First Lady now requires 26 servants

[jms462001 9]

why can't we go across state lines to purchase insurance? That would increase competition. Soooo many other ideas besides a public option, but Obama doesn't want to go those routes. What gives? Sounds like something fishy there.

TV ads soliciting plantiffs for medical malpractice suits skyrocketed 1,400% from 2004-2008 while spending on those ads soared 1300% in inflation-adjusted dollars, according to research carried out by the Campaign Media Analysis group for the institute for legal reform. The ads' successes have made the trial bar even more protective of its lucrative turf, but Democratic Politicians also have benefited because in the last election cycle, more than 99% of trial lawyers' political contributions went to Democrats, according to a recent analysis of National Law Journal data. That explains why health care "reforms" moving through Congress are devoid of long, overdue tort reform.

Is it acceptable for the lawyers to make obscene amounts of money off health care, but not the insurance or drug companies? Or is it the reality that our President (a Lawyer himself) and Congress (comprised of mostly attorneys) are protecting their own? Or perhaps trial lawyers are major contributors to Democratic coffers? And you people trust the government.(rolling my eyes again)

Dr's offices cannot handle the immense paperwork of the number of insurance companies they now deal with.......they simply do not want more.

[jms462001 9]

I watched the news (CNN) last night and witnessed a black man argueing with a white man over what he said was a racial issue concerning the march on Washington last Saturday. I ask: Why do some black people feel that bringing up the race card for every instance of opposition is proper? For one thing, He's not a black man. He's a black AND white man. He is like me and he is like you. The issue of race (when it comes to the president, for I know racism still exists at times) was settled, IMO, when the people in America chose him to be our president. The real issue is what he's been doing since his time as president began. It's also the economy and the fedupness of the people over government corruption and greed and spending. They felt they were going to get some 'change' in the WH by electing Obama on his promises and all they see is more and more of the same. (Outrageous spending!) It's NOT about race. For Pelosi is a white woman, and at the rallies they were chanting to throw her out. There were many other 'white' democrats that they were holding signs up about as well. NO, this is about the government as a whole, no matter what color their skins may be.

Whether we have a black (half) president or a white one, the issue of race in America is far from being settled and will rear it's ugly head with every issue in politics.

[Gracey 7]

I can't read this whole thread b/c I find PG to be the most out of touch poster on this website.

I'm not even a minority and I personally am offended that you had to put "servant" in the thread title instead of "staffers" or "employees" or any other title one can come up with.

PG - it isn't the 50's anymore. Wake up.

[plain 12]

plain, what do you mean I "claim" to support an individual's right to own a gun?

Uh....I meant that you made that particular claim. Did I make that statement in error?

Unless you've been living under a rock, all you have to do is read the paper or do a very small amount of research to figure that out.

You'd think I would get used to this from you. BJean, you are the queen of "just take a look around you" when asked about something. My whole point was that, if I used extremely ultra-right wing propaganda, I could probably find an article that supported my point of view. But that really defeats the purpose.....we should be watching the news with a critical eye. I know, I watch Fox, so I'm brainwashed, or retarted, or racist or......fill in the blank.

In the big picture, think about the people who have been assassinated. And it sure isn't the right wing or Republicans who've been killed or blown up.

Wow....I didn't know Sirhan Sirhan was a republican! Scandalous! And I'm pretty sure that Lee Harvey Oswald was a communist, not a conservative. And....let's see....Wasn't it "Manson Family" girl Squeaky Fromme (probably not too conservative if she joined the Manson Family, I'd bet) that tried to kill president Ford? And howz about John Hinckley Jr? Clearly he is idolized by the republican party.

See, that's where your arguement breaks down. Anybody willing to murder a government official is crazy. It's not really a left vs. right as much as it is a sane vs. insane thing (IMO).

But as a nation, it's the people who are angry over religious issues, the government's supposed domination, race, abortion, gun control, health care reform, etc., who are not just vocal but who are willing to use violence to demonstrate their beliefs.

Except that there has been no violence at the tea parties or the townhall conventions (unless you count the pro-healthcare guy that elbowed somebody in the face at the Tucson town hall....but I'm pretty sure you were talking about violence from the right, correct?).

That is why it is so irresponsible for our politicians and the "news" media to encourage people to show up with guns and encouraged to shout down the opposition and encouraged to bring what might normally be a dissenting voice to such a fevered pitch that they have become dangerous.

I don't believe for a minute that any legitimate politician or news outlet has encouraged people to show up with guns and / or shout people down. In this time of youtube, you should be able to find examples if this is true (I'm at work, so I can't access youtube till I get home). I'll be shocked if you can find one.

I think we can all agree that anyone who uses guns or bombs when trying to make a statement against something, are wackos. But when someone loses a life or a building or a child in that building, to them it really doesn't matter a lot to which side the perp leans.

Here, I agree w/ you 1000%.

I believe in our right to peaceful demonstration. I believe in our right to free speech. I do not believe in some wack job's right to use lethal weapons to make their points. It is dangerous and I hold some of the nuts on the Fox network and some of the nutty politicians responsible for the way their disagreement with the left has become so volatile. They're being irresponsible and they should be called on it - like the president has said he would.

Ah, it wouldn't be a BJean post without some Fox bashing! But like I said earlier, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find some actual examples of Fox doing anything like you're saying (I know this because I watch Fox pretty regularly).

As far as change goes - it takes two parties to be bipartisan and all we've seen from the republicans is dissent, obstructionism and complaints and defense of the status quo, which of course always benefits the "haves" .

But how does that explain the fact that more people feel like me than like you?

Right Cleo'sMom. And I can never understand how exactly the middle class can afford to support the Republican agenda like they do. And I can't understand it if they don't recognize the results of a Republican administration as being the catastrophy that it created.

I know you don't understand it. I've tried explaining, but you don't want to hear. You'd rather be partisan.

And patty, what is your source of information saying tort reform in Texas is working? And in what way is it working?

Because when Texas enacted tort reform, more doctors moved in state to practice. Why? Because it's cheaper.

You don't see or hear anything from the sign carriers about what the bush tax cuts cost us taxpayers. Or what it cost in terms of lost revenue. The cost of healthcare or the stimulus pales in comparison to the tax cuts and the Iraqi war combined.

That's because it's a legitimate difference of opinion. Most of middle America believe that the government cannot provide a meaningful number of long-lasting jobs, because the salary of those people are paid by tax dollars... tax dollars taken from the checks of those that the government employs. It's like those perpetual motion sketches in turn of the century America....they look credible on paper, but it doesn';t work in real life.

Some people believe that low taxes are "lost revenue" for the government. Some believe that low taxes encourage people to spend and invest. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

[pattygreen 5]

I’m gonna have to do some research on this topic (don’t like posting hearsay), but I heard or read a few days ago that the Bush Tax cuts cut out something like $2.3T in revenue plus another $230B in some sort of interest. That money would have covered TARP, Health Care, and a chunk of the Stimulus plan.

Here is a link (this is one of several that are out there)

The tax legislation enacted under President George W. Bush from 2001 through 2006 will cost $2.48trillion over the 2001-2010 period.

This includes the revenue loss of $2.11 trillion that results directly from the Bush tax cuts as well as the $379 billion in additional interest payments on the national debt that we must make since the tax cuts were deficit-financed.

[...] Over the upcoming decade (2010-2019), the costs of the health care proposals approved by three committees in the U.S. House of Representatives are projected to be around $1 trillion. (One committee trimmed the costs of its health care bill below that amount, but an official estimate of the cost reductions was not available at the time of this writing.)

You're right! All this government spending is horrendous!!!! The almost 3 trillion that Bush spent during his 8 years was ridiculous, and now look at Obama's spending in just 9 months!

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures

• Posted March 24th, 2009 at 10.20am in Ongoing Priorities.
  

President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama’s budget deficits in context of President Bush’s.

What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details:

• President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
  
• President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
  
• President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.
  
• President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.
  
• President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.
  
• President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.
  
• President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.
  

UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has been now been added.

CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

[pattygreen 5]

Obama Spent an Amazing $84 Million on Stimulus Website

by Brad Jackson

As a candidate for President, Barack Obama pledged to eliminate government waste and spend the taxpayer’s dollars wisely. He also promised to shine a never before seen light of transparency on the federal government. As part of this initiative, Obama’s administration launched Recovery.gov a website they promised would allow Americans to see how their money from the stimulus bill was being spent.

Amanda Carpenter has a fantastic piece in today’s Washington Times, detailing the shortcomings of the government site.

Concerns are piling up that

Recovery.gov

, the Obama Administration’s online clearinghouse for stimulus spending information, isn’t producing the kind of transparency it promised.

Obama said the website would provide a way for taxpayers to track and monitor how the $700 billion in stimulus money was being spent, yet more than two months after some of the funds have been released the website offers little detail on where the money is going.

As Amanda highlights, although Recovery.gov looks nice, the site is short on specifics and serves as little more than a repository of Obama administration press releases and links to other government run websites. Here’s the real kicker though, this website cost you, me and the rest of America’s taxpayers a whopping $84 million dollars.

Let me say that one more time. The man who promised on the campaign trail to be a wise steward of your taxpayer dollars and root out government waste has spent $84 million dollars of your money on a website.

My day job, when not writing for The New Ledger, is as an online consultant for campaigns, companies, organizations and individuals. I build websites for a living. I cannot fathom even the most amazingly interactive, cliché loaded site actually costing anywhere near $84 million dollars. It doesn’t matter how much “testing” or “compliance” you need to do, it does not cost you $84 million to build that site.

How much is $84 million? In the scheme of the trillions of dollars Obama has proposed to spend in his administration, it’s not much, but think about it in other contexts. The outrage and scandal that developed in recent weeks over AIG’s bonuses paid revolved around $165 million worth of bonuses to be paid. The public was whipped into a palpable lather over that money. Nearly ever member of Congress rained upon the cable news outlets to cry havoc over the absurdity of that money. It’s even led to legislation.

What else does $84 million get you these days? Let’s see. Obama’s own Department of Energy announced just about a month ago that it would invest $84 million in geothermal energy. From the press release…

“President Obama has laid out an ambitious agenda to put millions of people to work by investing in clean energy technology like geothermal energy,” said Secretary Chu. “The Administration is committed to funding important research like this to transform the way we use and produce energy and reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.”

So in that case $84 million “put millions of people to work” and reduced “our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.” That seems like a better deal to me.

Ironically enough, $84 million is also the amount of public funding that Barack Obama turned down to run the general election portion of his campaign.

$84 million, or what the government has available to hand out to both the Republican and Democratic nominees for president, is more money than most people will ever see in their lifetimes, making some wonder why it’s not enough for Barack Obama to run his campaign.

…

Had Obama accepted public funding, his campaign would be limited to spending about $1.2 million per day from the end of the Democratic convention until Election Day.

That’s $1.2 million per day for about 67 days. Building Recovery.gov didn’t take that long. Think about that. Whoever got that $84 million, got paid more than $1.2 million PER DAY to build a subpar, underwhelming website.

“For that kind of money the administration should produce a top notch website. Unfortunately, the product we have seen so far leaves much to be desired,” Dr. Coburn said.

It’s time to ask Obama if he’s going to shine a light of transparency on the process that his administration went through to produce Recovery.gov. Who built it and how does the administration justify spending that kind of money on a website that doesn’t even begin to deliver on what it promised?

Mr. President, it’s time for some answers.

TNL

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Originally Posted by Cleo's Mom

As far as change goes - it takes two parties to be bipartisan and all we've seen from the republicans is dissent, obstructionism and complaints and defense of the status quo, which of course always benefits the "haves" .

But how does that explain the fact that more people feel like me than like you?

Actually, I don't believe that more people feel like you than me. Obama was elected in a landslide, turned red states blue. It's just that those who oppose Obama and everything he stands for have become very vocal and are getting their 15 minutes of fame.

[BJean 16]

plain: "Wow....I didn't know Sirhan Sirhan was a republican! Scandalous! And I'm pretty sure that Lee Harvey Oswald was a communist, not a conservative. And....let's see....Wasn't it "Manson Family" girl Squeaky Fromme (probably not too conservative if she joined the Manson Family, I'd bet) that tried to kill president Ford? And howz about John Hinckley Jr? Clearly he is idolized by the republican party.

"See, that's where your arguement breaks down. Anybody willing to murder a government official is crazy. It's not really a left vs. right as much as it is a sane vs. insane thing (IMO)."

I didn't say that "conservatives" did the killing. I said take a look at who has been killed. And it isn't the right wingers.

I thought you told me that you didn't watch Fox network. Hmmm, musta been someone else. I must say that it sure explains a lot about how you post and what you say.

[pattygreen 5]

Originally Posted by Cleo's Mom

As far as change goes - it takes two parties to be bipartisan and all we've seen from the republicans is dissent, obstructionism and complaints and defense of the status quo, which of course always benefits the "haves" .

But how does that explain the fact that more people feel like me than like you?

Actually, I don't believe that more people feel like you than me. Obama was elected in a landslide, turned red states blue. It's just that those who oppose Obama and everything he stands for have become very vocal and are getting their 15 minutes of fame.

That was then and this is now. More people feel opposed to what Obama is doing than for it, NOW. Before the election, they thought he wouldn't be a blowhard spendohiolic. Now they see him for what he really is.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

That was then and this is now. More people feel opposed to what Obama is doing than for it, NOW. Before the election, they thought he wouldn't be a blowhard spendohiolic. Now they see him for what he really is.

What he is - is a president who finally has the guts to address the problems left over from other presidents who didn't address them. It is always easier to kick the can down the street to the next guy.

Obama had to do something for the economy. He had to do something to keep the banks from failing. This is why he was elected.

While painful, the money used to keep the banks and insurance companies from failing kept us from a full fledged depression. If he had done nothing, then you'd see people taking to the streets complaining that unemployment was 20%, maybe half of mortgages going into default, many more businesses going out of business, etc..

The stimulus put money in people's pocket in the way of tax cuts plus money to get projects going and to save and create jobs - which it did (about one million). Every headline that I see says that it is working and the recession is ending. Had Obama not infused the money into the economy we would be in a depression. This isn't my opinion, it is supported by economists whose expertise monitors this.

The non-partisan budget office said that healthcare could REDUCE the federal deficit by $49 billion over 10 years. That's right, reduce it. If we don't do healthcare our deficit will increase and additional burdens will be put on medicare and medicaid.

The right wing, who never voted for Obama, and many of whom do not consider him a legitimate president (birthers, etc) were quiet during the honeymoon period of Obama. Nothing was to be gained then by their irrational opinions. But when congress recessed for August and held town hall meeting, well they finally found the forum they were waiting for. It snowballed from there.

They organized, with the help of Dick Armey and Freedom Watch among others, their hate fueled by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. They relished the media attention and their lies playing on people's fears were perpetuated.

Some people who won't take the time to understand the facts are understandably fearful when the vocal extremists are getting all the media attention. But I think the tide will turn. Those of us who support Obama are organizing with planned events. We did it to get Obama elected, we will do it now to support healthcare reform, clean energy, etc..

People are already tiring of the radical extremists on the right with signs that have nothing to do with spending and everything to do with hatred of Obama like:

Zoos have an african lion and the white house has a lyin' african.

[pattygreen 5]

What he is - is a president who finally has the guts to address the problems left over from other presidents who didn't address them. It is always easier to kick the can down the street to the next guy.

Obama had to do something for the economy. He had to do something to keep the banks from failing. This is why he was elected.

While painful, the money used to keep the banks and insurance companies from failing kept us from a full fledged depression. If he had done nothing, then you'd see people taking to the streets complaining that unemployment was 20%, maybe half of mortgages going into default, many more businesses going out of business, etc..

And you know this for sure,... how?... That could not be predicted.

The stimulus put money in people's pocket in the way of tax cuts plus money to get projects going and to save and create jobs - which it did (about one million).

Every penny you borrow must be paid back with interest. Noone has ever been able to stable their finances by spending some more. We are all in the situation we're in because we spent beyond our means. Whenever a person spends more than he takes in, he will need to suffer the consequences by doing without for a while till he gets his finances stabilized. Yet, this is the American Way: Spend, spend and spend some more! The jobs that the stimulus created didn't do squat. Most of them were shortlived or temporary jobs and then most were government jobs.(more of which we don't need)

Every headline that I see says that it is working and the recession is ending. Had Obama not infused the money into the economy we would be in a depression. This isn't my opinion, it is supported by economists whose expertise monitors this.

If we went into a depression for a time and the people had to do without for a while in order to rebound, what's wrong with that? Instead, we must suffer the other way and not us only, but our children, grand children and great grandchildren when it must be repaid!

The non-partisan budget office said that healthcare could REDUCE the federal deficit by $49 billion over 10 years. That's right, reduce it.

Fairyland dreaming! When has the government ever run a program that actually made money??!! Yeah right:rolleyes:

If we don't do healthcare our deficit will increase and additional burdens will be put on medicare and medicaid.

The right wing, who never voted for Obama, and many of whom do not consider him a legitimate president (birthers, etc) were quiet during the honeymoon period of Obama. Nothing was to be gained then by their irrational opinions. But when congress recessed for August and held town hall meeting, well they finally found the forum they were waiting for. It snowballed from there.

They organized, with the help of Dick Armey and Freedom Watch among others, their hate fueled by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. They relished the media attention and their lies playing on people's fears were perpetuated.

Some people who won't take the time to understand the facts are understandably fearful when the vocal extremists are getting all the media attention. But I think the tide will turn. Those of us who support Obama are organizing with planned events. We did it to get Obama elected, we will do it now to support healthcare reform, clean energy, etc..

People are already tiring of the radical extremists on the right with signs that have nothing to do with spending and everything to do with hatred of Obama like:

Zoos have an african lion and the white house has a lyin' african.

..................................................................

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Join Date: Sep 2008

Age: 48

Posts: 1,494

City: Naugatuck

State: CT

Re: First Lady now requires 26 servants

permalink

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cleo's Mom

What he is - is a president who finally has the guts to address the problems left over from other presidents who didn't address them. It is always easier to kick the can down the street to the next guy.

Obama had to do something for the economy. He had to do something to keep the banks from failing. This is why he was elected.

While painful, the money used to keep the banks and insurance companies from failing kept us from a full fledged depression. If he had done nothing, then you'd see people taking to the streets complaining that unemployment was 20%, maybe half of mortgages going into default, many more businesses going out of business, etc..

And you know this for sure,... how?... That could not be predicted.

Economists make predictions all the time. That's their job. Where have you been? And Obama didn't make this decision in a vacuum - he had economic advisors.

The stimulus put money in people's pocket in the way of tax cuts plus money to get projects going and to save and create jobs - which it did (about one million).

Every penny you borrow must be paid back with interest. Noone has ever been able to stable their finances by spending some more. We are all in the situation we're in because we spent beyond our means. Whenever a person spends more than he takes in, he will need to suffer the consequences by doing without for a while till he gets his finances stabilized. Yet, this is the American Way: Spend, spend and spend some more! The jobs that the stimulus created didn't do squat. Most of them were shortlived or temporary jobs and then most were government jobs.(more of which we don't need)

What did bush ask the American people to do without to finance the Iraqi war? Oh that's right - he didn't - he just gave the biggest tax cut in history to the wealthy. I'm still waiting for it to trickle down.

Every headline that I see says that it is working and the recession is ending. Had Obama not infused the money into the economy we would be in a depression. This isn't my opinion, it is supported by economists whose expertise monitors this.

If we went into a depression for a time and the people had to do without for a while in order to rebound, what's wrong with that?

Have you not studied history and the depression that took 10 years to get out of? You want people to suffer for 10 years? I don't think throwing more people into poverty, the emergency room, on medicare and into Soup kitchens is the answer. Talk about heartless!!!

Instead, we must suffer the other way and not us only, but our children, grand children and great grandchildren when it must be repaid!

The non-partisan budget office said that healthcare could REDUCE the federal deficit by $49 billion over 10 years. That's right, reduce it.

Fairyland dreaming! When has the government ever run a program that actually made money??!! Yeah right

If this office had said it would increase the deficit you would suddenly give them credit.

[BJean 16]

patty: "That was then and this is now. More people feel opposed to what Obama is doing than for it, NOW. Before the election, they thought he wouldn't be a blowhard spendohiolic. Now they see him for what he really is."

I take this as proof that you do not expose yourself to information from both sides of the story. If you did, I don't think you'd be comfortable saying that your viewpoint is the same as the majority of Americans.

The majority of Americans aren't screaming at the top of their lungs, ranting and raving on Fox and elsewhere, and making threats against both the speaker and the president, just the people you seem to be listening to are doing that

[Cleo's Mom 257]

patty: "That was then and this is now. More people feel opposed to what Obama is doing than for it, NOW. Before the election, they thought he wouldn't be a blowhard spendohiolic. Now they see him for what he really is."

I take this as proof that you do not expose yourself to information from both sides of the story. If you did, I don't think you'd be comfortable saying that your viewpoint is the same as the majority of Americans.

The majority of Americans aren't screaming at the top of their lungs, ranting and raving on Fox and elsewhere, and making threats against both the speaker and the president, just the people you seem to be listening to are doing that

Exactly right, BJean. Many who were moderate in the republican party switched to independent before the 2008 election, leaving the composition of the republican party decidedly extreme right wing. That's all who's left of the republican senators. And the republican party became a localized party too - to the south. So, they are extreme and localized. No surprise that the congressman who shouted "You lie" was from the south. And before it was revealed who did it, Wilson's wife asked him who the idiot was who yelled that. :thumbup:

So, when you have a group that has grown smaller in numbers and geographically smaller, then you have to yell louder to get heard. That's what is happening.

[pattygreen 5]

patty: "That was then and this is now. More people feel opposed to what Obama is doing than for it, NOW. Before the election, they thought he wouldn't be a blowhard spendohiolic. Now they see him for what he really is."

I take this as proof that you do not expose yourself to information from both sides of the story. If you did, I don't think you'd be comfortable saying that your viewpoint is the same as the majority of Americans.

The majority of Americans aren't screaming at the top of their lungs, ranting and raving on Fox and elsewhere, and making threats against both the speaker and the president, just the people you seem to be listening to are doing that

No, the majority aren't screaming. They are voicing their opinions, calling their congressmen and representatives. They are writing letters to their governors and elected officials. They are actually doing what is their right to do. Protesting the governments policies and unsustainable spending. They are being heard as well.

Finally, the ACORN organization's deceit and corruption with our money is being brought into the light! The policy of all these Czars is being looked into! If the republicans weren't there to bring into the light the dirty deeds of those in politics, it would all be swept under the rug as it has been for many years. What's the matter with some people? They don't like the idea that some people are requireing them to be accountable?