Im still waiting to see how anything Obama has done helps the lower classes.

He's had so many crony deals with businesses, it makes GWB look like a Conservative

There does indeed seem to be some pandering to businesses, insurance companies in Health Care reform stick out as an example. But I'm not sure cronyism quite describes it. I don't think Obama is really in those "Old (white) Boys Clubs" to have the type of cronyism or even the conflict of interest situations (Cheney being a great example in this case).

I get more of the impression that he is willing to compromise with the private sector (to the financial benefit of the private sector) to achieve a policy goal. I still don't like it, but in some cases at least the ends appear to justify the means.

Thanks for the comment Barbara. I am not sure you read the article. Sullivan calls BOTH the left and right dumb, and then gives a number of facts very worthy of debate. His article is the very opposite of what you describe. Give it a second chance and see what you think.

@Nick -- I've been watching for over thirty years while 'investment' capitalism has created an illusory prosperity for a lucky few while devastating others. I liken it to slash and burn agriculture -- use a plot of land for all it's worth until it will no longer grow crops and then move on to someplace else and start the cycle all over again. We, the 99%, are the soild, and we're already seeing an inablility to afford overpriced housing. Soon we will be unable to buy even the cheap merchandise made overseas. We will be depleted. Industry and investment will move on to other developing markets. The rich will be all right -- they have managed to put aside plenty of 'food' to sustain themselves. The rest of us . . . I have no idea what the future will be like. Probably a hardscrabble economy until we become ripe for the plucking again.

Nick, Solyndra was an egregious example of corruption. Now, whether it was knowing on the part of Obama or he was simply foolish is another question. But either answer is disturbing for our president. Even the Bush administration refused to fund that dog. $500M of the taxpayers money was wasted on a company that contributed heavily to the Obama campaign.

I also think that your arguments might have some better traction if you stopped painting non-democrats as TP or Koch sheep. I frankly have no idea what the TP stands for and don't care. I don't care for the religious fundies and I don't want to see their ideology introduced into the government or my children's education. I do want to see the US return to it's traditional values of hard work, fairness, taking responsibility for one's own actions and not expecting someone else to fix my problems. Many of us went into the voting booth in the last presidential election and looked at the ballot and said "which pile of dung doesn't smell quite as bad". We're heading in the same direction in this next election. We've got an unproductive president on the one hand(who knew electing someone with absolutely no experience managing ANYTHING in his career would lead to an unproductive president?) vs either a guy with so many warts(Gingrich) or a guy who stands for God knows what(Romney).

@235301
Just to supplement what you said. The US government also gave $700 million of stimulus money to Tonopah Solar. The principal investor is a company run by Pelosi's Brother-in-Law. Coincidence? Probably not.

As for the Republican party. They should make their slogan, 'Snatching Defeat out of the Jaws of Victory'.

The big problem with Romney is that he would appoint a bunch of conservative judges, which would put us back centuries.

What is so great about his inevitable candidacy is that with what is going on, Romney the Robotic Republican is the perfect poster boy for Wall Street greed, has an incredible tin ear and has all the authenticity of vinyl.

The big problem with Romney is he's a Republican and you hate Republicans, Keith.

Then again, each side around here has it's blow-hard ideologues. We have Saxon whatever and your side has you, Keith. So it all works out.

Does every answer have to be personal Bob, or is that just the way you roll?

Keith, you have a way of dragging everyone down to your level. I should be able to resist, but you're like a scab that just begs for picking. I can't quit you, Keith.

Thanks for quoting Brokeback Mountain doofus. We catch the similarity.

It's just amazing how there can be a reasonably toned thread going on, and the moment you pop in, Keith, it just goes completely to hell.

Hence my initial comment regarding the similarity between you two, which you've managed to validate in short order.

I really should learn to ignore you Keith. Nothing ever good comes of it. It just eggs you on.

You are aware J.B. that Andrew Sullivan is a conservative Republican?

@Keith
You can call yourself what ever you want; however, a conservative republican who supports Obama is an oxymoron.

Yet, if it is true, then I am anti-welfare, small government, free market capitalist Democrat.

@Keith Schmitz -

If what Mr. Sullivan has described his political convictions to actually be in the article are to be believed, then he should be supporting Ron Paul, and not President Obama.

"I did so not as a liberal, but as a conservative-minded independent appalled by the Bush administration’s record of war, debt, spending, and torture. I did not expect, or want, a messiah. I have one already, thank you very much."

In case you don't realize it, this has been and continues to be Paul's platform in a nutshell. The fact that he did and continues to support President Obama over Paul shows that he is clearly a LIAR!!!

More deception from the liberal rag that 'Newsweek' truly is. I'm so glad that my parents finally wised up and canceled their subscription to this TRASH!

There is another voice out there called Ron Paul. He is a Libertarian. He is in the Republican Party because 3rd parties are pretty much trash in the US.

No bashing. It's an interesting perspective we haven't heard around here and it's refreshing. Thanks for weighing in.

@Sofia -

Thanks for providing the unique perspective and your input. I've been supporting, endorsing, and voting for third party and independent candidates since the late '90's. I agree that America has become beholden to the two party duopoly that is the Republican and Democratic parties. But I don't blame the parties or their financial backers for this reality, but rather the voting American public. Every once in a while though, we do upset the establishment by breaking from the norm and put into power a guy like Jesse Ventura in Minnesota, whom I absolutely love.

Why people such as Sullivan and the like won't consider and vote for Ron Paul is completely beyond me, because he truly represents an alternative position that a vast number of people actually support - they just need to admit such to themselves.

BTW - I really dig your food blog - nice job. And if you haven't already done so, I'd like to invite you to check out my retro movie blog here on Patch!

Cheers!

@Sofia -- I keep saying this. We all pay for everyone else's medical care one way or another. We'd save money by applying it more evenly and at least putting a curb on the profit motive.

Many of the people who bash it don't have children in public schools. Those that do would probably like vouchers to lift their children above the hoi-polloi.

I can't speak for other European countries but I was quite shocked when talking to my cousin from Slovenia, that roughly 90% of his income went to taxes to pay for their socialism. But that was over 5 years ago, before they joined the European Union. And since then he has moved to Serbia. To top that off, the year before his parents had finally saved up enough money to buy a house. He said that they do not take out loans to buy anything. And it took his parents over 30 years to accomplish that. Plus it wasn't a single family home, it was more like our 2 family multi-level side by side flats. Plus to move they had to apply to the government to get approval to move and even to get a telephone. But like I said before, I don't know what changes have happened since they joined the EU.

As far as comparing the US to Portugal, you are also comparing different cultures, geographics and population/size.

Welcome to the US. I enjoyed your recipes. I'm going to make those Brigadeiros too.

@Bob Thanks for your comment.

@James I totally agree with you in terms of Ron Paul being a different candidate and seems to me that Sullivan's views go hand in hand with Ron Paul's. Unfortunately though Ron Paul creating his candidacy as a Republican may bother some that are in the middle or even democrats. I do understand that he HAD to choose one or the other yet again because independents seem to not to be heard as much. Much to your example in Minnesota, I think that is where the solution is. If each State would start better promoting different views aside from just Republicans and Democrats, then people would ACTUALLy get used to the idea to think more out of the box and start voting for other views. BTW... already checking your blog.

@Randy I agree with most of what you said apart from "Many of the people who bash it don't have children in public schools." as most I talk to who are against socializing certain areas DO have their children in public school and are happy with them there. When I bring that up to them, suddenly they say that it is a different matter, which I have yet to understand how different is it really?

@Mau Agree with you about Ron Paul. Unfortunately though it is just one and as you say he HAD to affiliate himself with a party to even be heard. In terms of Europe, much as the US it is a big continent. I do not know much about Eastern European countries as I never lived in any of them, I do know though, mostly by reading the news that since the break of the old Soviet Union and old Yugoslavia many of the new formed countries are still trying to get themselves together and I am not surprised to hear that their situation is not an easy one. When some of those new made countries happened lots of families lost a lot and some even ended up getting divided between rivalries of culture, religion and so on which is so unfortunate. I was not comparing Portugal per say with the States as that would be comparing apples to oranges. As you pointed out there really isn't a thread in common to start comparing them. I was mostly comparing the lifestyle and the way politics are done and how various voices are heard, not just two. I did enjoy though reading your comments as others too as I grew up always having to read all newspapers from ALL sides so that I could actually be able to form my own opinion. There is still so much we all have to learn and that won't ever stop. I am a BIG believer through education and HEARING/reading each other's thoughts and comments only then can we actually achieve a civilized world.

@Sofia -- "@Randy I agree with most of what you said apart from "Many of the people who bash it don't have children in public schools." as most I talk to who are against socializing certain areas DO have their children in public school and are happy with them there. When I bring that up to them, suddenly they say that it is a different matter, which I have yet to understand how different is it really?"

I really don't see the difference myself. Our society has a 'mandate' that we all educate our children, and it provides a public option for those who can't afford/don't want to pay extra for their children's schooling. This cost is spread out over the entire population and it has become increasingly expensive. But no one would argue that it isn't worth it to society as a whole.

@Nick -- "The morality issue finally is peeing its head above the clouds so that perhaps a few "decision-makers", thinkers, and other interested people can reshape the morality of this nation."

Really? I thought morality was peeing into a strong GOP wind at the moment. I've given up appealing to morality. Some people understand pragmatism better, as in, you're killing the golden goose, gentlemen. That is, unless you want to turn America into a third world nation.

@Nick... How do you 'teach' ethics when so many today arrive at kindergarten, let alone B-school, without ever having 'caught' morals?

Nick, for the past 50 years at least we've been told that it's wrong to form moral judgements about anyone or anything. We've been told that the world doesn't have a conscious, that people do what they do as a part of the natural process of things and that to impose ones personal moral compass upon others is wrong. One of the byproducts of that belief is the very thing you find lacking and wish for in your last sentence there. That particular belief, btw, came to us courtesy of those on the left.

Certainly if you're serious about this, you know better than to even suggest Christian morals, as that concept will be shot down instantly. You're probably a lot closer with "Veggie Tales". The number of folks who find the whole concept of a power greater than themselves reprehensible to the point where they'd object profusely probably greatly outweighs those who'd be unwilling to teach their children about right and wrong via an animated produce department. Thank you, Sesame Street.

@Bob McBride -- One doesn't necessarily have to believe in a power greater than oneself to understand and live by the concept of treating other the way one wants to be treated.

The problem with 'Christian' ethics is that sometimes their proponents focus on the sexual and brush over the social and economic teaching of Jesus.

Randy, your expressions of your concern about what the teaching of Christian morals might ultimately focus on is precisely what I was talking about. This is a relatively benign forum in that regard. If you want to see how violently people react to even the suggestion of introducing any element of Christianity into a discussion of how this nation should move forward, I'd be happy to point you in the direction of a few others.

We'd rather learn our morals from animated vegetables and sock puppets. They're less threatening. They probably won't rise up and dominate us once they have us under their moral sway (although there was that film, "Attack of the Killer Tomato" or some such) and they don't have a history of persecution that can continually be pointed to as a reason not to follow their prescripts. They're unlikely to focus on issues of sexual nature and, in fact, it would be best they don't go there.

I'm just curious as to which vegetable Nick feels would be the most suitable for presenting the teachings of Aristotle or Jesus.

The best way of teaching a moral way of life in the sense that you and Nick are addressing is to live one by example. 50 years of being told that not only do we not need to do that, but that we shouldn't because it inhibits us has brought is to the point where it's the person who is the exception to the rule who does so.

Here's your separation of church and state. Keep religion out of the state but don't keep the state out of the church.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-gives-church-groups-birth-control-rule-200330535.html

@skinny DUDE: rest easy. You have proven that intellectual bigotry is alive and well in you

@nick
THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING. OBAMA IS A COMPLETE FAILURE. CAN U LIST HIS HIS 3 GREATEST SUCCESSES?
ARE YOU BETTER OFF THAN YOU WERE 4 TRILLION AGO?

I'm going to pick this one because this always seems to be a favorite:

"rapacious corporate greed" - This is probably the best example of creating an "other" to blame for a situation that's far more complicated than its 3 word title suggests. Using the "greed" aspect of it, there are elements of investor "greed" and consumer "greed" that drive the corporate "greed". I would suggest that anyone who holds any kind of retirement fund that consists of a portfolio investment is, in fact, not only providing resources for said "corporate greed" but is also benefitting from its effectiveness. Similarly, anyone who purchases consumer goods of any sort online, at big box locations and even at most of the smaller establishments is, in fact feeding and, once again, benefitting from "corporate greed". Anyone who has ever price shopped any item has taken a very active part in encouraging said "corporate greed" by rewarding not only those producers, but also those retailers who sometimes drive the producers, who are able to provide products at a highly discounted price by partaking in the very activities that are identified with "corporate greed".

In essence, what I'm saying here is that while it may be comforting to identify certain persons and organizations as being those who lack proper social and moral responsibility, until we accept our own responsibility for encouraging those entities, we will never move very far towards fixing the situation.

The "other" is actually us.

Pogo: We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us.

What percentage of the population,Bob, do you think has 'any hint of a clue' that they are the facilitators of the greed?

@Jay Sykes...It is obvious that very few understand the system of greed. Generally, people can see it in others, but not in themselves. The confusion of need with want drives the system. "Keeping score" with material things and lifestyle leads to a values system where no one wins.

Jay, I think if most people thought it through they would. It's not that difficult a concept. The concept of shared sacrifice does not sell, however - unless it's someone else doing the sharing. It's easier to get people on your side if you can pinpoint an entity that's victimizing them and get them to believe that correcting the imbalance can be accomplished by getting that "other" to accept it's portion of the burden.

In truth, in order for many of things people want to happen (jobs brought back here, restoration of "living wages", etc), there will be a need for sacrifices on the part of all. That means essentially a decrease in purchasing power associated with higher costs across the board. It means giving up cost of living wage increases - otherwise you're essentially running in circles. It means accepting an overall decrease in the standard of living, not because people are earning less, but because what they earn buys less. And it means that all sectors of the economy, both public and private, make those sacrifices. Beyond that is speculation, but it's not a recipe for a growth economy.

I don't know that, even if they choose to understand the true interrelationship between "corporate greed" and "personal greed" or "consumer greed" many, if any, would be willing to accept the true consequences of correcting the situation.

@SkinnyDUDE
You have made every comment you posted here and anywhere on patch completely irrevelvant with this comment. Not to mention you cast a bad picture on others you claim to side with. If you can't speak as an adult, then keep quiet at the kids table and let the adults handle the political conversation.

@skinnyDUDE...Of course there is a financial component to morality and not just social morality, whatever that is. Moral principles provide the framework within which society functions. To provide all a minimum standard of existence requires a sharing by all. Concerning collection and distribution of services to provide the minimum standard of existence to all, requires an institution such as the government to accomplish such a monumental task. The advent of Protestant Calvinism created the current foundation of thought on taking care of the needy, which is, "it's G-d's determination who is a have and who is a have-not". Therefore, why help the needy when G-d has already judged them to not be part of the preselected. Voluntary contribution is and by itself insufficient to meet the overwhelming need. The morality you are advocating is nothing more than "pocket book morality".

@lyle ....Unfortunately pocket book morility and entitlements go hand and hand. i can advocate non pocket moraity to kids as a parent or a concern citizen or in a religious forum . But all those again are volunteery or shared views. But you and your article are advocating what you or the author percieve as good ......and dont take into account that others disagree with it. So than we get a one size fits all morality that simply isnt what the freedoms of america are about. Hitler had a set morality too .It was government sponsored and paid for . Pockerbook morality is all the governemnt is about ...lets be clear on that. They certainly are not fighting for the inherit problems that have occurred when a entire class of people become entriched in the entitlement culture. We could go back in forth on morality. But specifics matter. No one wants to turn the reigns over to a leader for there version of morality.

He's obviously wrong. I don't think anyone can argue the borrowing and spending of money we do not have is a good thing long term. Obama biggest spike in unemployment reduction actually occurs when people quit looking for work rather than finding a job. The welfare and entitlement expansion just expands the obligations of which we don't have the money to pay for . None of the long term underlying debt concerns that will end this nation as we know it have been addressed. Obama's policies that have a cost to it all fall on future Presidents. Thats not courage , leadership or solutions . But it is Debt . It is the biggest threat to this country . Inflation is another major concern as the administration works in concert with the fed to print money. It devalues the dollar and obviously the buying power of all americans . It's the same as a tax increase as the same money buys less. The entire US economy is now smaller than our National debt. It is seen as tipping point by most economists . Clearly the debt exploded under this President but the economy did not. It simply sputters to magnify the fact that the presidents view of the economy and his fixes for it have all been a undeniable failure.

I don't think your comments are supported by facts, except that that the ecomony is still weak. Importantly, it is improving.

RE the debt, I've written an extensive article on this topic recently. http://sussex.patch.com/blog_posts/deficit-reduction-time-to-drop-the-analogies-stupid

The actual net foreign debt is quite small in comparison to the total debt, making the issue a lot less urgent than is commonly understood.

But back to the issue. The fact is that the economy is improving. The stimulus did not meet its stated goals, but did it indeed help bottom out the recession? I'm not so sure.

The fact is the recession would bottom out without all the spending if Obama just got out of the way. It always does. It fnds its own bottom.
The stimuleous was a waste of money. But it was added another near trillon to the deficit .
The national debt has exploded under Obama who is now asking for another 1.2 trillion. Hes not doing this cause we have the cash on hand.lol
You are entitled to your opinion , but if your trying to cushion the fact this President is the biggest spender by far in US history . Its a fact.
When his best news on unemployment is people have quit looking for a job ...I will not label it even label it mild improvement . But you can . He will be voted out this year due to his lack of success. Ultimately , as a conservative i only get 1 vote. Some Dems get more , but it unlikely will be enough . lol
Good day to you . Time for some football. It is kinda sad the Packers arent going at it today so I will go for the 49ers and Patriots.

I'm not trying to cushion his record on spending, as this appears to be quite a red herring when you try to get experts to agree. Regardless of your take on the debt, i think the stimulus probably abated a lot more costs we would have ended up paying in the long run, especially if the entire system collapsed.

Victor, thanks for moving beyond the few vacuous, insulting,or otherwise plainly stupdi comments.
Your Republican and Tea Party readers fail to take forward into the light of conversation some of the hidden and concealed. For example, the CBO under the Bushes had "off-the books" accounting for their war efforts. Now, what Obama has done has brought these figure out into the clearing, making them visible, some for the first time. Unlike the TP Republicans Obama has moved beyond the partisan discussion of finger-pointing and blame to the point where we can be led out of the darkness and corruption of Republicanism and back to a point where the the principles upon which our democratic republic can be put into play again. Most Republicans, if they are painfully honest, will admit that the current TP Republicans are not the Republican party to which we belonged. In fact, Obama's politics today are more akin to Republican principles that most like to admit.
As to the stimulus: several factors are at play. If we had not had the reinvestment flow into the economy, the crisis we continue to face today would be much worse. The world as of 2008 was over-valued by well over 30% - and, we are only now coming out of the Great Depression ! of 2008. Our media decided not to use the D-word, concentrating on pretending that things were not as awful as they truly were. ( again, i was inside one of those banks at the time). The stimulus has not been enough; the banks were not made to lend

In college, Obama worked summers at a private sector law firm, and also spent 12 years as a professor at Harvard, another private sector institution.

However, I think you raise another interesting point here that Sullivan touches on: taxes.

1. Obama extended the bush tax cuts
2. Obama cut the payroll tax (and recently extended this against GOP opposition)
3. 1/3 of the stimulus was tax cuts, including 51 billion in tax cuts for business
4. Obama is trying to increase taxes on income over $1,000,000 but has not yet done so.

I would love to see some information to refute these items, or ways in which Obama increased taxes.

Explanation/tax planning for the 3.8% Obama tax increase on 200k+ income earners, effective 2013:(so, your point #4 has been accomplished)
http://www.aicpa.org/Publications/TaxAdviser/2011/July/Pages/fava_jul2011.aspx

We all know the bush tax cuts are evil. The payroll tax cut is peanuts. Virtually none of the stimulus tax cuts were used due to impracticality. When you tax the rich they historically always get richer. Liberals govern by taxation. To put on a mask as tax cutters is ridiculous :)

Good find Jay. Any estimates on what % of Americans are affected by this?

Tonto, I respect your opinion but please refute the items with facts. The payroll tax and bush tax cuts are fact. We agree that these happened and reduced gross tax income by the government.

I'm not trying to say the democrats stand on a platform of tax savers, but i'm trying to come to a consensus of whether or not Obama increased taxation. So far, looks like he has not.

@Jay Sykes -- "Explanation/tax planning for the 3.8% Obama tax increase on 200k+ income earners, effective 2013:(so, your point #4 has been accomplished)
http://www.aicpa.org/Publications/TaxAdviser/2011/July/Pages/fava_jul2011.aspx";

Medicare tax on unearned income. The tax rate for capital gains (the way many wealthy individuals generate their income) has has been decreased in the past two decades to a bargain rate of 15%. Previously, unearned income was not subject to FICA at all. What this means is that anyone making over $200K will find their capital gains taxed at 18.8% instead of the 15% Mitt Romney says he pays now.

Pardon me while I play the world's smallest violin.

@Victor Drover -- Yes, Obama extended the Bush tax cuts and played right into the hands of the TeaParty contingent in Congress, who waited four months for the electorate to forget and then cited a huge deficit as a reason to 'reform' Medicare out of practical existence.

And while I'm sure the cuts to FICA have stimulated the economy slightly, I have my doubts about them, because they will cause extra stress on Social Security and Medicare, programs that have up until now been running at a surplus (which the government has cheerfully borrowed).

On the one hand, FICA is the most regressive form of tax because it starts at the first dollar and caps at slightly over $100K for Social Security, but it's a necessity for low income people who would otherwise find it impossible to save for retirement.

@Victor - The Bush tax cuts... if you will recall the democrats and Obama decried and ranted endlessly about the evil Bush tax cuts. Now I know you will have great comebacks but the total hypocrisy of Obama eating crow by continuing the cuts to avert total depression is FACT :)

@Tonto --As I recall, the Bush tax cuts were extended for everyone (including the upper brackets) in return for an extension of unemployment benefits. A very cruel bargain, one forced by the new crop of 2010 GOP Tea Partiers in the House.

I expected an Oblamer type response :)

@Tonto -- And I should have expected a response that calls names and lacks factual arguments.

OK, fine. Its not a FACT that Obama ate crow on the Bush tax cuts. Fine :)

@Tonto: there is no doubt that Obama is hypocritical on the Bush tax cuts. No whitty response required.

So the fact remains that Obama reduced taxes?

Yes, he realized democat doctrine of tax and spend is wrong :)

@ VICTOR
2. Obama cut the payroll tax (and recently extended this against GOP opposition)
Here's an ecample of you distorting the facts. The GOP control the House so if that body opposed it , how could it be extended. The GOP wanted A decision on the Pipeline from Obama. They got his response , He was against, jobs , energy independance and national security when he said no . But you clearly list a fact here that his wrong. There is opposition on everyalmost every bill . For you to site opposition on a bill that actually passed the republican controled House is laughable .

@tonto: nothing more there than a simple grammatical error. Insert "under the obama administration" if you will. Either way, I'm really not interested in this type of conversation. If I need to be guilty of making a typo, so be it.

I've tried to expand this part of the comments to discuss taxes. If you still think taxes have gone up, simply say as much and cite your reasons.

Good points Eric. Japan's economy was in the crapper long before the Tsunami. I don't expect a surge from their auto-industry soon. The quality of life is too high and too expensive to compete.

@Eric -- There's one thing I've never really seen mentioned -- Medicare Part D is an individual mandate, as all Medicare recipients are required to purchase a private drug plan, although I assume there is a subsidy for low income seniors. My mother's Medicare Part D accounts for a deduction of at least $100 per month from her SS check, and her co-pays are still very expensive.

I agree with you about President Obama's leadership skills. Healthcare needed to be tackled, since it is a huge part of our economic woes, but the attempt to be bi-partisan led to a watered-down law that was only slightly better than nothing at all and may be worse for some people.

Barack Obama would not have been my choice of Democratic nominees in 2008, but one works with what one is given.

WOW... I could not have written it any better!

@Sofia -- Yes and no. Yes, because certain areas of the country are more conservative than others, but no, because America's strength is in its inclusiveness and in its protection of the rights of minorities.

I would be very unhappy to see the South return to Jim Crow segregation or to lose certain privacy rights here in Wisconsin.

@Sofia Reino...I can understand the confusion someone from Europe would have with our social/political system. Unlike most of Europe we don't use a parliamentary system, which allows for more political parties. Also, we are a heterogeneous society without one culture, one ethnic identity or a single state religion. We do have a single "first language" and a common currency. The various groups have wide dispersion throughout the nation, therefore the central government must provide protection for the minority. The republican representative democracy that we adhere to is very inefficient, but it gives voice and protection to all citizens.

I, for one, am a democratic socialist. I would like to see the U.S. adopt universal healthcare, a Northern European public education system, universal retirement and disability, and a guarantee of the public providing a safety net that provides the basic necessities of food, clothing and shelter. We overpay for many services because of the private purchase rather than provisions through taxation. We don't have a national sales tax and/or VAT. We have way too much dependence on income taxes. In my opinion, we have an opportunity to bring more efficiency, but without a single world view, it becomes very difficulty.

Lyle, which is it.? Here you proudly call yourself a " socialist" yet on your Patch profile you list yoursel " lightly left of center" . Which is it? Can't have it both ways. Do you or do you not believe in our systemic a republic state ( notice I said republic not republican). By the way, left a few typos so you can attack my education, as you are so inclined to do..

No question is dumb.

My distant relatives Slovenia, who I refer to as cousins no matter their age, were involved with their country joining the EU. One of my cousins came to the US 2004 (right after Slovenia joined the EU) in his senior of college, paid for by the government and company he worked for, to finish out his senior year. We spent several days together and much of our discussion was about our differences and the future of Slovenia and the EU. Knowing that many of the European Countries are very protective of their ethnic identity, I thought there would be problems with the EU because of this. This and the fact that we have so many cultural issues in the US due to our size. But after hundreds of years we are not so "clannish" as they still were. I always wondered why these countries wanted to join such a system as the EU. Their goal was to get more trading power and to make travel easier between countries. Problem is with the trading power and opening up their borders, they had to give up many of the things that made them independent from the rest of Europe. I have not had further discussion since then as to what kind of changes they had to make and what impact they have had on them. I do remember him and his friends kind of "nyeh nyehing" me because they were sitting on top of the world, having joined the EU. Thinking that all their financial problems were in the past.

@Bewildered...I am slightly left of center and that is a position that most democratic socialist maintain. Most of Western European's advocate democratic socialism. I think you need to dig into what a social democracy is and in particular democratic socialism.

Hey Lyle...your BS meter is off the hook. If it acts like a duck and quakes like a duck, must be a socialist...oops I mean a duck. Come on, you can do it. Admit your socialistic believes. " a little left of center"...who are you kidding.

Do some searches and you will find proposed maps of the US being broken up into regions. Right now we are broken up into regions but the proposed maps I saw went further and broke the US up into 3 separate and distinct regions. And I believe each had their own government and travel would not be free between regions.

@Bewildered I may be mistaken, but I believe @Lyle was wrote "democrat socialist" as that is what we call someone from center left in Europe, so in a way he was talking "my" language. Often people hear/read the word socialist and right away associate it with marxism which is a long gone idealism in Southern Europe at least. Even Socialists in Southern Europe are not what the original were. Far less drastic.

@Mau - I could not agree more with you. I liked the idea of the EEC, but when the Euro was introduced it was destined to fail, not so much because of the different cultures as more for such different economic values between the different European countries. Much as other political ideals, the thoughts and hopes were great but not always do they work in practice.

Wow Mau. Big fan of huxley's Brave New World? Talk about wingnut. That's the biggest bull I've read here in a long time. Man the barricades, eh?

@Bewildered, you bet, Brave New World, Animal Farm, 1984...

"I've seen the future brother: it is murder". (Leonard Cohen)

"Send in the Clowns"

No surprise here. Doyle problems extended for a decade as the rticle states. Walker suppose to clean up all his messes in 12 months. lol The general fund is in best shape in a couple decades.Reforms are working That doesnt mean he can correct all of Doyles failings in one year.
Walker all the way!

let's debate this one elsewhere (see link above) :)

@Bewildered...Sofia is correct. I am not a Marxist or communist. I believe in free enterprise and capitalism with limits. Even Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations exposed the negative aspects of free market economies and the impact. He advocated social responsibility to offset the negative influences of the markets. Remember this was at the close of the 18th century and the dawning of the 19th century.

You know what scares me, Lyle? I'm scared of what your version of "capitalism with limits" is in your world. Who sets the "limits" ? Maybe I shouldn't ask.

@Bewildered...Who decides? We do through our elected representatives. Very simple.

Agree. Glad to hear it. I wasn't sure what your answer would be. By the way, care to let us in on what "limits" you would impose ?

@J.B. Schmidt...To provide the necessities of survival, most nations have adopted a stipend system. If one falls below set income limits, then they qualify for a stipend. This is very much like our food stamp system. Although our food stamp system has some deficiencies, such as the ability to purchase highly prepared food and junk food, it provides the basic needs. WIC is another program that provides for the special requirements of infants and children. Housing and basic needs stipends have been established for what is minimum. People can survive on such stipends, but it is means a minimum lifestyle only. Other stipends are provided for mothers on maternity leave, which usually is 2/3 payment of salary for up to two years. Daycare is part of the public school system and seamlessly moves between preschool to kindergarten and finally into primary education. I know this will be hard for you to believe, but it is not only efficient but also cost effective. By making these guarantees, people who become unemployed can more easily be retrained for new employment since education is picked up by the state.

National sales taxes and VATs are paid by all citizens. If income falls below certain levels, then the low income family will receive a sales tax credit. Pretty simple system.

Except that if people aren't buying stuff in a consistent enough pattern to provide X amount of dollars to cover the costs, you're either borrowing or rejiggering the tax percentage all the time. I don't see how this is a superior system other than, perhaps, from an ideological standpoint if you're of the belief that the folks who buy the most stuff can afford to pay the most taxes.

?

@Nick
You are imparting your own idea of evil or good on the rest of us.

The progressive movement since the late 60's has stated that we are not to judge others based on their actions. We should judge you if you are and remain poor, if you get preggo and can't support it, if you have an addiction and destroy your life and don't judge if you choose to put less quality into your work then others. It is that you gave life a try and it didn't work out. Not let the government carry you.

To the contrary progressives attack those that are successful. They must have stolen it. It was earned on the backs of their employees. They abuse the capitalists system. Well if you attack someone enough they start to scam the system. They will dodge taxes to keep from paying the people attempting to destroy them. Is it right? NO. It is human nature.

Want a real change? Start to celebrate the success of the wealthy. Start to criticizes those that refuse to improve their life, refuse to take care of their family and refuse to take responsibility for their actions. Then you will personal ethics return.

@J.B. Schmidt..Where are you getting this thing about 50% of US citizens are receiving government assistance? Please give me your sources; I don't believe that.

Only if you include Social Security and Medicare in what you call 'handouts'. I don't call them handouts -- they are a government administered retirement annuity and a health plan for which we all pay ahead for benefits.

As for the remainder: "Means-tested programs, designed to help the needy, accounted for the largest share of recipients last year. Some 34.2% of Americans lived in a household that received benefits such as food stamps, subsidized housing, cash welfare or Medicaid (the federal-state health care program for the poor)."

Means testing means that you're poor enough to qualify, and I'm sure those who do would much rather be fully employed and able to fend for themselves.

Thanks skinnyDUDE. Sorry about the attack earlier.

@J.B. Schmidt... That would be nearly 50%,not 34% of the public, voting on what the candidate says he will give -them-. That other 16% still believes they are -entitled-to-receive -their- 'Government Administered Contributions' as benefits

@Jay Sykes -- Yes, silly us. I think that if you had paid for a private annuity with a guaranteed rate you'd feel entitled to receive it in your old age. An excuse like, "Our new corporate center cost us a lot, and our CEO needs a raise," just wouldn't cut it.

I got to agree with Randy. If we got screwed by an insurance company backing out of a guarateed annuity, the Government would be all over them like white on rice. While I have issues with entitlements, I believe we deserve the benefit we pay for. Social Security should never be part of the reform. I also oppose the SS tax cut touted by the current President. When a building is on fire, you should not slow down the flow from the hydrants.

@Randy... The average inflation adjusted return on SS is 1%, the same funds invested conservatively (1/2 in t-bonds 1/2 in stocks) and the rate of return is nearly 5%. So yes, we are already paying for that corporate center; Washington DC et. al.

Social security doesn't belong in that list. I don't believe Midicare does either, but you can't give it away for free. If Medicare worked as well as Social Security we'd all be a lot happier.

As for the rest, government handouts do need limits: both for individuals and for corporarations. I would love to see independent analysis of the cost of corporate welfare vs. social welfare.

cash for clunkers doesn't belong in there either. Can you define an entitlement?

P.S all the things I listed were in fact within the defination of Government Entitlements.

LOL Guess when someone gives you a definition you do like .....it gets quiet.....very very quiet ! lol

How in the world do you achieve consensus when the other side is doing all it can to defeat you?

Typically we can expect that from the opposing party, but the Republicans are even throwing up opposition to programs Obama is promoting that they supported, not too long ago.

As for Reagan, what exactly did he do to overthrow the Soviet Union, other than send our defense spending to the stratosphere and essentially drink them under the table.

The Soviet Union essentially defeated itself as we are doing now with costly wars, as it did in Afghanistan.

If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd like to hear it.

Brian, I agree with most the points you raised but I don't think gaining a "broad" consensus is a viable political goal anymore. When Obama did reach out, he was labeled as weak. When he doesn't, he's labelled as over-reaching.

I think Obama simply decided to do it his own way and let history decide. It's certainly true that folks don't really feel the leadership of Obama, but as Sullivan points out its a long game hes playing. I don't think folks are used to that.

Bush for example was just a partisan as Obama is now, but made rash decisions. Folks liked it "in the moment", but with a final approval rating of 22 percent, I am a little surprised by the common sentiment in patch comments that Obama needs to make quick, immediate decisions to be a good leader. Except in some specific circumstances (when they assassinated bin Laden for example), deliberative patience almost always gives a better end result.

I think the Afordable Care Act, the auto bailout, and even things like the recent XL pipeline decision (which will get approved eventually i think) will be seen in the future as good decisions and good leadership. It's similar to the Cold War example you brought up with Reagan. We could have traded bombs and probably ended up as technical "winners", but Reagan was patient. The Cold War was an extremely long game, and looking back we all hail Reagan as a great leader.

While definitely being framed by 9/11, I don't think everything was rushed. The Bush (war time) tax cuts and prescription drug plan for example.

I really appreciate your well thought-out comments Brian.