Cleo's Mom

A must watch - Alan Grayson explains in terms everyone can understand what the tax cut to the millionaires can do: Daily Kos: Alan Grayson Nails Republicans. And Their Tax Cuts!!

Republicans hate women -but love their votes: Republicans to Women "You're Not Worth It". Updated Share2 0 Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 10:47:29 PM PST Women fell two votes short on Wednesday to coming closer to getting paid the same as men for the same work. Senate Republicans decided that equal pay for women should not even be considered, as they blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act from moving to the floor. Is it any wonder I despise republicans both intellectually and viscerally? How any woman can even be a part of the 'conservative' movement beats the hell out of me. Oh and what a f***ing surprise: All Republicans voted no along with Ben Nelson of Nebraska, the lone dissenting Democrat. Seriously who cannot support equal pay for equal work? Could it be republicans voted against it because satan herself Hillary Clinton originally sponsored the bill? They won't even allow it to be debated, shame on them. When we only earn 77% of what our male counterparts earn equal pay would reduce the pool of cheap labor. Yet I see this was going to be the year of the momma grizzly, yeah right, how did that turn out? dailykos

Our entire middle class is going to collapse. It has been sinking for the last 30 years due to republican and Wall Street values. We are going to become a two class country - the very rich and the poor. Those who aren't poor enough for the few crumbs thrown to them will have to come under the republican banner: " You're on your own." Lost your job? You're on your own. Lost your health insurance? You're on your own. Lost your home? You're on your own. Lost your retirement savings/investments? You're on your own. Sick? You're on your own. Other countries like China, India and Brazil will be surpassing us because they are making investments in their future, while the republicans will be figuring out how to make cuts in everything (except military and tax cuts for the rich). How are we going to be a leader in the 21st century if we are not willing to invest in clean energy, better rail and transportation, infrastructure, education, research and development and get back to manufacturing things? We're sure not going to do that with the republican agenda of cutting spending and tax cuts.

Talk to your obstetrician about a bariatric doctor in your area. S/he might be able to contact one and get you an appointment. Your doctor calling might be more effective. I am assuming you are under the care of an obstetrician. Have you been able to swallow the prenatal Vitamins? I know they are big. I think whoever is handling your prenatal care should be able to help you manage all of this. Good luck.

This is the future we could have had if the Supreme Court had not given the presidency to bush. bush squandered all of this on two unfunded wars, two unfunded tax cuts for the rich and a big, unfunded giveaway to pharma with medicare part D. President Clinton: The United States on Track to Pay Off the Debt by End of the Decade December 28, 2000 Today, President Clinton will announce that The United States is on course to eliminate its public debt within the next decade. The Administration also announced that we are projected to pay down $237 billion in debt in 2001. Due in part to a strong economy and the President’s commitment to fiscal discipline, the federal fiscal condition has improved for an unprecedented nine consecutive years. Based upon today’s new economic and budget projections for the coming 10 years from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB): The United States can be debt-free this decade. By dedicating the entire budget surplus to debt reduction, The United States can eliminate its publicly held debt by FY 2009. The next Administration and Congress will need to decide what priorities to address: eliminate the public debt by FY 2010 and still use part of the surplus for responsible tax cuts, prescription drug benefits for Medicare recipients, and investments in key priorities like education and health care. The national debt is projected to be paid down by $237 billion this year. Under the budget President Clinton and Congress completed two weeks ago, the U.S. is projected to pay down $237 billion of the national debt in FY 2001. The 4 year total debt paydown will be $600 billion. Over the last three years, we have already paid down $363 billion in debt. Therefore, The United States is on track to reduce the debt by $600 billion over four years, the largest four-year debt pay-down ever. Record deficits have become record surpluses. This Administration has have moved the country from a deficit of $290 billion in FY 1992 to an expected surplus of $256 billion in FY 2001. Eight years ago, the Congressional Budget Office projected a $513 billion deficit in FY 2001. Thus, the fiscal picture is now projected to improve by $769 billion in FY 2001 alone. Nine consecutive years of fiscal improvement. FY 2001 will be the fourth year in a row of overall surpluses and the second year in a row of a surplus without counting Social Security or Medicare. It will be the ninth consecutive year of fiscal improvement, the longest such period in history. ON TRACK TO ELIMINATE THE DEBT THIS DECADE The U.S. is on track to eliminate the publicly held debt this decade. Under OMB’s new baseline projection, the public debt would be eliminated in FY 2009. This budget "baseline" by definition includes no new initiatives or policy changes and therefore the entire budget surplus is dedicated to debt reduction (including the Social Security, Medicare, and on-budget surpluses). A fiscally responsible budget that includes new investments in moderate tax relief, a Medicare prescription drugs proposal, and key domestic priorities could eliminate the public debt by FY 2010. Pay down of $600 billion in debt over four years. In FYs 1998, 1999, and 2000, the debt held by the public was reduced by $363 billion. The U.S. government is projected to pay down an additional $237 billion in debt held by the public this fiscal year alone (FY 2001). That will bring the total debt pay-down to $600 billion—the largest four-year debt pay-down in American history. In contrast, under the 12-year tenure of Presidents Reagan and Bush, the debt held by the public quadrupled. The debt held by the public will be cut in half ($3.2 trillion lower) in FY 2001 than it was projected to be when President Clinton took office. In 1993, the debt held by the public was projected by the Office of Management and Budget to balloon to $6.4 trillion by FY 2001. Instead, shrinking deficits—and then the growing surpluses of the last four years—will bring the debt down to $3.2 trillion in FY 2001, $3.2 trillion less than projected in 1993. In FY 1993, the debt held by the public was 50 percent of GDP and projected to rise to 68 percent of GDP in FY 2001. Instead, it will be slashed to 31 percent of GDP this year and can be completely eliminated this decade. Interest payments on the debt will be $166 billion lower than projected. In 1993, the net interest payments on the debt held by the public were projected to grow to $376 billion in FY 2001. Tough choices in 1993 and 1997 and a commitment to fiscal discipline have slashed this figure by $166 billion, a 44 percent reduction. LARGEST UNIFIED SURPLUS EVER Instead of a $513 billion deficit, there will be a $256 billion surplus this year. In 1992, the deficit in the federal budget was $290 billion—the largest dollar deficit in American history. In January 1993, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the deficit would grow to $513 billion by FY 2001. In fact, the unified budget will be in surplus by $256 billion in FY 2001—the fourth consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever, even after adjusting for inflation. Over 10 years, the non-Social Security surplus alone is estimated to be over $2.4 trillion. Not including Social Security and Medicare surpluses, the surplus is projected to be $1.9 trillion. Largest unified surplus as a percent of GDP since 1948. The 2001 surplus is projected to be 2.5 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP)—the largest surplus as a ratio to the GDP since 1948. The fourth consecutive year with a surplus for the first time in over 70 years. The FY 2001 surplus of $256 billion follows surpluses of $237 billion in FY 2000, $124 billion in FY 1999, and $69 billion in FY 1998. The last time The United States had four surpluses in a row was over 70 years ago, during 1927-30. The FY 2001 surplus will mark the ninth consecutive year of fiscal improvement. This is the longest run of consecutive years of improvement in American history, surpassing the pre-Clinton-Gore best of five straight years. REDUCING SPENDING WHILE CUTTING TAXES FOR MIDDLE-INCOME FAMILIES Federal spending as a share of the economy is the lowest since 1966. Spending restraint under President Clinton has brought federal spending down from 22 percent of GDP in 1992 to 18 percent of GDP in 2001, the lowest since 1966. At the same time, President Clinton has increased strategic investments in education, technology, and other areas that are vital to growth. The smallest federal civilian workforce in 40 years. The Federal civilian workforce increased from the time when President Reagan took office to the time when President Bush left office. In contrast, since President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, the Federal civilian workforce has been cut by 377,000—by nearly a fifth – and is now smaller than at any time since 1960. While balancing the budget, running large surpluses and paying down the debt, the Clinton-Gore Administration has provided tax relief for working families. The tax cuts signed into law by the President in 1993 and 1997—including the expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, the $500 child tax credit, the $1,500 Hope Scholarship Tax Credit, and expanded IRAs—have cut taxes for American working families. Federal income taxes as a percentage of income for the typical American family have dropped to their lowest level in over 30 years. What Fiscal Discipline Means For The United States Lower interest rates cut mortgage payments by $2,000 a year for families with a $100,000 mortgage. As a result of President Clinton’s policy of deficit and debt reduction, it is estimated that a family with a home mortgage of $100,000 might expect to save roughly $2,000 per year in mortgage payments, effectively a large tax cut. Lower interest rates cut car payments by $200 a year for families with a car loan. Lower interest rates cut student loan payments by $200 a year for someone with a typical student loan. Lower debt will help maintain strong economic growth. With the government no longer draining resources out of capital markets, businesses have more funds for productive investment. This has helped to fuel average real annual increase of more than 13 percent in private investment in equipment and software since 1993, including eight years in a row of double-digit growth. This compares to a 4.7 percent annual growth rate from 1981-92, a period that saw the debt held by the public quadruple. Rising investment has contributed to an increase in productivity growth. Non-farm business productivity has grown at a 3.1 percent average annual rate for the last four years and 4.8 percent over the last year. This compares to 1.4 percent growth from the 1970s through the early 1990s. Interest payments would be eliminated on the publicly held debt. Currently, we spend 11 cents of every federal dollar on interest payments. These payments, which were once projected to grow to 23 percent of all federal spending in 2010, could be eliminated by that time under a fiscally prudent budget. Prepare for the retiring baby boomers. Paying off the debt will create room in the budget for the increased Social Security and Medicare costs when the baby boomers retire. It will also free up funds for investment, help keep interest rates low, and boost workers’ productivity and incomes. This fiscal discipline is the best way to prepare the government and the nation to meet the challenge of the retirement of the baby boom generation.

Because when those congressmen run for re-election they want to be able to say how many jobs they created for their district. They like to show up at the ribbon-cuttings for these defense projects for photo-ops. I just heard one congressman wants to add $14 billion to the defense budget for more nuclear weapons. How many do we need? Add to this another republican who wants to eliminate the estate tax and the Alternative Minimum tax - and you have nearly a trillion dollars here in costs and lost revenue. Where do you think that money will come from and what does it have to do with creating jobs?

Elfie - your story so parallels mine. I never thought I failed the band. It failed me. I did everything right, followed all the rules - still do, but at no fill level did I ever reach anything close to satiety or lack of hunger. I lost 75lbs, but only 15 from the band. So, like you, I don't credit it with much. I also met with my doctor today and he said the same thing - that the band just doesn't work the way we want it to for everyone (getting to sweet spot, not hungry, etc). So, I guess we're in the 20%. I am unfilled now and plan to stay that way. We talked about the sleeve and I said that if it's important to match the person with the right WLS - from what I have read - the sleeve would match me. I have always had a huge appetite, even when thin, and could eat a lot. Then I started to put on weight. My appetite has always been huge. It takes a lot of food to satisfy my hunger. He said with some even though food is in the pouch the bottom stomach is feeling empty and I'm like - YES, YES, that's exactly how I feel. However, since I have lost weight with the band and my insurance doesn't cover the sleeve, I will just have to continue my journey as is. I am so glad you are getting the revision. I think it sounds like it is right for you. Good luck in your new journey.

Some insurance companies want to be shown that you can be committed to weight loss before the band so that you will be committed after it and require you lose a certain %. If yours says 5% then you should try to lose that. It's probably not a lot of weight if your BMI is 36.5. As to the psych eval. - I agree with everyone else in that you need to get a copy and review it. Appeal their decision and keep after them. Don't give up. That's what they're counting on. Good luck.

Same answer. We pay into unemployment and are entitled to collect it. Period. And no one needs to apologize for collecting it. But the healthcare they had when they were employed is not extended to them as unemployed unless they can afford the expensive cobra, which most can't. So, I have no problem with healthcare reform that allows them the opportunity to buy into a more affordable healthcare plan. Obviously you do. Typical selfish "I have mine but I deserve mine - you don't deserve it" right wing attitude.

Typical republican lies - welfare goes to families with children and some elderly - not to some guy sitting home, with no job, and smoking pot all day.

Why is this REPUBLICAN guy still serving? REPRESENTATIVE DON YOUNG Representative Don Young (R-AK) is a nineteen-term member of Congress, representing Alaska at-large. Rep. Young served as Chairman of the House Resources Committee from 1994 to 2000, and as the Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee from 2000 to 2006. In the 111th Congress, Rep. Young lost his position as ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee when House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner did not support Rep. Young’s efforts to maintain his leadership role on the committee. Rep. Young’s ethics violations stem from the misuse of his position to benefit family and friends and to steer millions of dollars in earmarks to corporations in exchange for contributions to his campaign committee and political action committee, Midnight Sun PAC (MSPAC). Rep. Young is currently under federal investigations for (1) his role in securing a $10 million earmark for a road in Florida; (2) assistance he offered to convicted VECO Corporation CEO Bill Allen, and; (3) his ties to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. At one time Rep. Young was being investigated for his financial relationship with convicted businessman Dennis Troha. Rep. Young was included in CREW’s 2007 and 2008 congressional corruption reports. I have no problem with whatever punishement the Ethics Committee gives to Rangle - they can expel, censure or fine him.

Mourning in America: Death of the Middle Class Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 11:18:07 AM PST The deficit commission report is another blow to the nation’s once-great middle class. For 30 years, rich conservatives have shirked their social responsibilities by successfully demanding that the middle class pay proportionally more in taxes and receive less in benefits. The result is a country whose 21st century robber barons, the richest 1 percent, take home nearly a quarter of all American income, while median wages for workers have stagnated and poverty has increased. The co-chairmen of the deficit commission complied with demands from the wealthy by recommending the middle class bear the brunt of the cost of reducing the deficit. The rich are killing the great American middle. the deficit commission report issued last week is another Saturday night special pressed to the temple of the American middle class. "Turn over your money and your benefits or your country will die," the report screams at workers. "You want your country to go bankrupt? No? Then you gotta delay retirement, get less from Social Security, pay more for health insurance and lose your precious few income tax breaks like the one that helps pay your mortgage while the banker is breathing down your neck right now." For 30 years, rich conservatives have successfully threatened the American middle class this way, ever since that rich conservative Ronald Reagan converted the White House into a castle. The result is a country with greater income inequality than during the age of corporate robber barons at the turn of the 20th century. It is a country whose 21st century robber barons, the richest 1 percent of Americans, take nearly a quarter of all income and demand that politicians relieve them of their obligations. The rich -- hedge fund owners who rake in billions, Wall Street banksters handed bonuses in the millions, CEOs paid eight-figure golden parachutes after they mess up -- insist that politicians place government debt burdens on the middle class, the unemployed, the elderly, the struggling young, people whose income has stagnated for three decades. The co-chairmen of the deficit commission complied with that mandate from the flush when they recommended the middle class bear the brunt of the cost of reducing the deficit. Simultaneously, conservatives in Congress are acquiescing by insisting on extending tax breaks for the nation’s wealthiest. Those are the very tax breaks that contributed dramatically to creating the debt – the one that the deficit commission now wants heaped on workers’ backs. This will be the death of the nation’s strength -- its successful working class. Without the slightest regret or hesitation, the rich are killing the great American middle, rendering it a casualty of their shirked social responsibilities. Their campaign has been abetted by Republicans since Ronald Reagan. The Gipper contended slashing taxes for the wealthy would increase revenues for the government. Republican George H. W. Bush rightly ridiculed Reaganomics as voodoo. In the GOP years between the beginning of Reagan in 1981 and the end of Bush II in 2009, the federal deficit exploded as Republican presidents failed to control spending and repeatedly cut taxes for the rich. Reagan reduced the rate on the richest first down to 50 percent, then to 28 percent. The resulting budget deficit converted the U.S. from the world’s largest international creditor to its largest debtor. And now, the deficit commission sends the bulk of the bill for voodoo economics to the middle class, not the rich. While Reagan gave the rich those breaks, income inequality increased. The share of total income taken by the richest 5 percent grew from 16.5 percent the year before he took office to 18.3 percent the year before he left. In that same time, the share of total income that went to the poorest 20 percent of households fell from 4.2 to 3.8 percent. Democrat Bill Clinton fulfilled a campaign promise by increasing taxes on the rich -- to a 39.6 percent marginal rate. He balanced the federal budget and left Bush II with a surplus. Then Bush II squandered it. He gave the rich more tax breaks, accumulated debts larger than all those created by previous presidents combined and worsened income inequality. During his administration, from 2002 to 2007, the pretax income of the richest 1 percent increased 10 percent every year. Over that same period, the median income for working Americans declined and the poverty rate rose. From Reagan through Bush II, more than four-fifths of the total increase in U.S. income went to the richest 1 percent. Hedge fund owners, whose income is literally in the billions, pay income taxes at 15 percent – lower than the rate paid by their secretaries, who earn far less in a year than any of the top 10 hedgers do in half an hour. Wall Street recklessness crashed the U.S. economy, throwing millions of middle income earners out of their jobs and their homes. The banksters went to Washington and got politicians to hand them bailout billions, and now those Wall Streeters plan to increase their bonuses -- while unemployment remains stuck at 9.6 percent in the Main Street economy. It is those guys, bankers grabbing year end bonuses totaling two and three times what middle class earners get for a year’s labor; it is the five-home wealthy demanding that the foreclosed-on middle class suffer for the deficit. The rich, who have received the greatest benefits from this society, have no intention of paying their share of this national responsibility. The deficit, the Social Security shortfall, difficulties with Medicare – they could all be solved if the nation returned to taxing policies that existed under Republican President Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, when the rate on top earners was 91 percent. That was not even the high point. In the mid-1940s it was 94 percent. Generally it fluctuated between 81 percent in 1940 and 70 percent when Reagan began slashing it in 1981. Those rates may sound confiscatory now, but it’s not like the rich actually paid them after they subtracted out all of their exemptions, deductions, loopholes, special deals, tricks and wiles. The dozen years in the 1950s and 1960s when the rate on the richest officially was 91 percent is a time considered by many Americans to be among the nation’s greatest for the middle class, a period when American workers could afford to buy homes, send their kids to college and travel across American on vacation. There’s no talk of that now. Raising taxes on the rich now is considered ludicrous. Ridiculous. The whole Social Security shortfall could be solved if the rich paid taxes on their entire incomes, not just the first $110,000, a break that means the wealthy pay a smaller percentage if their income toward Social Security than the impoverished. But the deficit commission didn’t propose that. No, the rich have succeeded in eliminating as a possibility their paying an increased tax share. Now, the only consideration is cutting their taxes. They didn’t hold an actual Saturday night special to anyone’s head. The rich are snake oil salesmen slick, Bernie Madoff-style schemers. They sold voodoo economics to America, and now they’re intent on making the middle class pay for what that policy has wrought in deficits. Reagan’s re-election ad was wrong. He didn’t institute "Morning in America." It was mourning for the once great American middle class. dailykos

He did not personally profit by any of the so-called ethics violations. After January, he will not be chairman of any committee. Yawn.

If you can't see the hypocrisy of someone saying - I don't want the government to help you get health insurance but I want the government to pay for me to get mine - then you are the one with blinders and indicative of those who drink the kool aid on the right. My tax dollars are going to pay for his health insurance but he doesn't want any OTHER government tax dollars going to the uninsured to help them purchase private health insurance. Too bad we can't convert republican hypocrisy into money - we could pay down the debt and have a surplus.

More staggering republican hypocrisy: Anti-ObamaCare GOPer Demands His Gov't Healthcare Mon Nov 15, 2010 at 09:15:29 PM PST Wow. There's just no bounds to the Republican talent for breath-taking hypocrisy: Maryland physician Andy Harris ® just soundly defeated Frank Kratovil, one of the most endangered Democrats on Capitol Hill going into the November election. And he did it in large part by railing against 'Obamacare' and pledging to repeal Health Care Reform. But when he showed on Capitol Hill today for an orientation for incoming members of Congress and their staffs, he had a different question: Where's my government health care? ...Harris created a stir at the orientation meeting by demanding to know why he had to wait a month after he was sworn in in January for his government-subsidized health care to kick in. After responding in a huff, he even asked if there was some way he could buy into the government care in advance, seemingly thinking there might be a government program similar to the so-called 'public option' championed by progressive Democrats in 2009. He was apparently upset that he'd have to endure an entire 28 days without health care coverage. Here's a quote from him during the campaign: the answer to the ever-rising cost of insurance is not the expansion of government-run or government-mandated insurance but, instead, common-sense market based solutions that ensure decisions are made by patients and their doctors. dailykos

Let's say that the compromise on the tax cuts is moving the cut off from $250,000 to one million. For the cost of this to extend the tax cuts to those who make up to one million you could: GIVE $1000 CHECKS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER. Now, if the democrats and Obama were smart, this is the message they would sell.

Palin PWND! Red States are FREELOADERS who depend on HANDOUTS ShareNew 0 by MinistryOfTruth [Subscribe] Mon Nov 15, 2010 at 09:07:25 AM PST From Sunday's New York Daily News comes a brilliant expose on the truth, that Red States are freeloaders who depend on handouts to survive. It turns out that the real welfare queens are Republican governed states who would be up shit's creek without blue states like NY, NJ and CA to bail them out. Remember to throw these FACTS in the faces of the Republicans you meet, and while we are at it, if you get the chance ask Sarah Palin "How's that subsidy, welfare-y thing workin out for ya?" More below the fold MinistryOfTruth's diary :: :: Crossposted at The Progressive Electorate.com Definitely read the whole article, but these are the best parts . . . Alaska gets $1.84 in federal spending for every dollar it pays in federal taxes. We in New York get just 79 cents on the dollar. Which means we subsidize Alaska even as it enjoys a $2 billion-plus budget surplus. Even as New York faces a huge deficit that will require ever more painful cuts. ~snip~ Maybe there will be more reality shows featuring other big names in the Tea Party who call for cuts in government spending even as their home states are subsidized by the rest of us. There could be Sen. Jim DeMint's South Carolina, which gets $1.35 on the dollar. There could also be Sen.-elect Rand Paul's Kentucky, which rakes in $1.51. Compare those states to two that are in financial crisis and suffer an even worse balance of payments than we do in New York. California receives only 78 cents on the dollar. And New Jersey gets just 61 cents, though it does have a hit reality show. ~snip~ So, how's that subsidy, welfare-y thing working out for ya, Sarah? NY Daily News dailykos

NY Times interactive puzzle - let's you fix the budget: Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

Obama has already directed them to cut their budgets but I can't recall the %. And I would add to this list: 1) All corporations pay a flat tax of 25%. No exceptions, unless they stop sending jobs overseas. They could get a reduction for creating jobs in America. But penalized if they send the jobs overseas.

xxonMobil paid no federal income tax in 2009. (Updated) Last week, Forbes magazine published what the top U.S. corporations paid in taxes last year. “Most egregious,” Forbes notes, is General Electric, which “generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.” Big Oil giant Exxon Mobil, which last year reported a record $45.2 billion profit, paid the most taxes of any corporation, but none of it went to the IRS: Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas. Mother Jones’ Adam Weinstein notes that, despite benefiting from corporate welfare in the U.S., Exxon complains about paying high taxes, claiming that it threatens energy innovation research. Pat Garofalo at the Wonk Room notes that big corporations’ tax shelter practices similar to Exxon’s shift a $100 billion annual tax burden onto U.S. taxpayers. In fact, in 2008, the Government Accountability Office found that “two out of every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005.” I noticed missing from the deficit panel's recommendations was anything to address this. Heaven help us if we ask corporate America and Wall Street to pay their fair share to America. Instead, keep hitting the middle class and the poor to make up for corporate welfare in this country. They don't have expensive lobbyists to champion for them.

With 2 years of republican control in congress, he can blame it on the republicans, which will be the truth.

Loserbob - as usual the republicans want to cut spending and the deficit on the backs of the middle class who did not create this economic mess and deficit. It was created by: 1) Corporate greed - the wall street abuses and the fact that corporations don't pay (their fair share of) taxes. 2) The housing crisis that resulted from #1 3) Two unfunded wars - still being paid for - still borrowing money for 4) Medicare part D - unfunded and still being paid for 5) The two tax cuts for the rich THAT DIDN'T PRODUCE ONE JOB and will cost $70 billion a year to extend (these tax cuts reduced revenue just when we needed it the most) Now they want to balance the budget, cut spending and reduce the deficit by cutting social programs and tax deductions for the middle class. Screw that! Tell Wall Street to start coughing up what it owes the American people. Make them pay. Where was that in the plan the deficit commission put forth????

I read a quote once that said going on a diet and being hungry all the time is like holding your breath. Eventually the hunger wins. What the band is supposed to do at the correct restriction is allow small amounts of food to keep you satisfied for several hours and not be hungry. That's the band's job. And it's your doctor's job to get it to work that way. Your job is to make good food choices, chew, not drink during meals, exercise and follow up with your doctor. But keep in mind that it doesn't work that way for everyone.

Just a reminder of the 4 R's of republicanism: 1) Rich 2) Racist 3) Red-Neck 4) Religious-Right If republicans give me a hard time - I recite this and then ask: Which one are you?