a role in the demise of the US Auto industry when that responisbility lies with the UAW, just as the teacher’s unions are responsible for the demise of Detroit public schools and its massive dropout rates. But now, you have “No Child Left Behind” to blame, so you will tout the unions as successes for as long as you can. I can’t say that I blame you, it’s just that Americans know better.

” I thought you were supposed to represent all those “real” Americans who worked hard and earned what they have. Turns out when those people did just that while belonging to unions, it’s evil and must be stopped”

No, I am saying that anybody can achieve that without unions that feel the need to cut massive campaign checks to liberals while folks like you pretend to care about the average American when in essence the “average Americans” are far more represented as “consumers” who work and earn in the free market as opposed to a small sector of people belonging to one union who keeps liberals in public office.

“How many companies in how many industries have gone under without unions?”

How many companies in how many industries have gone under WITH unions? How much quality within education and domestic auto production has suffered with them?

“US corporations can already give to PACs, and they do, by the boatload (SarahPAC is getting money from who? Average Joe’s? Think again) (Obama took none of it, thank you very much). ”

Obama took PLENTY from Wall Street and from unions. Who are you to say that corporations cannot give but the unions they have to bow to can? Corporations create this economy, they employ most of our people. Unions don’t do that! Corporations (mostly small-corporations in this country) are more involved in our economic process. But even with that, MORE grassroots citizens are donating to SarahPAC than corporations are.

And your drivel about Billionaires after your party plays footsies with George Soros and Warren Buffet (and Al Gore) is hilarious. Go ahead, stop billionaires from doing things! Do you really think that’s going to hurt grassroots conservatism? I am will you all the way there.

“No, you just asserted something that isn’t true. You gave an opinion”

Detroit proves it. It is the most historically liberal city (one of those most anyway) entrenched in big unions and entitlements. What else do you need?

“If you say so. You’re right, though. It makes much more sense for liberal CEOs and their corporations to give money to political campaigns through PACs to enforce stringent regulations on them. I guess they’re just gluttons for punishment like that…”

You’re half-right. They don’t funnel money to liberal politicians for stricter regulation on their industries. They do it to be exempt from whatever regulation of the week Nancy Pelosi is yammering about.

“And to those same candidates who take their money but don’t vote how they’re expected to, I say: “good on you!” Too bad you can’t say the same for your side” — I am going to write an entire reply on this one alone.

“That’s cute. But you’re forgetting about your hero, who had the same rating at the same time in his presidency. Remember, Mr. Landslide?”

It makes more sense. As would be the case with Sarah Palin (my prediction for 2013), she will have mediocre approval ratings in her first year as President. Much like Reagan’s approval ratings that carried him to his second term, Palin’s as Governor were earned as she did right by Alaskans.

Obama’s historical high approval ratings when he entered in wound up being his own worst nightmare. That’s why Reagan’s drop wasn’t historic as Obama’s was. Obama was built up on a much higher pedestal that Reagan was from the beginning.

It’s also why he won a Nobel Peace Prize for getting a family dog and taking a family portrait.

*your

And how convenient that you have this handy excuse of confidentiality that will no doubt prevent you from proving this assertion…

“Just like any other program touted by liberals as a success (like Social Security or Medicare), when you are paying out more than you are taking in, sooner or later the insolvency eats you up.”

That argument makes no sense, because the employees paid into the pension, and assuming funds are matched dollar for dollar (which many pensions are not) and current employees are paying into their pensions, there should be no problem. There is no paying out more than taking in…

“Again, you cannot blame NAFTA for trying to address this.”

NAFTA did not earnestly attempt to address any problem. NAFTA was a corporatist measure to capitalize on cheap labor in a legal manner. NAFTA was an affront to long standing trade policy in this country.

“The damage from the unions had already been done, members accepted buyouts and went on to work for other companies earning – on average – $30K less per year, which placed them right along with the rest of Americans.”

Again, you’re trying to argue that unions somehow operated against their own stated interests. and when those jobs were gone, who was left to benefit from that situation? Not the unions, man.

“The sad thing is the art of lobbying came to full fruition within the last thirty years which has turned these groups into rabid watchdogs of normal everyday Americans while contributing large sums of money to one party. So these groups are now dominated by special interests and greed.”

And yet your party (and presumably you) have done nothing to curb the influence of lobbyists or to seek campaign finance reform. This case before the Supreme Court (Citizens United Vs. FEC) is literally going to make or break our political process. I can already guarantee you that all the right wingers on the court will vote to give free speech to corporations in the form of contributions; that’s a foregone conclusion. But what about the millions or billions of dollars from ARAMCO or the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. The way it stands now, US corporations can already give to PACs, and they do, by the boatload (SarahPAC is getting money from who? Average Joe’s? Think again) (Obama took none of it, thank you very much). The only (and I mean only) upside to this is that you have to be a US citizen to give to a PAC. If the right wing in this country has their way, hedge fund billionaires could give unlimited sums of money to political campaigns, and that would be a disastrous thing for this country. Elections will turn into a three way battle between China, Saudi Arabia, and Goldman Sachs. I’m curious to know you’re position on the subject, seeing as how that last statement of yours belies a populist bent.

“I bring this up because I wanted to point out what happens when the grassroots start noticing what happens to our nation’s fabric when organizations start dominating political landscape.”

Grassroots? Like the Koch Industries-funded Tea Party rallies? Grassroots and conservatives are like oil and water (no pun intended). And what’s sad is that (mostly) well intentioned – but crazy citizens think that they have something organic, all the while being manufactured by the very agents they think they’re fighting against. All people know these days is their misdirected anger, and it really is just that.

“For some reason; on their “interest and dividends” line, there is NOTHING. Which indicates no savings.”

You mean, it indicates no investments?

“But their cars are nice! Their clothes are top of the line. They vacation whenever they can (they have four weeks to do it). ”

Okay, your schizophrenia is showing through here. I thought you were supposed to represent all those “real” Americans who worked hard and earned what they have. Turns out when those people did just that while belonging to unions, it’s evil and must be stopped…

“So where is your middle-of-the-road here?”

There isn’t one. Unions have no controlling stock in their workplaces, and are not allowed a seat at board meetings. They have collective bargaining abilities, and it’s just enough to keep the wolves at bay. Decisions that effect a company are made at the top, not in the middle or at the bottom. How many companies in how many industries have gone under without unions? Look at the banking industry. Their own unfettered greed did them in; no unions there. You, and all conservatives, have this uncanny knack for avoiding accountability at all costs. It’s always someone else’s fault. Looking for flaws in yourselves is never a priority. Never.

“Is it because you don’t want to admit how entrenched the UAW was with liberal Democrats?”

I’ve already admitted that. It’s not unusual to gravitate to the political party that best represents your interests. That’s what people do too. And like I said, big business is conversely in bed with conservatives; and it’s for the same reason: they best represent their interests. I have just as much of a problem with unions contributing to political campaigns as I do with corporations doing it (and I’m a staunch supporter of unions!). The goal of campaign finance reform is to remove ALL influence from the political process, regardless of who’s giving to what party. There is no lack of consistency on my part. That’s all on your side…

“Or is it that you simply want everything to be the fault of CEO’s?”

I don’t want anything to go wrong. I don’t want American jobs to be outsourced, and I don’t to see more Detroits as a result of it. I am not working backwards from a predetermined conclusion. I analyze all available data, and make an informed decision. The fact that my conclusion differs from yours and you don’t like it does not mean I want to force a puzzle piece that doesn’t fit. It’s very much possible that it’s the other way around.

“knowing the true history of Wall Street and the campaign contributions going to liberal Democrats.”

I hate to break this to you, but money has poisoned all sides of this issue. The contributors go where they think they’ll have influence, and right now, the Democrats are in power, so, while still giving less to Dems than they do to Cons, the spigot is still open (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F09). The only saving grace that comes from the Democratic Party is that they don’t always feel beholden to their contributors. The health care bill is a great example. Many a senator has taken contributions from the insurance industry. Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid have taken a combined total of over $300,000 from that industry in this election cycle. They both have also supported strong reforms that would have a negative impact on said industry. Chuck Grassley, on the other hand, thinks his contributions should come with a receipt for what it will get. And none of this is a secret. Opensecrets.org is a great tool for figuring this stuff out.

“First, I have explained to you why the UAW is responsible for the Detroit meltdown”

No, you just asserted something that isn’t true. You gave an opinion.

“the CEO’s are not conservatives”

If you say so. You’re right, though. It makes much more sense for liberal CEOs and their corporations to give money to political campaigns through PACs to enforce stringent regulations on them. I guess they’re just gluttons for punishment like that…

“From this point on, you’re no longer going to stick me with defending Wall Street. ”

We’ll see. As soon as you give your honest opinion of Citizens United Vs. FEC.

“So to your candidates who accept their contributions, I say: “hahaha!””

And to those same candidates who take their money but don’t vote how they’re expected to, I say: “good on you!” Too bad you can’t say the same for your side.

“But as I have said, when the liberals’ true colors are shown, they get the fastest drop in approval ratings for any American president since 1953 (according to GALLUP).”

That’s cute. But you’re forgetting about your hero, who had the same rating at the same time in his presidency. Remember, Mr. Landslide?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/17/karl-rove/rove-says-obamas-approval-ratings-after-year-are-w/

“Moreover; more Americans are conservatives as also proven by USAToday/Gallup.”

True, until pressed on it. Try it sometime.

I have to wonder if all of these well-to-do liberals (mark my words, many a wealthy American is VERY liberal) will be so willing to give up their money when it comes down to actually doing the deed. I don’t think they will be. And when cap-and-tax comes knocking on their doors to take away their mansions and Astin-Martins, they’ll be doubly angry.

There is a ton of truth in that statement.

My brother in law runs a business. He doesn’t own it. The state he lives in has a tax the rich ballot measure up for vote.

If this ballot measure passes, then the owner of that business will pay higher taxes out of his profit.

He in turn will wish to maintain his standard of living. So he can raise the prices his business charges. But, economic conditions may not allow that.

So, what is the other choice? Lay people off. My brother in-law told me up to 20 people will lose their jobs if this ballot measure passes. The owner who worked very hard to get where he is won’t sacrafice his lifestyle to pay higher taxes.

What is this tax increase for? Part of it goes to the bottomless pit known as public education. No matter how much money a school district gets, it is never enough. Why? Every union employee wants to live like a King or Queen and that is expensive.

The other part goes for medical care assistance to the poor. Perhaps the poor need to be cut off so they will get an incentive to better themselves and get jobs that pay better?

Obama hopes that his base will not feel the pain until they elect him back in.

We have one really great thing working for this country. Obama has borrowed and printed so much money, that he planned to use to buy off his union backers, to keep them from noticing the big taxes from the HC bill…but I think he miscalculated…

I suspect a lot of those new cars for clunkers will be turned in this spring when people cannot afford them.

More housing crashes, plus no one wants to or can borrow Obama money because of the stringent restrictions…the opposite of what he fought for as a community organizer, Illinois and US Senator. People are wary of Obama’s financial dealings from banks to citizens, and governors to Reps.

When the fall comes, it just might be in 2010 rather than 2013 or 2014.

The Obama Administration thought they could walk a balance beam to their end agenda but I’m thinking, maybe it won’t even hold through this next year.

Unfortunately, liberals are not so smart. They never look into the details unless it has to do with Sarah Palin, and then they get that all wrong.

I agree. One of my friends is in the tax business. He often prepares tax returns for people who work for a nearby city. Not one single full time employee of that city earns less than $40,000 per year. From paper shuffling administrative clerks to telephone answering clerks who do that all day an nothing else, it is $40,000 per year minimum or more.

That’s totally absurd. We hire high school students to intern with us and pay them minimum wage to answer phones because that is all a job like that is worth. Nobody makes a career out of answering the telephone, but at $40K a year or more some people do. Such wages reward people who have a horrible lack of ambition.