Lumping SS & Medicare shows you haven't taken time to understand what's going on.

Social Security is insolvent, but it only needs a minor "nudge"... SS could be made solvent until something like 2070 if we simply removed the upper income limit. Can I get a flat-taxer up in here to explain why people should NOT stop paying Social Security after $106,000? Remember, even those who "pay no federal income tax" fully pay into Social Security and Medicare and at higher rates than millionaires.

Medicare, on the other hand, is, along with the Bush tax cuts, the source of nearly ALL of our future budget deficits. Health care is a problem we can solve, though; we just have to put aside the dogma and negotiate. Health care, public or private, is not a budget-buster for ANY other industrialized nation, and we're supposedly the most awesomest one. All we need is some leadership.

Finally, don't forget a large /reason/ for the entitlement programs getting out of control, is the US's shifting demographic. Millions of voters who paid into the system their whole lives will make sure your cries to "cut Social Security" will never fly. And everybody needs to eat.

The real problem, here, is that our political system has two sides, one of which shuns evidence-based reason as heresy. Maybe you can guess the outcome... S&P has, already.

I can't speak for everyone, but the giant bureaucratic power I'd rather have running my life is the one which apportions its representation per-citizen, instead of per-dollar.

I don't agree with your statement Obama's priorities have changed. Was I dreaming when he was on TV 2 days ago, saying we need to cut the deficit? What's under debate is HOW.

One side thinks we should raise taxes for a group of people who pay LESS THAN HALF in taxes what they paid 30 years ago (which partially explains how we got to this state in the first place). The other side thinks that we should continue cutting taxes for the rich... i mean, "job creators".

Of particular interest to me is the part of your quote where Obama talks about how interest payments take away money that can be better spent elsewhere. So, what's the primary devastating effect of this GOP-led hostage situation? A rise in interest rates.

-- Yeah, that'll fix it.

So this guy can can call Obama a "racist slur" in a public message board because of his first amendment rights, yet the press refuses to exercise their same right to quote it?

Free speech is a double-edged blade. You can say whatever you like, but your rights do not immunize you from consequences. The press should quote this guy, word for word, but they don't because they're beholden to the sensitivities of puritan morons (or sponsors) who don't understand the distinction between an opinion and a quote.

This guy should have an opportunity -- by printing his literal, un-whitewashed words -- to stand by his convictions. Free speech hurts sometimes, and people need to realize there are consequences. The loss of individual free speech doesn't seem to be the issue, here; it's the /press/ that has me concerned.

"Racist slur?"
[Annoyed Grunt]

Indeed. Imagine how much less expensive, less error-prone and faster the response would be if fire departments didn't have to pre-verify the currency of a homeowner's fire insurance policy, and could just indiscriminately rush to the scene and extinguish the fire?

This is just pie-in-the-sky thinking, but what if those poor homeowners organized into some local body deigned with special powers to mandate individuals to pay, up front, their equal share of fire protection services? Now I I'm just spitballing here, but we could call such a fictitious organization a Noobamian Sociofascislamic Biggubmint.

Pilot 1: "I'll have the fish."

Pilot 2: "I would like the steak, please."

Now do it again without the second pilot.

This guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_teRloJf6yE